Obama "regrets" Alito filibuster decision

[ThunderKiss1965]

This is your typical Democratic party for it, until against it.

 

[Freewill]

“There is a pretty stark difference here. What Republicans are advocating is wrong and is inconsistent with the requirements of the Constitution, primarily because the wording of the Constitution is unambiguous and does not provide an exception for election years,” he said.

Yes, the words are ambiguous, thus tradition usually take precedence. Tradition is that no SCOTUS are confirmed in an election year. Obama just wants it his way when he wants it.

14 have been! That is the tradition! There is nothing in the Constitution saying that work stops in the President's final year.

I am not sure your 14 number is correct.

Here is a chart that shows those nominated and in what year of the president's term. Make out of it what you will. But it does seem that since 1945 there has not been 14 confirmed.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rt-nominations-election-year-scalia.html?_r=0

At least 14 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during election years
It is not just since 1945. Didn't know it had to be just since WWII.

Reading the chart I see the following, be happy to disagree. None have been confirmed since Herbert Hoover. From Washington to Hoover there were 10 confirmed in the election year. There were many not confirmed and there were 7 confirmed after the election year.

So I still say it has been the recent history not to nominate a SCOTUS justice in an election year. Things change, Presidents never had term limits and the Senate used to be elected from the House.

 

[bendog]

I'd agree that Obama was wrong for filibustering Alito's nomination (he wasn't alone, btw) because Alito's connection to the noxious Princeton group was long in the past, and he repudiated them. The question was whether Alito sufficiently showed he could set aside his ideology to follow established law. And, there the dems concerns have not been shown to be totally misplaced. Nevertheless, was he so far outside the mainstream to be denied a seat when the ABA vetting him well qualified. Now the ACLU disagreed, but the ABA should have some credence.

But even if Obama was wrong for fillbustering that nomination because of Alito's background, how does that have anything to do with whether Obama should make a nomination and have it considered for it's merits today?

 

[TNHarley]

I'd agree that Obama was wrong for filibustering Alito's nomination (he wasn't alone, btw) because Alito's connection to the noxious Princeton group was long in the past, and he repudiated them. The question was whether Alito sufficiently showed he could set aside his ideology to follow established law. And, there the dems concerns have not been shown to be totally misplaced. Nevertheless, was he so far outside the mainstream to be denied a seat when the ABA vetting him well qualified. Now the ACLU disagreed, but the ABA should have some credence.

But even if Obama was wrong for fillbustering that nomination because of Alito's background, how does that have anything to do with whether Obama should make a nomination and have it considered for it's merits today?

His regrets were awfully convenient, no?

 

[bendog]

I'd agree that Obama was wrong for filibustering Alito's nomination (he wasn't alone, btw) because Alito's connection to the noxious Princeton group was long in the past, and he repudiated them. The question was whether Alito sufficiently showed he could set aside his ideology to follow established law. And, there the dems concerns have not been shown to be totally misplaced. Nevertheless, was he so far outside the mainstream to be denied a seat when the ABA vetting him well qualified. Now the ACLU disagreed, but the ABA should have some credence.

But even if Obama was wrong for fillbustering that nomination because of Alito's background, how does that have anything to do with whether Obama should make a nomination and have it considered for it's merits today?

His regrets were awfully convenient, no?

We cannot tell whether Obama decided filibuster was right or wrong until now. Of course he's waffling, but it's because he would prefer the gop not to be able to make a false equivalency between the dems fillibuster of Alito,and McConnell's apparent decision to not even consider an nominee.

Filibuster IS NOT THE ISSUE. If the gop held hearings on an Obama nominee, and less than 50 of the gop had concerns about the merit that led them to think they should take an extreme (and I mean extreme because SC nominations are seldom filibustered), then go for it. Bork was defeated on an up or down vote, but imo his views were so out of step with law as we then knew it, he was so radical as to warrant filibuster.

My point was that the dem filibuster of Alito was wrong because there was inadequate evidence to support the extreme measure. If Obama nominated someone with crazy views saying something like a private right to gun ownership is so wrong that Heller has absolutely no precedental value .... fillibuster

 

[jillian]

White House: Obama 'regrets' decision to filibuster Supreme Court Justice Alito | Fox News
“Looking back on it, the president believes that he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits about his opposition to the nomination that President Bush had put forward,” he told reporters.
Earnest said that Republicans are going further than Obama did, with a pledge to not consider anyone the president nominates.
“There is a pretty stark difference here. What Republicans are advocating is wrong and is inconsistent with the requirements of the Constitution, primarily because the wording of the Constitution is unambiguous and does not provide an exception for election years,” he said.
Earnest also argued that the 2006 filibuster of Alito was different, because it was not likely to succeed since the votes already existed for him to be confirmed and was based on “substance.”
“What the president regrets is that Senate Democrats didn't focus more on making an effective public case about those substantive objections,” he said. “Instead, some Democrats engaged in a process of throwing sand in the gears of the confirmation process. And that's an approach that the president regrets.”

----
How convenient.
I do think it is different. I also think they should bring it to a vote. If it isn't a freakin hack, why stress? If he appoints a hack, do YOUR constitutional duty.
Granted, Republican Congressman are known for being idiots.

the senate voted on alito

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'd agree that Obama was wrong for filibustering Alito's nomination (he wasn't alone, btw) because Alito's connection to the noxious Princeton group was long in the past, and he repudiated them. The question was whether Alito sufficiently showed he could set aside his ideology to follow established law. And, there the dems concerns have not been shown to be totally misplaced. Nevertheless, was he so far outside the mainstream to be denied a seat when the ABA vetting him well qualified. Now the ACLU disagreed, but the ABA should have some credence.

But even if Obama was wrong for fillbustering that nomination because of Alito's background, how does that have anything to do with whether Obama should make a nomination and have it considered for it's merits today?

His regrets were awfully convenient, no?

When should he have regretted it, when it didn't matter?