Simply put there were plenty at the time who viewed publicly coming out so such strong language against the treaty at that time (as opposed to say privately trying to persuade Washington to withdraw the treaty from Senate consideration) as not at all appropriate behavior and judgement. While it remains a debatable position to a degree up to today, the basic point would be once a Supreme Court Justice (you would expect a recess appointee up for permanent confirmation to be on his best behavior so evidence of problems then is a bad sign) many expect the Supreme Court to basically stay out of simple political controversies unless its a matter that comes up before the court at which point they are supposed to of course just rule on what the law and Constitution says rather than simply what they view as the ideal ruling politically speaking. (Basically the concern there is a Judge who not only has a lifetime appointment but uses his visibility to aggressively promote a political platform in public. It also was an arguably problematic move on Rutledge's part if a legal dispute related to the treaty reached the Supreme Court in the future.) Even to the extent you can argue it purely was politics in the case in question, its something completely different that blanket opposition to any nominee proposed rather than legitimate consideration of each nominee individually.
This is an obviously absurd straw man argument especially for the last part. Of course no one has claimed the Senate has to approve any nominee without considering their qualifications as a rubber stamp. Many legal scholars however do in fact fully agree that the very clear intention of the writers of the Constitution was that the Senate should debate and at some level consider any nominee and accept any reasonable candidate without exceptional issues rather than something along the lines of only someone who agrees with them politically. Now its true the founders failed to specify any punishment provisions or the like for a Senate failing to do its duty in a reasonable manner, but presumably the founders would want a Senate controlled by a political party who pulls a stunt of blanket refusal of any nomination to ultimately get punished by the voters. (Which would in fact serve as a way to deter similar behavior by either party in the future out of concern of future electoral consequences of doing so.)
One data point is all that it takes when you're suffering from confirmation bias.
lol +1
I agree that whomever Obama nominates should receive a full and timely hearing and an up or down vote within six months. If a nominee cannot be fully vetted within six months, then that nominee should be voted down, always. It is however highly amusing to see you guys wiggle. Arguing that Schumer was not discussing SCOTUS nominations when he specifically references conservative justices is funny by itself, but when you add in quoting some moron arguing that when Schumer said "we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances" he actually meant special circumstances like if one of the justices dies" makes it a comedy classic. Yep, old Chucky was merely arguing that they should not approve any Bush nominees unless there is an opening. It is as clear as the meaning of the word "is" is unknowable. (Apologies for that last sentence which no Democrat could ever hope to follow.)
Yep. Two faces of the same coin. The federal government did not grow this big and powerful over the heroic GOP opposition; they are just arguing over whom to smite.
What happens if the FBI recommends indictment? Somebody come out of the shadows and takes over or does Sander Claus get it?
Why wait when we can get outraged at something that hasn't happened yet or may never happen?
If that happens it won't matter. The wealthy left won't vote for a guy who is going to raise their taxes by 10-15%. So you have the entire left centrists gone.
Remember, this is Hillary we're talking about...don't underestimate the power of the vast right wing conspiracy!
Just following the Biden/Obama/Schumer Rule. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Naturally Obama and Biden would know that it is okay, one is a "constitutional professor" (lol) and the other was on the judiciary committee.
Facebook
Twitter