When Democrats Comment About The Constitution…

…it always makes for low-brow entertainment.

Krauthammer:

Republicans, say the Democrats, owe the President deference. Elections have consequences and Obama won re-election in 2012.

Yes. And the Republicans won the Senate in 2014 — if anything, a more proximal assertion of popular will. And both have equal standing in appointing a Supreme Court justice.

I keep pointing this out to DFLers who jabber about the President’s election.  I never, ever get a response beyond name-calling.

I’ll be adding emphasis to this next stretch:

It’s hard to swallow demands for deference from a party that for seven years has cheered Obama’s serial constitutional depredations: his rewriting the immigration laws by executive order (stayed by the courts); his reordering the energy economy by regulation (stayed by the courts); his enacting the nuclear deal with Iran, the most important treaty of this generation, without the required two-thirds of the Senate (by declaring it an executive agreement).

(Side note:  there are actually Democrats who think Obama is “the most disrespected president in history.  As if the George W Bush’s administration never happened).

Minority Leader Harry Reid complains about the Senate violating precedent if it refuses a lame-duck nominee. This is rich. It is Reid who just two years ago overthrew all precedent by abolishing the filibuster for most judicial and high executive appointments. In the name of what grand constitutional principle did Reid resort to a parliamentary maneuver so precedent-shattering that it was called the nuclear option? None. He did it in order to pack the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia with liberals who would reliably deflect challenges to Obamacare.

Power is all that matters to the left.  And they can do it, knowing the media gave up checking and balancing about the time man landed on the moon.

54 thoughts on “When Democrats Comment About The Constitution…

  1. The other day my local paper had a letter to the editor claiming that many presidents in US history had nominated SC justices in their last year of office, and had them confirmed by the senate.
    The problem is that many of the presidents the letter cited were pre-22nd amendment, meaning that the appointing president may have been in his last year of office, but he was not a lame duck. He could be held accountable for his appointment by the voters. The senators who vote to consent or not to consent will be held accountable for their actions by the people. Obama will not.
    At any rate there is no constitutional time table for the president ot appoint a successor to Scalia, and no constitutional time table for the senate to give its consent to the appointment. The idea that the GOP senate majority is acting in an unconstitutional manner by refusing to consent until 2017 is a lie.

  2. My main argument is that Obama promised to only appoint judges who will make rulings based on the classifications of those in front of the bench. So an old white bald headed guy has several strikes against him if his opponent can check off a couple of boxes on the liberal victim list. Obama promised to do away with blind justice.

  3. As a child growing up, I hated playing “Monopoly” because my older siblings & cousins won so easily over us younger ones. The ‘rules’ we followed were always their interpretation of the rules. The other day I was reading an article about how to win at the game of “Monopoly”. Guideline #1 was “Read, understand and memorize the rule book. Have it available at all times.” Lesson learned.
    A lefty friend of mine posted on FBook the other day regarding Justice Scalia with the standard ghoulishness that comes from these people. He noted that maybe now the police might behave better now that their ally in lawlessness had passed. I commented back to him that Scalia was a champion of the 4th Amendment-he restricted law enforcement in their gratuitous search & seizure actions. That Scalia interpreted the Constitution as the text said – no unreasonable searches, seizures or surveillance. I cited a few cases where Scalia was forthright in his defense of the Constitution and it’s restrictions of government behavior. Lefty friend retort – yeah, but he was against Gay Marriage.
    Lesson learned: Why do I waste my time with these idiots?

  4. you know, it’s funny to hear conservatives talk about the constitution when mocking Democrats. Krauthammer is dead wrong. The Senate does not “have equal standing when appointing Supreme Court justices.” They have a consent role, solely. They appoint no one. Most importantly, they SELECT no one. The President could conceivably choose to send up one person after another with whom the Senate disagreed with appointing, or no one at all. There have been times in the past when there was much less contention, such as the appointment of Anthony Kennedy, who was approved in February of 1988. The Democratic Party held majority in the Senate, Mr. Krauthammer’s logic would seem to imply they erred in even allowing a vote since “the 1988 and 1986 elections were more ‘proximal'”, but even that point notwithstanding, the fact is, the Senate does not hold equal standing. The INTENT here is that the Senate review qualifications, not some litmus test. I didn’t like Samuel Alito, but I did not, not for a moment, think he should be denied a seat based on political grounds. Regardless, the point is, there will be contention at contentious times, as we have now. The Senate may very well fail to approve anyone presented, they’ll be ignoring their constitutional duty and ignoring intent, which is to approve on qualification, but that’s not new.

    As to name calling, pretty rich coming from someone who refers to Dems as “tics” and who, despite well versed in the proper use of English, refuses to use an adverb but insists on using a noun as a descriptor, as they say, “What’s in a name?”

    So, with that sentiment in mind, to say that this reflects superior constitutional knowledge, though, is laughable. Krauthammer, proves only that he is a willing deceiver. Anyone who wants to claim he’s right, is either equally a fool, or worse, comfortable telling lies. The PRESIDENT appoints, not the Senate, and the election of the President is frequently pointed to as being not just about that office, but also about whom he (or she) WILL appoint. The currency of the Senate election is as germane as the last dog catcher’s choice, or are you saying that Reagan should have asked the Democratic Senate for whom they wanted?

  5. Anybody wants to take a bet that if Apple/FBI case gets to SCOTUS it will be libturd judges that will vote in favor of FBI and conservative judges will vote in favor of Apple? The only principle libturds follow is that goobernment is the savior and there is no individual, only collective.

  6. “yeah, but he was against Gay Marriage.”
    What Scalia wrote in his dissent to Obergefell v. Hodges was that no right to gay marriage could be found in the constitution, or at least that the specifics of the plaintiff’s argument that there was a right to SSM in the US constitution was wrong.
    Scalia’s textual interpretation of the constitution has been criticized, but the criticism is question begging: if not textualism, then the constitution has no fixed meaning, neither does the 13th amendment (made slavery illegal), the 14th amendment (equality under the law), or the 16th amendment (federal income tax).

  7. BTW Mitch, using Krauthammer’s (and your) logic, no SCOTUS appointment should occur, if the Senate just doesn’t want to, after the mid-term elections, right? So, I’ve got it now, we’ll only do SCOTUS appointments during the President’s first two years (after election or re-election). Got it.

    Yeah, sure. Try that one out sometime in a room full of non-partisans. “Hey folks, sine we just had the mid-terms and the Senate has equal standing to appoint to SCOTUS, let’s just not allow it if we don’t want to during these two years. Let’s leave SCOTUS vacant a seat (or two or three even? after all O’Coonor retired and Rehnquist died not too long after), if we want, making SCOTUS essentially non-functional if needs be. No, no, that’s a good plan. I mean a non-functioning judiciary is really helpful.

  8. Penigma, if the Senate can say “no” to Obama’s nominations–and I would love it if they did so more often if not always–they are equal to the President in the same way that a company’s legal or accounting department is to engineering. We engineers complain about it, but eventually we get the hint and start building legal and financial wisdom into our proposals.

    No such hope or luck with the community organizer, sad to say.

  9. Selfores…with the left, when you have a narrative to push, actual facts don’t matter. But it is fun debating liberals as I am almost always right and have no problem defending my positions. As in your case, we frequently encounter liberals who live in a bubble and have no clue about the facts. Just the narrative.

  10. Wait a sec . . . is Pen arguing that if Ginsberg had dropped dead in February 2008, the Democrat controlled senate would have allowed Bush to appoint a conservative successor?
    Seriously, Penigma? For real?

  11. Ah, penigma, you are just as big a hypocritical moron as your boot licker Doggie Breath. I say that because like her, you fail to do your homework before you start typing your drivel.

    To wit, in 2007, Chucky the Schmuck Shumer gave a speech to admonish his dim witted minions to not confirm any Bush nominees for SCOTUS. But, he’s not an obstructionist, is he?

    Then there’s the little matter of the Dem controlled senate passing resolution S.Res. 334 in 1960 – POTUS should not make an appointment to the Supreme Court except to prevent or end a breakdown.

    But then, just like the Constitution, facts are so inconvenient when they don’t fit the twisted left wing narrative, hey penny?

  12. As to name calling, pretty rich coming from someone who refers to Dems as “tics” and who, despite well versed in the proper use of English, refuses to use an adverb but insists on using a noun as a descriptor, as they say, “What’s in a name?”

    When I was in elementary school, I’d get in trouble for swearing in front of my folks. I always came back with “But why? Dad swears constantly!” The response was “He knows when and how to swear. He also knows when not to swear.”

    Picking on Mitch for bad grammar? Puuuh-LEEEASE. Like he doesn’t know EXACTLY what the correct context and correct usage is of every word that comes out of his keyboard, save the occasional typo? Your “fling pooh” statement was self-descriptive as well as declarative.

  13. Crap!

    Forgot to include Senator Obanamus filibustering against Samuel Alito back in 2006.

    It’s great to be a lying hypocrite!

  14. Article 2, Section 2, says, in relevant part:

    “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States . . . .”

    The separation of powers contemplated everywhere else in the Constitution is perpetuated in the plain wording of the section. The President’s Supreme Court appointments require consent of the Senate, same as ambassadors and cabinet officers. It doesn’t matter when the vacancy occurs: if the Senate doesn’t consent, the nominee doesn’t serve.

    That sounds like equal standing to me.
    .

  15. OK, Pen. Let’s see what we have here:

    Krauthammer is dead wrong. The Senate does not “have equal standing when appointing Supreme Court justices.” They have a consent role, solely.

    See Joe’s note above.

    Also explain the Democrat Senate’s actions during Reagan’s last year in office in re Bork. That wasn’t “advising”, you know…

    They appoint no one. Most importantly, they SELECT no one.

    Right. That’s the whole “enumerated powers” and “checks and balances” thing. So far so good!

    The President could conceivably choose to send up one person after another with whom the Senate disagreed with appointing, or no one at all. There have been times in the past when there was much less contention, such as the appointment of Anthony Kennedy, who was approved in February of 1988.

    After – this is kinda important – two attempts; Bork, who got “borked” by the Senate’s, um, advice and consent, and David Ginsberg, whom the Democrats called DOA. Reagan had to nominate a moderate to get the court staffed.

    Seeing a pattern, here?

    The Democratic Party held majority in the Senate, Mr. Krauthammer’s logic would seem to imply they erred in even allowing a vote since “the 1988 and 1986 elections were more ‘proximal’”,

    Pen, I’m not sure if you just don’t know your history, or if the people you’re reading don’t. But if you’re not considering Bork, Ginsburg and Kennedy as part of one process, you’re really missing the entire point.

    The Senate may very well fail to approve anyone presented, they’ll be ignoring their constitutional duty and ignoring intent, which is to approve on qualification, but that’s not new.

    Indeed, it’s not! As the Democrat majority in 1987 showed us!~

    As to name calling, pretty rich coming from someone who refers to Dems as “tics” and who, despite well versed in the proper use of English, refuses to use an adverb but insists on using a noun as a descriptor, as they say, “What’s in a name?”

    Good lord, Pen – you people are still jabbering about that? Sack up, little camper! Life’s tough; wear a helmet!

    So, with that sentiment in mind, to say that this reflects superior constitutional knowledge, though, is laughable.

    Perhaps – but as shown in this comment thread, it’s also true. I mean, you’ve gotten the law and the history wrong. See where this is going?

    The currency of the Senate election is as germane as the last dog catcher’s choice, or are you saying that Reagan should have asked the Democratic Senate for whom they wanted?

    Pen, I think you also read Krauthammer wrong. The fact that the American people gave the Senate to the GOP in 2014 is not directly, in and of itself relevant to the selection of judges.

    But it’s a response to all the libs who chant the equally relevant “the people chose the President!”. Yes, they did; and then they elected a body whose job (see Joe’s cite above) is to check and balance his power.

    And that’s the way it is today.

    You can ignore it, or try to bluster your way around it, or take a deep breath and think about. I’d advise “C”, but hey, what do I know.

  16. PS, Pen,

    Next time you talk with Dog Gone, please tell her to respond to my question from the last thread she commented in; what does she think Heather Martens has actually accomplished in the past decade? I mean, in terms of tangible policy, electoral or social accomplishments?

    I asked her, but she has a distressing tendency to poop and run.

    Thanks.

  17. Perhaps before our progressive friend goes ballistic about the GOP controlled senate neglecting its constitutional duties, he should consider the bedrock foundation of our republican form of government. The part where the people’s legislature makes law, not the courts, and not the president.

  18. “Speaking on the Senate floor in 1992, Biden said: “It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

    “The Senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year,” Biden continued.”

  19. Two points:
    Does anyone doubt that if the circumstances were reversed, that Krauthammer would be taking the exact opposite position, berating Democrats for daring to obstruct a Republican president from appointing a justice?

    The President is required to nominate a jurist; the Senate is required to examine that jurist and vote aye or nay. If the Republican Senate refuses to do so, it will paint itself as lawless and out of control, which is how they are attempting to portray Obama. McConnell was foolish to open his mouth on the subject. Any politician with an ounce of political subtly would have promised a “careful consideration” of any nominee. Various delays followed by a rejection would have accomplished his purpose. McConnell is being an idiot again.

  20. “Does anyone doubt that if the circumstances were reversed, that Krauthammer would be taking the exact opposite position, berating Democrats for daring to obstruct a Republican president from appointing a justice?”
    Krauthammer is partisan.
    What do you want, Emery? Non-partisanship from partisans? The objective of someone like Krauthammer is not to be objective, but to make a strong argument in favor of a partisan position.
    He succeeds. Obama does not because Obama insists that he he is not a partisan. Haven’t you listened to the man? Has he said that he wants to appoint a new SC justice because he is a partisan Democrat, and he wants his views to dominate the highest court in the land?
    Article 2, section 2:

    He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

    No time limit on the president to appoint an SC justice. No requirement for the senate to examine anyone or anything.
    Since when has it become ‘lawless’ or ‘out of control’ to do what the constitution requires? You seem to think nothing like this has ever happened before.
    I agree with you that McConnell is an idiot. He wants to run out the clock, retire a wealthy man, and get his friends rich in the process. Kind of like Obama. Or Clinton.

  21. Seflores: As an intellectual stance, originalism is completely sound. Believing that meanings change as time passes is, on the other hand, building the foundations of the rule of law on quicksand. The intellectual integrity of Scalia’s approach is why so many who disagreed with him still respected him as a jurist.

  22. Some people thin that there is a thing called ‘good government’ that is supposed to a human objective. Good government might mean reduced crime, or universal prosperity.
    There is no such thing as good government. There is only people, doing what people do. If tomorrow Obama gave orders to DHS to shoot to kill illegal aliens, it wouldn’t be government gone wrong if their was a political consensus that this was a proper action. Liberals are guilty of not believing in religion, but still believing in some measure of justice external to man.

  23. Religions are trapped by their holy books supposedly inspired by a supernatural being. It is hard to justify changes to those books after the fact, even as the religion becomes a poor fit for a more modern society. But is it intellectually sound to be a biblical originalist? Absolutely. It’s just not intellectually sound to believe in supernatural beings whose existence cannot be proven or disproven. Religion and Constitutional Law make for a poor analogy.

  24. My holy book and supernatural being look pretty sound to me and relevant today. In fact, it would be intellectually unsound for me to believe otherwise. It wasn’t Obama that healed me of ALS.

  25. Emery, time for you to review Augustine’s moral argument for God’s existence and review the history of the 20th century. What happened in our world when nations and peoples abandoned the notion of accountability before God? How many people died too young because their leaders decided that life itself was not a barrier to their ambitions?

    (answer: about 200 million, plus those murdered in the womb, and that number probably dwarfs those murdered by their governments after birth)

    To cite Puddleglum, even if my religion were a fantasy, I far prefer it the the secular realities you refer to. Same basic thing about government loosed from the chains of the Constitution–sorry, it’s been in overdrive the past seven years, and I can’t say as I’m enjoying it.

  26. It’s just not intellectually sound to believe in supernatural beings whose existence cannot be proven or disproven.

    What Night said.

    And if “believing in something whose existence can’t be proven or disproven” is intellectually unsound, what do you call the story of how the universe, intelligence, consciousness and love came to exist? Or about why, in a universe without God or moral absolutes, murder is a no-no?

    Because that’s more faith-based than religion.

  27. It seems to be a lot easier to believe a negative than to prove a negative, for some folks at least.

  28. Back in 2006, when he filibustered Alito’s nomination, Obama said it was important that the SC be a check on the executive branch.
    Hilarious, isn’t it? Almost as hilarious as those who bluster about the GOP’s lack of integrity regarding the SC appointment process.

  29. Usually a president is criticized for believing the constitution should trump the wishes of actual Americans, or because he believes that the wishes of actual Americans should trump the constitution. Obama is first president I know of to hold both the wishes of the American people and the constitution in contempt.

  30. I don’t think there is any way to stop this, but the Republicans are fundamentally changing the way our government works. From this point on, Supreme Court vacancies will only be filled when the Senate and the White House are under the same party’s control. After this, the Democrats would be fools to allow a Republican president to ever fill Supreme Court vacancies.

    And that means the Court will, from this point on, frequently have only 8 or 7 or even 6 justices. Never again will the Court be viewed as an impartial decider of laws. It will simply become a tool of whichever party controls the Senate and the White House at the same time.

  31. You can’t be serious, Emery. After Bork? After Thomas?
    The Dems have been playing heads I win tales you lose since the Reagan administration.
    There is nothing wrong with forbidding a lame duck president from naming a Supreme Court justice. That president will be completely unaccountable to the electorate. That is what politics is for. That is what the ‘consent’ part of article 2 section 2 is about — making certain that the executive has a democratic check when he makes the lifetime appointment of an SC justice.
    Today, re Guantanamo, Obama explicitly claimed that his lack of political accountability would allow him to shut down Guantanamo. Americans oppose closing Gauntanamo and moving its prisoners to the US by a two to one margin. Obama wants to close down Guantanamo and move its prisoners to the US.
    I don’t think there is any way to stop this, but the Republicans are fundamentally changing the way our government works. From this point on, Supreme Court vacancies will only be filled when the Senate and the White House are under the same party’s control. After this, the Democrats would be fools to allow a Republican president to ever fill Supreme Court vacancies.

  32. What’s striking (or, sadly, not so much) is the GOP’s refusal to to even appear to be conciliatory on this matter. They can just as easily take the high ground: welcome the President’s nominee, vet that nominee, rake that nominee over the coals in hearings and roundly vote against that nominee.

    By the time that process is complete, the eve of the general election will be upon us and the GOP will have gotten exactly what it claims it’s fighting for: Giving the voters a voice in who gets to nominate the next justice. But it’s apparent that picking a fight, even at great political risk, is higher on the list of priorities than just letting the process — a process they have a huge impact on regardless of timing — play out as it should.

    This is the height of partisan obstruction in the United States Congress. It is unprincipled, and it is dangerous.

  33. BG, you are trying to argue with a person (although using that word to describe eTASS diminishes all real and fictitious persons) who thinks history does not extend back beyond today’s breakfast. Please note, it refuses to address the issue of Dumbocrat malfeasance re Bork and Thomas and all their documented bluster about election-year nominations, and instead moves the goalposts and pontificates on his talking points. eTASS is indeed the poster child for Komissariat department of Newspeak.

  34. This is the height of partisan obstruction in the United States Congress. It is unprincipled, and it is dangerous.

    And I’m sure you were JUST as outraged and said the same thing back in 1960, 1992, and 1997 when the Democrats were in control and talked about not having hearings for SCOTUS nominations from Republican presidents.

    Right?

  35. This is the height of partisan obstruction in the United States Congress. It is unprincipled, and it is dangerous.
    Caesar is in the White House, but it’s the senate that is placing the republic in danger?
    Nothing the GOP senate is doing or can do is as damaging as 7 seven years of Obama’s shredding of the constitution.

  36. justplainasshat: Regarding Trump and Cruz;

    “I will vote for Herr Hitler because I like what he says about getting the trains to run on time and about protecting animals. I’m sure he will rein in his more extreme statements about Jewish people once he is in office.”
    And that all ended well, didn’t it?

  37. WTF? Are you talking non-sequiturs again? Or wait, everything you say is a non-sequitur.

  38. Emery, when you’re taking cheap shots at people, usually it’s customary to build on something that can be be halfway reasonably inferred from something they actually said. Just sayin’.

    And it was Mussolini who said that the trains would run on time, not Schicklgruber. Come to think of it, that’s been one of Obama’s big initiatives with his advocacy of high speed death trains, too.

  39. jpa: “History” shows that Bork and Thomas each had a hearing. You and I may not have liked how the nominees were treated, but they did have a hearing.

  40. BB: Mussolini made a very successful career out of corralling the dim-witted; there’s no reason Trump can’t do the same.

  41. Them goalposts are so easy to move, eh eTASS? Care to reconcile Biden’s comments with not nominating in election years? Or this little gem – Resolution, S.RES. 334?

    Wait, were you comparing Trump and Crus to Schiklgruber? Really? Trumplet is no Hitler, maybe Mussolini. But Cruz? Really? Because he is an effective lawyer who believes in US Constitution and will not lie under oath that he will uphold laws of the US? Really? Well, we always knew you were a braindead Marxist zombie, and this is just more proof.

  42. Jpa: You appear to be a history buff. Can you share with us a time when democrats refused to hold a hearing for a SCOTUS nominee from a republican administration? Political rhetoric is not the same thing as refusing to hold a hearing.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.