When Vice President Joe Biden announced his decision not to run for President in 2016, he stated that while he wouldn't be running, he wouldn't be silent. We're beginning to wish he'd shut up, too. Yesterday on Minnesota Public Radio, Biden threw cold water on the idea of the President nominating a progressive Justice to replace Antonin Scalia:
So Biden has already decided that the obstructionism by the Republicans should be rewarded with the nomination of a "consensus" candidate, who no doubt would be well to the right of the four progressive Justices already on the Court (and who the Rethugs would block anyway). Thanks for the help, Joe. It's no wonder that he's beloved by the likes of Republicans like Sen. Lindsey "Huckleberry Butchmeup" Graham and former (Vice) President Dick "The Dick" Cheney, who received this accolade from Biden recently:“The Senate gets to have a say. In order to get this done, the president is not going to be able to go out, nor would it be his instinct anyway, to pick the most liberal jurist in the nation and put them on the court...There are plenty of judges who are on high courts already who have had unanimous support of the Republicans. This should be someone who, in fact, is a consensus and whereby we can generate enough support to get a person passed.”
“I can say without fear of contradiction there’s not one single time there’s been a harsh word in our relationship. And that’s what I think is most desperately missing today in Washington, D.C. I don’t remember, Dick, you questioning anybody’s motive... You have been a great asset to this country and the way you have conducted yourself is a model to anyone in high public office.” (emphasis added)What utter nonsense, after almost seven years of The Dick taking every opportunity to harshly slam Biden's boss, President Obama, on everything from Iraq and terrorism to domestic policy. Once again, ol' backslapping Joe reverted to his harrumphing Senate gentleman's club speechifying ("My dear friend, the distinguished Senator, who has just vigorously applied a hot poker to my backside...."), reality be damned.
If you can't say something that reflects the views of the overwhelming majority of the party you imagine you represent, just shut up.
4 comments:
What exactly do you mean by a progressive judge? Obama is going to pick a judge who will for the most part side with the Liberal majority. He is also going to pick a judge that the Republicans cannot call a Bork of the left. He expects Republicans to turn him down and he expects to make Republican obstructionism the number one issue in this election campaign.
His candidate is going to be a well qualified jurist who will be easy to defend in that campaign.
Even setting aside the election, the Republicans control the Senate. This makes a difference. If the Democrats controlled the Senate Obama could appoint a more liberal jurist, but as things stand, Republicans get a say. All Biden is doing is stating the obvious. The President will respect the constitution and act accordingly. Republicans do neither.
Thanks for your comment, Tom. In our thinking, a progressive justice would be in the mold of a Justice Ginsberg, or Justice Kagan. But regardless of how qualified the candidate is, the Republican Senate will vote him/her down and run out the clock. Biden should understand that there's no acceptable "consensus" candidate the Senate Republicans would approve, short of a Justice in the hard-right Scalia mold. So a highly qualified progressive judge might as well be the President's nominee, since the nomination's DOA, Biden's wishful thinking notwithstanding.
I probably agree that the Republicans are committed to obstruction. I think that is a mistake. A big mistake. But obstruct they will. Barack Obama is not going to do nothing about it. He is going to take the argument to the American people. "You can't let them get away with this," he will say, "or they will behave like this forever."
The best nominee for that fight is one that is basically invisible in the fight. A person who qualifies as a consensus candidate. By consensus candidate we mean one who is definitely a liberal but with an acknowledgement to the fact the Republicans control the Senate. A Ginsberg is suitable with a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate. Like Kennedy was suitable for a Democratic senate, but not Bork. Obama wants the fight to be about the obstruction, not about the candidate.
What is the benefit of nominating someone the Republicans can paint as a radical? They will probably delay for as long as possible, then take forever in the hearing, finally give him a vote and reject him as too radical in June. Yell "Bork!" in the fight. If there is a consensus candidate, they probably reject him without a hearing. Particularly if he is a nominee already vetted and approved unanimously for the appeals court.
I see your point, and it makes sense. The more "consensus" the nominee in terms of being previously accepted by the Republicans for a lower court position, the more the Republicans will look like pure obstructionists by rejecting him or her (as they will certainly do). I just don't want the Republicans to think they can move the goalpost rightward for a subsequent nominee.
Post a Comment