President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented.
“That is an approach the president regrets,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.
Obama and the Democratic senators who joined him in filibustering Alito “should have been in the position where they were making a public case” against the merits of his nomination to the high court instead, Earnest said.
“They shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process," he added.
As a senator from Illinois, Obama and 23 other senators attempted to stage a filibuster to block a confirmation vote on Alito, one of former President George W. Bush’s picks to serve on the bench. The filibuster bid failed and Alito was confirmed.
Conservatives have seized on Obama’s filibuster vote to accuse him of hypocrisy for criticizing Republicans for saying the next president, and not Obama, should nominate Scalia’s successor.
But Earnest said the GOP is going further than Obama did in pledging to not consider any nominee the president puts forward.
“These are two different things,” the spokesman said.
He argued that the Democrats’ 2006 filibuster of Alito was symbolic because he had the votes to be confirmed.
And he said Obama’s decision to filibuster was “based on substance” whereas the GOP’s blanket opposition to any Obama nominee is purely political. The president has yet to choose a nominee to replace Scalia.
Earnest went further than Obama did during a press conference when he was asked about his choice to join the filibuster effort against Alito.
“I think what’s fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any single party,” Obama said Tuesday. “This has become just one more extension of politics.”
As I recall he also said he "regrets" voting against raising The Debt Ceiling when he was a Senator...
He's just full of "regrets" when the shoe is on the other foot...
ETA:
White House press secretary Josh Earnest
A Presidential press secretary named "Earnest"....
Does it get any more ironic than that?
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:37 pm
by Long Run
That "regrets" line is going to be trouble because that is the one that will get played. There is a rationale for how the two situations differ, but by saying he regrets the filibuster, Obama is saying he wants Rs to be held to a different standard than himself (since the "regret" in this case is obviously due to a change in positions).
The strategy in how to deal with the appointment is pretty interesting. If Obama appoints the kind of justice he would like on the bench, the nominee will go down in flames. This might help stoke the "base" in the election, which would mean Obama is doing exactly what the R's are doing, which is playing politics with the Supreme Court.
One strategy would be to appoint a moderate to moderately conservative justice who is older. This nominee would likely be approved by the R's but only have a minimal impact on the court, and move it slightly to the liberal side. This would actually be in the interest of both Obama and R's.
The R's run a pretty big risk if they do not negotiate an acceptable nominee, since they have leverage now and may have much less when the next POTUS takes office. There are two big variables in the delay game: 1) the odds slightly favor HRC being the next president; and 2) there is also a chance that the R's lose the Senate (which could be more likely to happen depending on how badly they handle the Supreme Court nomination process this year, as well as the entire election). If the R's lose on both of those, there will be a more liberal justice. If HRC wins but the R's manage to keep the Senate, the court will get a moderately liberal justice. If an R wins the presidency, the R's will most likely keep the Senate, and will be able to appoint a more conservative justice. Seems like the odds favor working out a deal with Obama, and that would be the right thing to do from a good governance standpoint, assuming both are willing to do so.
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:49 pm
by Crackpot
Need I point out that the ability to admit error is a trait almost completely absent in todays politicians? And that is a huge disservice to our country.
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:22 pm
by Lord Jim
Three other Senators who voted to filibuster the Alito nomination were named Clinton, Reid, and Schumer...
And speaking of Schumer:
Schumer spoke out Sunday on ABC’s This Week against Republican senators’ plans to filibuster any judicial nominee nominated by Barack Obama in his final months in office.
Well, the job, first and foremost, is for the president to nominate and for the Senate to hold hearings and go through the process. You know, the Constitution, Ted Cruz holds the Constitution, you know, when he walks through the halls of Congress. Let him show me the clause that says president’s only president for three years.
…
Here, he doesn’t even know who the president’s going to propose and he said, no, we’re not having hearings; we’re not going to go forward to lead the Supreme Court vacant at 300 days in a divided time.
This kind of obstructionism isn’t going to last. And you know, we Democrats didn’t do this. When in the — we nominated — we voted 97-0 for Justice Kennedy in the last year of Reagan’s term.
That last line of Schumer’s is somewhat misleading by the way. The only reason Kennedy was nominated in the last year of Reagan’s term was because Senate Democrats blocked and voted down his first two choices the year earlier.
But more importantly, Schumer took the exact opposite stance nine years ago, going out of his way to bluntly tell the George W. Bush administration that he would filibuster any Supreme Court nominee they put forward in the next two years because he didn’t care for the ideology of his previous two nominees.
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said. “They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.”
This speech was delivered July 27, 2007. So Schumer – who now balks at the idea of a 300-day delay in appointing a Justice – would have been perfectly okay with filibustering a Supreme Court nominee for 543 days.
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:10 pm
by Big RR
Moral relativism Jim; pure and simple moral relativism.
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:12 pm
by Lord Jim
No, more like "whose ox is being gored"...
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:15 pm
by Big RR
Same difference.
Well, really, there are some substantive positions between the positions that are different, but otherwise, same difference.
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:21 pm
by rubato
I think one of the old senate rules of decorum was to wait to hear the name and do some research on them before promising to block a nomination.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:23 pm
by Lord Jim
rubato wrote:I think one of the old senate rules of decorum was to wait to hear the name and do some research on them before promising to block a nomination.
yrs,
rubato
Must have been prior to July 27, 2007:
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances,” Schumer said.
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:41 am
by Econoline
Listen to what Schumer ACTUALLY SAID, not the Republican spin:
What Schumer actually said was that Senate Democrats had been hoodwinked by President Bush's first two Supreme Court picks - Roberts and Alito. They'd accepted assurances that they were mainstream conservative judges who would operate with the precedents and decisions of the Rehnquist Court but hadn't. (Certainly, the experience since 2007 has more than ratified this perception.) Schumer said Democrats should try to block any future Bush nominees unless they could prove that they were 'in the mainstream' and would abide by precedent.
Here's what Schumer says:
"We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts of Justice Ginsburg replaced by another Alito. Given the track of this President and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not."
Now, 'mainstream' is a subjective rather than a technical term. But Schumer was reacting to Roberts and Alito's much freer willingness to overturn past precedent, even under conservative majorities. But all that is beside the point. Schumer quite explicitly never said that the Bush shouldn't get any more nominations. He also didn't say that any nominee should be rejected. He said they should insist on proof based on judicial history, rather than just promises that they were mainstream conservatives rather than conservative activists, which both have proven to be. But again, set all this aside. He clearly spoke of holding hearings and being willing to confirm Bush nominees if they met reasonable criteria.
ETA: I should also point out that (a) in 2007 there was no Supreme Court vacancy, so the matter was purely hypothetical, and (b) in 2007 Schumer was not in any position of power from which he could block any hearings or votes (other than by trying to persuade his colleagues to go along with him)--unlike McConnell in his current position as Senate Majority Leader.
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:01 am
by Lord Jim
not the Republican spin
LOL
What Schumer actually said was that Senate Democrats had been hoodwinked by President Bush's first two Supreme Court picks - Roberts and Alito. They'd accepted assurances that they were mainstream conservative judges who would operate with the precedents and decisions of the Rehnquist Court but hadn't. (Certainly, the experience since 2007 has more than ratified this perception.)
...He said they should insist on proof based on judicial history, rather than just promises that they were mainstream conservatives rather than conservative activists, which both have proven to be.
Nope, no spin there, no siree...
Just what precedents set by the Rehnquist Court have Roberts and Alito voted to "overturn"? And as for being "hoodwinked", many on the right feel "hoodwinked" by Roberts, and his votes to uphold Obamacare...(I have a hard time imaging Rehnquist voting that way)
I also find it hilarious that the author of this spin piece would point to William Rehnquist as the benchmark for "mainstream conservatism"...
When he was first appointed, the Liberals at the time were setting their hair on fire over what a "right-wing extremist" he was...(at the time the Left had become so accustomed to complete control over the court that any deviation from their POV was considered "extremism")
The fact is, that Roberts has turned out to be slightly more liberal than Rehnquist, and Alito has turned out to be slightly more conservative than O'Connor. Schumer and co. were just disappointed that they didn't turn out to be a pair of David Souters...
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:26 am
by Econoline
Again: there was no vacancy at that time, Schumer was a publicity-hound with no power to prevent hearings or a vote (other than to "recommend to his colleagues"), and his opposition was not unconditional (as is McConnell's) but rather conditional on certain criteria being met.
I wouldn't have faulted Republicans if they had said--as you said in another thread--"Yes, well let's see what Obama has on offer....I doubt it will be an Anthony Kennedy..." But that's not what any of them said...and most importantly, that's not what the Senate Majority Leader said. There's a difference between political bluster, political opposition, and unconditional obstructionism; the GOP appears blind to the difference, and they seem ready to cross a previously uncrossed line--yet again.
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a television appearance on Sunday, the leading Senate Republican warned President Obama “in no uncertain terms” against doing anything in his remaining three hundred and forty days in office.
“The President should be aware that, for all intents and purposes, his term in office is already over,” Mitch McConnell said on Fox News. “It’s not the time to start doing things when you have a mere eight thousand one hundred and sixty hours left.”
While acknowledging that the President has eleven months remaining in the White House, McConnell said that he and the President “have an honest disagreement about how long eleven months is.”
“The President believes it is almost one year,” he said. “I believe it is almost zero years. I’m not a mathematician, but I believe I am right.”
As for how Obama should spend his remaining time in office, McConnell said, “If the President has trouble doing nothing, we will be more than happy to show him how it is done.”
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:33 pm
by Scooter
That last line of Schumer’s is somewhat misleading by the way. The only reason Kennedy was nominated in the last year of Reagan’s term was because Senate Democrats blocked and voted down his first two choices the year earlier.
Wrong. One nomination was voted down, and that was Robert Bork, whom Reagan knew would never be confirmed but put him forward anyway. He then nominated Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew over a story about smoking marijuana with his students at Harvard. Then Kennedy was nominated, and because of recent experience, everyone took their time vetting him before the hearings.
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:15 am
by BoSoxGal
I wasn't paying close attention in those days, but dang, I wish we'd gotten a SCOTUS justice who'd smoked pot with his law students!
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:25 pm
by Lord Jim
Crackpot wrote:Need I point out that the ability to admit error is a trait almost completely absent in todays politicians? And that is a huge disservice to our country.
It doesn't take a whole lot of courage to admit to "error" when it's politically expedient to do so...(ie Slick Hillie, "I was wrong to vote in favor of the war in Iraq")
When Obama admits that it was an "error" to abandon the concept of "post-partisanship" he was elected on and turn the stimulus package over to Nancy Pelosi and her partisan hacks, (a short-sighted decision that completely poisoned any possibility for bipartisanship..."elections have consequences")
or when he admits that it was an "error" not to lean on Nouri al-Maliki's regime in Iraq to get a residual force agreement, or when he admits it was an "error" to have this country sit on its ass for four years while Syria collapsed and the phrase "Islamic Caliphate" entered the lexicon...
Then I'll be impressed with his courage for admitting "error"...
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 5:03 pm
by Long Run
Or when he admits the error of making the ACA excessively complex (and there were simpler and less costly ways to get the same positive impacts) and full of economic distortions, which has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars out of the productive economy and been a significant factor in his being the only administration to never achieve a single year of 3+% GDP growth.
Or when he admits his failure to develop a policy to address the explosion in able-bodied people permanently dropping out of the workforce, food stamp and SSI recipients, and people sleeping in doorways, tents and under bridges (which I believe will be our memory of this sad mini-era).
Or when he admits his key role in making race relations in this country worse, even as his election promised to be a major step forward regarding the same.
Or when he admits his failure to get a handle on the budget deficit, and made no effort to address the enormous actuarial deficits in Social Security and Medicare.
etc., etc., etc.
No, what he'll next apologize for is being too charismatic/messianic in his campaign and creating unrealistic expectations.
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:45 pm
by Crackpot
Lord Jim wrote:
Crackpot wrote:
It doesn't take a whole lot of courage to admit to "error" when it's politically expedient to do so...(ie Slick Hillie, "I was wrong to vote in favor of the war in Iraq")
Tell that to Donald Trump Rick Snyder and a shitload of other politicians in both sides who persue failed policies long after they have been shown to be abject failures by any stretch of the imagination.
Re: Oh, the regrets
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 11:51 pm
by Long Run
And now it is Biden who suffers particularly from foot in mouth disease.
Politics
24 Years Later, Joe Biden’s Words Haunt Democrats
On Washington
By CARL HULSE FEB. 22, 2016
When you are as voluble as Joseph R. Biden Jr. is, you are bound to say more than a few words that come back to haunt you. And some choice ones returned with a vengeance on Monday as the fight over the open Supreme Court seat began in the Senate.
As Democrats prepared to lay into Republicans for vowing to stall any nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, Republicans instead pounded them with remarks that Mr. Biden made as a senator in June 1992. In a Senate floor speech resurfaced by C-Span, he said he would do almost exactly what Democrats are now criticizing Republicans for promising to do — not even hold a nomination hearing if the president put forward a Supreme Court candidate.
Republicans and conservative activists pounced on the gift, enshrining as the new “Biden Rules” his declaration that a hearing in the heat of the “political season” would be too damaging for the nominee, the Senate and the nation. Several elements of the old Biden speech are problematic for Democrats, most notably his position at the time as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, making him the party’s voice on the handling of judicial nominations. The comments are also directly at odds with what President Obama and Mr. Biden, now the vice president, have been saying in demanding fair consideration for any nominee after the death of Justice Scalia on Feb. 13.
On Minnesota Public Radio last week, Mr. Biden said that “to leave the seat vacant at this critical moment in American history is a little bit like saying, ‘God forbid something happen to the president and the vice president, we’re not going to fill the presidency for another year and a half.’ ”
Pushing back against the conservatives, Democrats noted that Mr. Biden had spoken in June 1992, much closer to November, and that year’s presidential election, than now. And his sentiments were hypothetical, since no vacancy occurred in the last months of the first Bush administration. They were also expressed in the aftermath of the brutal nomination fights over Robert H. Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas.
Mr. Biden said in a statement Monday that the intent of his 1992 speech was to urge an end to partisan differences over the court, not to oppose filling vacancies in an election year. * * *
