Yup there is a ton of hypocrisy regarding this issue!

SCOTUS Nominee Inconsistencies by Democrats





The U.S. Senate has the constitutional right to hold no hearings and no votes on President Obama’s eventual nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.While I’ve written extensively on both the historical precedent and the constitutional analysis confirming this, you don’t have to go back to the Constitutional Convention or even 1880 to confirm this.

Some of the best arguments defending the Senate’s right to act or not act on judicial nominees have been made by leading liberals serving in the Senate – Vice President Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy.When these men were U.S. Senators and faced judicial nominations from the opposing party’s President, they articulately laid out the compelling constitutional basis for the Senate to hold no hearings and no votes as part of its broad “advice and consent” power.

When Vice President Biden – now the President of the Senate – was U.S. Senator Biden, he served as the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  As Chairman, he led the efforts in 1987 to prevent the confirmation of President Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork, stating, “The framers clearly intended the Senate to serve as a check on the president and guarantee the independence of the judiciary. The Senate has an undisputed right to consider judicial philosophy.” Nearly two decades later, he once again supported the use of the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees when discussing the nomination of Justice Alito.But perhaps his strongest defense of the Senate’s “advice and consent” role comes from 1992 in the midst of the presidential election.

Senator Biden pleads that the best thing for the country, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Presidency is for the current President to wait and allow the next President to fill any Supreme Court vacancy:

As a result, 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. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. …

I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.

In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain. 

 

Last edited by Common Sense (3/17/2016 8:11 am)

Right, let's see who Clinton or Sanders will nominate.  BTW, even though Biden made a plea, congress still held hearings.

Last edited by Just Fred (3/17/2016 8:25 am)

Now that I think about it, I'm ok with Bernie nominating a real progressive to the Supreme Court.  Let's go for it.

I posted this before but it fits perfectly into this thread!

White House: Obama 'regrets' decision to filibuster Supreme Court Justice Alito
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/18/white-house-obama-regrets-decision-to-filibuster-supreme-court-justice-alito.html?intcmp=hpbt1

The top White House spokesman said Wednesday that President Obama “regrets” his 2006 decision to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court – after being accused of hypocrisy for blasting “obstructionist” Republicans now vowing to block his next high court nominee.  White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was pressed on Obama’s 2006 vote, as a U.S. senator, at the daily briefing. 

Obama Acknowledges His Politicized Vote To Filibuster Alito




 

Last edited by Common Sense (3/18/2016 7:38 am)

Ha!  Good one, Brady.  Well, I'm still feelin' the Bern, and will be until the end.  Go, go, Bernie!