Monday, February 15, 2016


Poor Antonin Scalia, the great "Originalist" Justice, who wanted to know the intent of the Founding Fathers, before he ruled on anything, is not yet in a grave to roll over in, and the political party, to which he belonged,  wants to use politics, and not the Constitution, as written, to determine the nomination of his replacement. 


  1. Since McConnell is now advocating obstructionist policies by republicans, I feel that I should quote McConnell's own views on the subject:

    “Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration.

    But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent.

    The stakes are high . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake.

    Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges.

    The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.

    What I think they should do is to get us back to the precedents that were established prior to the last Congress, in which judicial appointments were given an up-or-down - that is, a majority - vote." [Fox News Sunday, 3/27/05]

    Or, maybe this one is more to your liking:
    "Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."

    Those are both examples of quotes from McConnell ... I guess he's changed his mind.

  2. A year after this post, I heard McConnell citing the fictitious "Biden Rule" as the reason for his obstructing the nomination of Garland. Repugs can be shameless slugs.