@blatham,
blatham wrote:
In fact, before Obama had announced he would be nominating a new SC member, Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz (and others on the right) had already made the demand that Obama refrain from nominating anyone as it should be left to the next President to do so. The "defiance" didn't originate in the WH.
You really do have a habit of ignoring the parts of my comments that don't serve what you wish to write in response.
I wrote:Yes, some of his Republican opponents have been petty and insulting in their criticism of him and anyone that interjected a comment about how the president should uphold this tradition, into their marking Justice Scalia's death are just as petty and unseemly, but he's the president, and they are not. It doesn't excuse them, but I'm afraid I expect more from our president (regardless of party) than I do his critics.
I've no use for the immediate, unseemly politicization of his death by prominent members of either party. You may have wanted to get it on the record that Republican leaders popped off about a replacement nomination, but it doesn't respond, in any meaningful way, to what I've written, and it surely doesn't persuade me to change my mind about Obama. The
"others have done it too" defense doesn't hold much water for me.
You wrote:As to nominations/confirmations in the final year of a term, Chris Hayes noted on twitter that
Quote:Last time we had this situation: Marshall retiring with a year left in HW Bush's term. In that case,the Dem senate confirmed Clarence Thomas
After savaging the man in confirmation hearings and finding they had no alternative. You and Hayes can hardly hope to convince us of the general collegiality of Democrats by citing the Thomas example.
It's worth noting, tangentially, that during those hearings David Brock (every liberal's favorite turncoat) led the attack against Anita Hill, describing her as "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." Apparently, Brock may have, at that point, unintentionally begun providing HRC with political advise because that was indicative of the precise strategy she and her surrogates employed in attacking Bill's "bimbos." (Maureen Dowd is at her best when she writes about the Clintons. See her column in today's NY Times entitledWhen Hillary Clinton Killed Feminism
You wrote:Others have done a count and found 12 or more SC justices have been confirmed in the final year of a presidential term.
I don't think much of the so-called "tradition," even if it is accurate. I began this thread with the premise that Obama would nominate a replacement. I don't think it's, at all, improper for him to do so. Nor do I expect him to put aside political considerations.
You wrote:McConnell suggested that it would be inappropriate for Obama to make a nomination now because citizens should choose which president ought to make the nomination. Of course, they already did when they re-elected Obama. So McConnell's claim is bogus. There's no law nor rule in place to validate McConnell's claim nor historical precedent for it based on anything other than mere chance. It's a grasp for power.
Of course it is.
You wrote:That Scalia's passing represents a very important political event is understood by everybody. One obvious bit of evidence for this is to note how quickly (an hour or two) the announcement of the death was followed by right wing politicos' demand and then a shift in news coverage to the political aspects of this situation.
Of course it does, but it was unseemly of the president to introduce politics, and in his typical belligerent manner, when he was remarking on the passing of a man who deserves the designation of "great" regardless of whether or not one was in tune with his jurisprudence.
