Clay Putnam, CGCS said: Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Clay Putnam, CGCS said: "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..."
"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."
"While I certainly believe that Judge Samuel Alito has the training and the qualifications necessary to serve as a Supreme Court Justice,after a careful review of his record, I simply cannot vote for his nomination."
"I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values,"
- Senator Barack Obama
"The President's supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court's direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist."
- New York Times, 1987
Difference is, the people still were installed on the court. They were still presented to the Senate. The former Senator, now President did his Constitutional duty despite making a political statement and vote, (something he might have been able to do as Justice Roberts might have received enough votes to get confirmed, while I disagree with the political posturing, I know it is done on both sides to protect their seats), just as President Bush did his Constitutional duty.
Senator McConnell and the Senators running for President don't even want President Obama to put forward a name.
Mel
There is absolutely no difference. A justice will be confirmed. Perhaps not your or the dems favored timeline but a nominee will be seated. Your assertion that constitutional duties will be skirted is incorrect.
Well it depends if Senator McConnell refuses to even hold hearings, that would be skirting their Constitutional duties. If they hold the hearings on a nominee, then the Constitution will not be skirted, but if they do not sit a nominee before the elections the Republicans (especially in the Senate, the House where things are so gerrymander a rock could win as long as it had an R or a D behind its name), are taking one heck of a chance when a Presidential election will bring out the most independent and democratic voters, especially if the justice nominated was a middle of the road person. And guess what might get them all unseated, Citizens United, now that is what I would call Karma.
What I think might happen is the Senate Republicans stall past their primary dates, so they don't get beat from their right for siding with the President, then depending on the nominee, they will get the person confirmed before the general election.
Mel