GOP Already Trying to Slow Obama's SCOTUS Nom

Are the Republicans really trying to obstruct President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court before he or she has even been named?

Senate Republican leaders emerged from a meeting with President Obama Wednesday and immediately began laying the groundwork for opposing Democratic efforts to get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed before the August recess.

[...]

Conservatives would like to see the process to be delayed until after the summer recess, which begins Aug. 10 for the Senate.

[...]

Democrats would prefer as to avoid having a nominee left hanging during the monthlong recess.

There goes the credibility of the Republicans. No doubt they would have had immense difficulty doing anything outside of slightly slowing down Barack Obama's pick to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. While they could attempt a filibuster, it's hard to see where they would get 41 votes to sustain such a nearly unprecedented tactic.

But coming out against the President's nominee even before that nominee has been named smacks of knee-jerked naysaying -- and totally blows any shot, however slim (and we're talking extremely thin), that the Republicans could have successfully blocked the nomination by arguing the merits (not that the merits would be on their side, of course). If the Republicans want to delay approval of any nominee, how can they legitimately argue against a particular nominee?

Tags: 111th Congress, SCOTUS, Senate Republicans (all tags)

Comments

8 Comments

The party of no and the party of Bush

That's the message the Dems need in 2010 to counter the checks and balances argument.

I think the only goal is to see Obama fail....if that's all they have, it's sad.

by esconded 2009-05-13 01:55PM | 0 recs
they just want to let Franken vote

They're being generous.

by John DE 2009-05-13 02:35PM | 0 recs
SCOTUS Nom

Full disclosure: I vehemently opposed George W Bush's Supreme Court nominees waaaaay in advance of him nominating them. In fact, opposition to Bush's court nominations at all levels of the Judiciary were prime motivators for me prior to both of the stolen elections that totally fucked my country of origin.

So how the hell am I supposed to get outraged by the GOP opposing Obama's pick in advance. I hope his pick explodes their goddam heads, and they'd be completely inert if they weren't feeling some fear right now. I hope the fear is justified.

by QTG 2009-05-13 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: SCOTUS Nom

You may well have opposed any Bush Judicial Nominees before they were named... but you do not have any power to do anything other than spout your opposition on the blogs (unless you are secretly a Senator and then WHY DIDN"T YOU DO MORE????)

Just saying.

by JDF 2009-05-13 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Duty calls

 I gather with my esteemed colleagues here at MyDD because despite other difference we may have, we do share one thing in common, our power to effect change, influence the day's politics, and bring order to a chaotic world. Generations to come will owe a debt of gratitude if we but steer the President to make a wise choice for Souter's seat on the Bench.

by QTG 2009-05-13 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Duty calls

Yes we do share the ability to affect change but if you draw any comparison between yourself opposing something and Senators opposing something (that they will eventually vote on,) you are being deliberately obtuse or suffer from delusions of grandeur. I am not trying to be a dick, but it is an important distinction to make.

by JDF 2009-05-13 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: You could

 go back through my comments and study them carefully, but I'll give you the short version of my overall understanding of the usefullness of our discussions here: entertainment.

by QTG 2009-05-14 02:54AM | 0 recs
Re: GOP Already Trying to Slow Obama's SCOTUS Nom

they are petulant children, feeling their weakness, and demonstrating their impotence.

Too bad the Senate Majority Leader is such a wimp.

by RickD 2009-05-13 09:20PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads