Harry Reid Flashback: Senate Has No Duty to Vote on Nominees (Video)

Hypocrisy, thy name is Harry Reid.

Flashback to 1992: Joe Biden says President Bush should not name a nominee until after the November election

Sen. Joe Biden in 1992 says President Bush should "not name a nominee until after the November election..." #SCOTUShttps://t.co/setQGLzePt

— CSPAN (@cspan) February 22, 2016

The RINO stampede to allow Obama to name another liberal to the Supreme Court has began...

What are the voters thinking when they elect these Democrats posing as Republicans? 

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said Wednesday that he doesn't think Republican senators should filibuster President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
“I don't think we should filibuster Supreme Court nominees or any judicial nominees," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Wednesday.
Under a filibuster, 60 votes would be required to clear procedural hurdles ahead of a final confirmation vote.
At the same time, Hatch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in the interview that he would support whatever decision made by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the panel’s chairman.
He suggested that if Grassley so chooses, he could close down a debate over who should succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, who died on Saturday.
"All it would take is for Sen. Grassley to just say, ‘Look, we're not going to confirm anybody this year. The reason we're not going to confirm is because we value the court, we don't want it to be in this political atmosphere,’” Hatch said.
Hatch’s comments add to the mixed signals sent by Republicans over their strategy for handling an Obama nominee.

Obama's HHS Secretary nominee ordered the shutdown of war memorials during the 2013 government shutdown

Republicans and Democrats should say "Hell no" to this woman. 

Via Breitbart:

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin blasted President Barack Obama for nominating as his new Health and Human Services Secretary the same woman who ordered the shutdown of the war memorials during the so-called government shutdown last year.

After accepting Kathleen Sebelius’ resignation Friday, Obama nominated Sylvia Burwell, the former Office of Management and Budget director. This is the same person who sent the email initiating the barricading of the memorials, even as veterans were arriving in D.C. on their “honor flights” to see the memorials that they built. Palin, along with Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT), joined veterans as they protested the barricades.

Keep on reading…

President Obama’s Energy secretary nominee is cool with tripling the cost of energy...

Ernest Moniz 

Is he insane or just completely out of touch with the struggles of ordinary Americans? 


Via Beltway Confidential:

President Obama’s Energy secretary nominee regards a carbon tax as one of the simplest ways to move the energy industry towards clean technologies, though he notes that government would have to come up with a plan to mitigate the burden this tax places on poor people, who would pay the most.

“Ultimately, it has to be cheaper to capture and store it than to release it and pay a price,” MIT professor and Energy nominee Ernest Moniztold the Switch Energy Project in an interview last year. “If we start really squeezing down on carbon dioxide over the next few decades, well, that could double; it could eventually triple. I think inevitably if we squeeze down on carbon, we squeeze up on the cost, it brings along with it a push toward efficiency; it brings along with it a push towards clean technologies in a conventional pollution sense; it brings along with it a push towards security. Because after all, the security issues revolve around carbon bearing fuels.”

Keep on reading…

Video: Obama Commerce Nominee Calls NLRB Boeing Action Wrong

President has packed the NLRB with biased union loyalists. Even Obama's own nominee realizes they have become a wholly owned tool of big labor.

Obama Commerce Head Nominee Suggested Global Wealth Redistribution to Save Third World Forests

Well, we now know why Obama nominated him for the job.

(CNSNews.com) – John Bryson, President Obama’s nominee to head the Commerce Department, told a UN energy conference in 2009 that a global wealth redistribution program was needed to keep poor people in developing countries from using their own forest resources.

Goodbye Goodwin

Republicans successfully filibuster radical Obama U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Goodwin Liu. As proof of how radical Liu is thought to be, the vote wasn't even close.

(Politico) — Senate Republicans staged the first successful filibuster of a judicial nominee since 2005 on Thursday, dealing a blow to the Obama administration on the long-stalled nomination of Goodwin Liu to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The final vote was 52-43, eight votes shy of the 60 needed to overcome the filibuster. Only one Republican joined Democrats in supporting Liu, and only one Democrat voted no to opening debate on the 40-year-old University of California, Berkeley professor’s nomination.

The filibuster will be met with disappointment from both progressives and Asian-American groups that advocated for Liu and hoped to see him seated on the Western court that covers a region of the country with a significant Asian-American population. Liu even received support from some prominent conservative legal figures, including Ken Starr and John Yoo.

Elena Kagan deliberately subverted scientific report to win partial-birth abortion approval

Elena Kagan deliberately subverted a scientific report by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to win partial-birth abortion approval. The Federal Court case involved Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. The ACOG put out what was billed as a non-partisan report that played heavily in the Courts decision to strike down the partial-birth abortion ban. The draft report from the ACOG contained the following statement that was very damaging to partial-birth abortion supporters.

"[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

The allegedly non-partisan ACOG shared this draft statement with the Clinton White House and Elena Kagan, then a deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy, freaked out and wrote her superiors this in a memo (pdf):

Todd Stern just discovered that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is thinking about issuing a statement (attached) that includes the following sentence: "[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." This, of course, would be disaster -- not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. It is unclear whether ACOG will issue the statement; even if it does not, there is obviously a chance that the draft will become public.

Kagan had a solution. She drafted a suggested revision to the scientific report.

Click image for larger view.


The suggest change reads:

"An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman."

The supposedly non-partisan ACOG replaced their scientific opinion with Elena Kagan's political opinion verbatim in the final report.

This language was crucial in the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban. Elena Kagan helped dupe the Supreme court with inaccurate and deceptive scientific information. She is unqualified to join that body.

Video: Al Franken Naps During Kagan Hearing

I guess the joke from Minnesota has already made up his mind how he will vote on President Obama's SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan. Minnesota Senator Al Franken was seen napping and doodling during a confirmation hearing. Of course, Kagen is being vague and disingenuous. She will not out herself as a far-left progressive activist jurist. Franken taking a nap may be the most noteworthy event that occurs during the hearings.

Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan Supported Partial-Birth Abortion

New documents have been uncovered showing Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan supported partial-birth abortion by defending ex-President Bill Clinton’s veto of a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. Kagan is joined by only 17% of Americans who think partial-birth abortion should be legal. Even half of Americans who think abortion should be legal in all circumstances oppose partial-birth abortion.

Life News reported:

A newly-produced document today from the Clinton archives is the second to show Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan defending ex-President Bill Clinton’s veto of a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. The memo, and others, may increase Republican opposition to her nomination.

In one of the documents that comprises the 46,000 pages of material the William J. Clinton Presidential Library released today, Kagan opined on the ban for Clinton as an attorney with the administration’s Office of Domestic Policy....

Leading pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL made claims that flew in the face of medical practice ...

Fitzsimmons signed on to that mantra but eventually relented, saying he “lied through my teeth” about the statistics...

Voters Give SCOTUS Nominee Elena Kagan a Thumbs Down

After President Obama nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court, only 39% of voters had an unfavorable opinion. Now, that percentage is up to 47%. Kagan has a logn way to go to become as unpopular as President Obama. 56% of voters disapprove of him.

Rasmussen reported:

Voters have an increasingly unfavorable opinion of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan but are more convinced than ever that she will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate...

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of U.S. voters now hold a favorable opinion of Kagan...

Elena Kagan bemoaned the failure of socialism in Princeton Undergraduate Thesis

Many people think Barack Obama is a socialist. There is no reason to believe he wouldn't appoint like-minded people to his administration and even the Supreme Court. In an undergraduate thesis at Princeton, Obama's newest Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, bemoaned the failure of socialism in America. At the time of this thesis, the Soviet Union was the dominant socialist country in the world.

Elena Kagan: "The story is a sad but after also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century socialism's decline, still wish to change America."

Elana Kagan's undergraduate thesis
Hat tip Thunder Pig.

Video: Sen. Sessions Blasts SCOTUS Nominee Kagan For Banning Military Recruiters At Harvard

Sen. Sessions calls SCOTUS Nominee Elena Kagan's banning military recruiters from Harvard "Unacceptable."

Sessions: Unacceptable That Kagan Banned Military Recruiters From Harvard

Meet Goodwin Liu: President Obama's nominee for a spot on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

No wonder Republicans oppose Goodwin Liu's appointment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He is a radical leftist who believes the Constitution can be interpreted to mean anything he wants. Among his distorted views is the idea all Americans owe reparations to blacks for slavery; even if they or their ancestors came to America after slavery was ended. Here is is video of Liu explaining his twisted view on reparations for slavery.

Obama Appeals Court Nominee - Goodwin Liu - on Reparations for Slavery


Some of Goodwin Liu's other distortions of the Constitution are opposition to the death penalty and a belief in a Constitutional right for welfare.

TSA Nominee Southers lied to a Senate panel in a signed affidavit

We should thank Senator DeMint for putting a hold on this man. It turns out he used his official position for personal reasons. That is unacceptable. He is a liar too.

The Washington Post reported:

Southers’s admission that he was involved in a questionable use of law enforcement background data has been a source of concern among civil libertarians, who believe the TSA performs a delicate balancing act in tapping into passenger information to find terrorists while also protecting citizens’ privacy.

Using the standard Sen. Obama applied to John Roberts, all Republicans and many Democrats should vote no on Sonia Sotomayor

Senator Obama praised SCOTUS nominee John Roberts and said, "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land." Additionally Sen. Obama said, "It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts." After those accolades, Senator Obama voted 'No" on John Roberts confirmation because he disagreed with him 5% of the time. Geez.
From the WSJ:

The following is from then-Sen. Barack Obama's floor statement explaining why he would vote against confirming Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (September 2005):

. . . [T]he decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.

It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.

In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

Sotomayor's racist comments go from "common sense" to "poor choice"

The White House is backtracking on their Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor's racist comments. On Wednesday they said her comments made common sense:

Now, Sotomayor has been forced to acknowledge her words were a poor choice. According to AP:

The White House says Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor acknowledges she made a poor word choice in a 2001 speech in which she said that a Latina judge would often reach a better conclusion than a white male judge who hasn't lived the same life.

That's according to presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs. He says he has not talked directly to Sotomayor about it but has spoken to people who have.

Critics have singled out the 2001 comment by Sotomayor for criticism. She was describing how personal experiences can affect judging. She said a "wise Latina woman" with her experiences would more often than not reach a "better conclusion" than a white male.

The SCOTUS Nominee Media Double Standard

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor said at a Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California Berkeley School of Law in 2001,

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Would John Roberts ever have been confirmed if he had said,

“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life.”

Of course, John Roberts never made that statement. The liberal media would have been "up in arms" if he had. So, what does the liberal media have to say about Judge Sotomayor? From a New York Times editorial,

If Judge Sotomayor joins the court, it will be a special point of pride for Hispanic-Americans — as it was for Jews, blacks and women before them to see one of their own take a seat on the highest tribunal in the land. It will also bring the paltry number of female justices back to two. And as Democratic Party strategists have no doubt calculated, the selection could give Mr. Obama and his party a boost with a key voting group.

Hat tips to I Hate THe Media and Hot Air blog.