One more about SCOTUS

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/no-the-president-doesnt-deserve-an-ez-pass-in-replacing-scalia/

More recently, the vicious tactics Senate Democrats used to defeat President Ronald Reagan’s nominee, Robert Bork, in 1987 gave rise to a new verb — “borking.” Bork, a Yale Law School professor, was eminently qualified. But like Scalia, he interpreted the Constitution according to the founders’ original intent. Democrats saw that allowing Bork to replace the retiring moderate Justice Lewis F. Powell would tip the court rightward.Then-Sen. Joe Biden argued Democrats had a duty to probe Bork’s views — not just his qualifications — because of Reagan’s “determined attempt to bend the Supreme Court to his political ends.”

Biden and Patrick Leahy, top Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, grilled Bork relentlessly and after the abusive spectacle, the Senate’s Democratic majority rejected him.
In 2007, New York Sen. Charles Schumer called on his Democratic colleagues to vote against any nominees proposed by George W. Bush, because Schumer feared the court was moving to the right. He said, “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation.”

Fast-forward to 2016, and Schumer, Biden and Leahy have had a change of heart. They say Obama’s nominee should be speedily confirmed without regard to politics. In Leahy’s words, the Supreme Court is “too important to our democracy to be understaffed for partisan reasons.” Hypocritical nonsense.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Promising to vet someone thoroughly is different than promising to block everyone the president proposes for any reason because you don't like the president.

 

[tinfoil]

Promising to vet someone thoroughly is different than promising to block everyone the president proposes for any reason because you don't like the president.

Then-Sen. Joe Biden argued Democrats had a duty to probe Bork’s views — not just his qualifications — because of Reagan’s “determined attempt to bend the Supreme Court to his political ends.”

yeah! totally different!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The senate eventually approved a Reagan nominee. In an election year.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Robert Bork claimed there was no right to privacy. That is a disqualifying view for a supreme court justice to hold.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Promising to vet someone thoroughly is different than promising to block everyone the president proposes for any reason because you don't like the president.

only if you pretend the president will nominate someone that the Republicans would not find politically objectionable......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Robert Bork claimed there was no right to privacy. That is a disqualifying view for a supreme court justice to hold.

says the guy who wasn't born yet when Bork was nominated, who has never read anything Bork has written and who has no knowledge of the matter other than what HuffPo has reported.......