Count Sen. John McCain among those who believe the U.S. Senate should block any nominee that President Barack Obama attempts to appoint the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died over the weekend in Texas.
“The president can nominate who he wants to,” McCain said during an appearance today on Mike Broomhead’s Phoenix radio show. “I believe we should wait until after the next election and let the American people pick the next president and we should consider who the next president of the United States nominates.”
Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (D-CD1), who is running for McCain’s seat this year, pounced on McCain’s announcement.
“Members of the U.S. Senate have an obligation to uphold the Constitution and fulfill their duties, including voting on Supreme Court nominees—regardless of party affiliation,” Kirkpatrick told the press via a prepared statement. “John McCain used to take that responsibility seriously. Unfortunately, his comments today show just how much he has changed after more than three decades in Washington. Now is the time to put politics aside and do the right thing for our nation. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to live up to their oaths to the American people and hold up-or-down votes on any nominees put forward.”
McCain himself has generally supported giving a president a lot of leeway when it comes to appointing justices. Kirkpatrick cited McCain’s votes in favor of Clinton appointees for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsberg, as McCain himself explained in 2005, “because I believed that President Clinton won the election.” And during a battle over whether the Senate should do away with the filibuster of federal judges, McCain was a member of the “gang of 14” that sought to preserve the power of the minority to block judicial appointments because he believed it was important to the political norms and the institution of the Senate.
At the time, McCain told MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews: “I strongly believe that the president’s nominees deserve an up- or-down vote and that there was an abuse of that power, and we need to fix that. And we need to do it with an agreement where we can all trust one another.”
But this year, McCain is facing a primary challenge from former state lawmaker Kelli Ward, who is hammering him for the various times that he has gone against the wishes of the hard-core conservatives in Arizona. While Ward’s effort to unseat McCain is still considered a long shot—she had less than $260,000 in the bank at the end of the year and she has yet to win over major national groups that might help her like the Senate Conservatives Fund—McCain has been tacking to the right to inoculate himself from Ward’s attacks.
This article appears in Feb 11-17, 2016.
Looks like it’s nothing new.
In 2006, while no doubt starting to lay his eyes on a presidential run, then-Sen. Obama had no problem throwing a wrench in the works of democracy by voting to filibuster George Bush’s nominee to the high court, Samuel Alito.
Obama told George Stephanopoulos on ABC News This Week that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”
In other words, because Alito did not share his judicial philosophy and he felt the judge’s ascension to the Supreme Court would not allow an independent check on the excessive use of executive branch power, Obama, in fact, voted to block the appointment.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/poetic-juctice-obama-was-1st-us-president-to-vote-for-filibuster-in-supreme-court-nomination/
The question is, who was critical then of that plan?
I think Arizonans should block this man from being a senator again.
It is difficult to find a group of bigger jerks than the majority in the US Senate. And McCain who has been on every side of every issue in his career, leading the way. He is still pi$$ed he lost the election, so he follows like a sheep, obstructing his victor as much as possible for as long as possible. What a way to govern, obstruct everything. But surely don’t offer anything as an alternative.
No person should ever be appoined to any position for life. There should be a mandatory retirement age for SC judges like every other civil service job.
McCain. Uncle Tom of Veterans. Cuckservative. Doesn’t use email. Brought us Sarah Palin.
Songbird John and Keating Five.
i miss Jon Kyle very, very much. Except for veteran issues as well, but at least he picked up his phone and returned calls.
“Members of the U.S. Senate have an obligation to uphold the Constitution and fulfill their duties, including voting on Supreme Court nominees—regardless of party affiliation,” Kirkpatrick told the press via a prepared statement.“
This is such bull crap! There isn’t a single member of the Senate who votes IAW the Constitution – Not even half the time.
Funny how pols pick and choose when to follow the Constitution: When it is convenient for them to do so.
Here is a solution to the vacancy on the SCOTUS created by the death of Justice Scalia (may he rest in peace).
They can do what the Congress did in 1866 to prevent the nomination of Henry Stanberry to the tenth seat on the Court, thus preventing President Andrew Johnson from appointing a justice during the remainder of his term.
The Congress passed the Reorganization of the Judicial Circuits: “An Act to fix the Number of Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, and to change certain Judicial Circuits.” 14 Stat. 209 on July 23, 1866.
Congress should pass a similar Act, reducing the size of the SCOTUS to seven Justices. By doing so, the next Justice to retire, or die will level out the Court and who is our next President will not matter.
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/l…
The thing that I find most amazing is that so many Republican Senators (and Republican Presidential candidates) have announced that they will oppose Obama’s nominee…without knowing who Obama’s nominee will be. At least when Obama acted to block Alito’s nomination, it was because he opposed Alito, not because he opposed anyone who Dubya appointed. (Ditto for opposition to Johnson’s nomination of Abe Fortas.)
I wish they had kept quiet until Obama nominated one of his Marxist Czars, and then turn them down. It’s referred to as “Bjorking a candidate much like the left did to Robert Bjork. A brilliant man.
http://www.wired.com/2012/01/everything-about-learning/
First of all, what about having the simple decency to wait until after the funeral to start talking about a successor. Sheesh, it’s like we’ve all forgotten our manners.
Just to set the record straight on the above comments regarding the Alito confirmation, he was seated after a 66 day confirmation process with the unanimous vote of the U.S. Senate. Roberts won confirmation easily as well with a 77 vote majority. I think Obama’s nominee should get the same treatment.
With John Adams’ term as President due to end on March 4, 1801, he nominated John Marshall to be Chief Justice on January 20. Confirmed by the Senate within two weeks, Marshall took the oath of office on February 4 and served for 35 years. This occurred in the same election cycle in which Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were contending for election as President, a contest only decided after numerous votes in the House of Representatives. Perhaps volumes of American history might make appropriate gifts for McConnell, McCain and many more of our ‘leaders’ who seem to know so little.
This is the way they should have done it:
Obama admitted that Roberts was eminently qualified. He praised him highly.
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn’t have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law…”
But, no he wasn’t going to vote for him anyway.
“I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination.”
In short, Obama chose to vote against Roberts because of his perceived conservative politics. Nothing else.
Again, ideology is key. And as Senator, Obama insisted that the Senate should examine a nominee’s ideology and that confirmation should not be expected or anticipated.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261834/obama-filibustered-justice-alito-voted-against-daniel-greenfield
And they are all entitled to do that.
Sounds like there is a litmus test. By all parties. Even our courts are now political. And we are not well served. Look how well Scalia and Ginsburg got along, away from the bench. That may never be seen again.
Who are THEY to talk about Obama’s right to appoint ANYONE to replace scalia…
IF republicans could feel shame, their faces should be burning for replacing the giant legal mind and great humanitarian Thurgood Marshall with the execrable cipher and appendage of the late, un-lamented Fat Tony, Clarence Thomas!
The best thing about this situation is that the right-wing corporatist takeover LOSES no matter what!!!
Since most district courts are relatively “liberal”, the “liberal” 4 will block any more damage from being done by the execrable (now) FOUR…including a few major cases on the docket NOW that could have eviscerated Unions and rendered higher education more out of reach for marginalized USAmericans…Yipee!!
If the republiKlans in the Senate block a reasonably centrist nominee they will further expose their mean-spirited corporate-funded agenda opposed by most USAmericans…
(AND drive MORE Sanders supporters to the polls!)
And no matter what, having learned the lesson of sitting someone as utterly inhumane as scalia, there will NEVER be another creature as bad as Fat Tony appointed to SCOTUS…
And eventually, his protegees from the execrable Federalist Society that Fat Tony helped found, Roberts and Alito will die off too…or, even better, quit when they find they can’t push their right-wing activist agenda any more…
Oooh! I almost forgot the BEST PART!
Now the (EX-)scalia/roberts activist right-wing “court” won’t have the opportunity to overturn Roe v Wade!
There was a severe danger of those execrable “white”, male, catholic, right-wing creatures pulling another Citizens United debacle. In C.U. v FEC they expanding the scope of that case WAY beyond what was adjudicated in the lower courts to declare human rights for corporations. I’m certain there was the same opportunity in “Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt” for those disgusting ideologues to overturn Roe…
Now they CAN’T!
Double-WooHoo!
Juli – the Court has ALWAYS been political — almost consistently on the side of the Plutocrat Class and “Authority” against the needs of the People…
Scalia was and Ginsburg is a pampered, privileged member of their elite Class and therefore had more in common than not…and their friendship was probably based more on pheromones than congruence of political/legal philosophy…
All of these Republicans claiming they worship the original intent of the Founding Fathers! That original intent was to have the President appoint and the Senate affirm a qualified candidate to the Supreme Court. Period! Once again Senator McCain travels in lock step to those who spit upon the Constitution.
BTW, its Robert BORK, moron. Robert Bjork is a psychologist!
Robert Bork is not a moron.
Joe Biden didn’t have a problem with it. Typical group think, typical liberal think.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581759/sen-joe-biden-supreme-court-confirmation-process
Biden:
…it is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
The Senate, too, Mr. President must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents [Millard] Fillmore and [Andrew] Johnson, and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.