GOP Senators Flatly Refuse to Meet With Any of Obama’s Supreme Court Candidates
Leaving no room for ambiguity or civility, Senate Republicans on Tuesday issued a decree that they would not even entertain the idea of giving face time to any Supreme Court nominees President Obama might present during his remaining time in office.
Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, tried to dissuade President Obama from even presenting a Supreme Court nominee during his last year in office. (Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock)
Leaving no room for ambiguity or civility, Senate Republicans on Tuesday issued a decree that they would not even entertain the idea of giving face time to any Supreme Court nominees President Obama might present during his remaining time in office.
The New York Times elaborated:
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, urged the president to reconsider even submitting a name.
At the same time, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans issued a letter unanimously rejecting any confirmation hearings.
The actions of Senate Republican leaders and the committee of jurisdiction sent a clear signal to President Obama and wavering Republicans that their ranks would not crack. It also thrust the Senate into unprecedented territory; Senators meet with high-court nominees as matters of courtesy and cordiality, but even that tradition has been rejected.
Instead, Republican leaders vowed they would not even consider Mr. Obama’s nominee regardless of his or her qualifications.
Democrats lashed out but seemed powerless to force Republicans to alter course. “The Senate, the world’s greatest deliberative body?” the Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, asked, railing against the Republicans. “They’re not going to deliberate at all.”
–Posted by Kasia Anderson
TRUTHDIG’S JOURNALISM REMAINS CLEARThe storytellers of chaos tried to manipulate the political and media narrative in 2025, but independent journalism exposed what they tried to hide. When you read Truthdig, you see through the illusion.
Support Independent Journalism.
Courts & Law
If you want to deepen your understanding of the differences between “originalism” and “living constitutionalism” as competing theories of constitutional law and interpretation, there’s no better place to begin than with the 2006 debate between the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the recently retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
A new Second Amendment appeal could radically expand the scope of District of Columbia v. Heller, handicapping Congress for years to come.
The implications of Justice Thomas’ tenure on the nation’s top court extend far beyond his own career and legacy.
And with Neil Gorsuch and now Brett Kavanaugh in tow, the president is well on his way achieving his objective.
The confirmation of President Trump's nominee would mark the culmination of a right-wing legal counterrevolution that has been decades in the making.
The president has chosen a candidate who poses a great threat to progressive values and causes—and one who might shield him from Mueller.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.