So, Senate Democrat Minority Leader Harry Reid was in Nevada suggesting that Republicans will "cave" on Obama's request for a hearing and a vote for a Supreme Court nominee. Reid added " I think they’re going to have to hold hearings and have a vote."
This is the same Reid, who said this regarding Bush judicial appointments in May 2005:
REID: “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.”After blocking Bush nominees for years Reid changed Senate rules to make it easier to confirm Obama judicial appointments. Expect Democrats to change the rules back if a Republican wins the White House this November.
And let's not leave Vice President Joe Biden out of this. In 1992 he was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the same body where Democrats are now pressuring Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley to allow hearings. Here's what Joe said:
Biden is now shocked that Republican would even think of doing the same thing that he openly suggested 24 years earlier. In a recent interview he said "They've never done this before." No, Republicans haven't but Democrats have done so repeatedly! Last week I posted other examples of the two faces Democrats wear regarding judicial nominations. They're all for process and fairness when a Democrat is in the White House and anything goes to stop a Republican nominee.BIDEN: It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or in 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 Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.
And for all the boo-hooing about demanding a hearing, This editorial from The Wall Street Journal is yet another reminder of what Democrat obstruction led to.
When Democrats ran the Senate from June 2001 to January 2003, they denied even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee to 32 of Mr. Bush’s nominees. When Republicans regained a 51-49 majority in the next Congress, Democrats broke the then-longstanding Senate norm of granting nominees an up-or-down vote. Before 2003, only one judicial nominee had been blocked with a filibuster, and that was the bipartisan 1968 rebellion against promoting the ethically challenged Justice Abe Fortas to Chief Justice.Not only did Democrats block qualified minority applicants, their henchmen went out of their way to smear them in the most racially derogatory terms. Janice Rogers Brown was a particular target perhaps because of her strong views on the dangerous path socialism and collectivism can lead to.
Democrats applied the higher 60-vote standard to a rainbow coalition of Bush nominees, judging them not by traditional measures like experience or temperament or even “diversity.” They simply didn’t like their politics.
The targets included Priscilla Owen (a woman), Janice Rogers Brown (a black woman) and Miguel Estrada (a Hispanic). The 28-month Estrada filibuster was especially egregious because Democrats feared the smart young attorney’s ethnic background might make him formidable Supreme Court material if he served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Warning GOP: Don't Get Conned Into Holding Hearings
There will be great pressure directed towards Senator Grassley to hold hearings on Obama's eventual nominee. What can be the harm in that, right? Get real! The hearings will turn into a circus and if Republicans do vote against the nominee then Obama will just send up another one and the whole show starts again. Better to block all hearings and wear the obstructionist label like a badge of honor then get sucked into the Democrat media circus that's just waiting to launch.
GOP voters throughout the early primary process have made their extreme displeasure with the GOP leadership's unwillingness to fight harder on their behalf very clear. If GOP leaders buckle now, it could very well mean big loses for Senate seats in November with voters staying home!
UPDATE: GOP showing spine! Judiciary Chairman Grassley says committee will follow "Biden rules" and NOT hold hearings in election year. Grassley's statement, read on the floor of the U.S. Senate, lays out comprehensive Biden approach and notes his agreement. You have to read it for yourself!
GRASSLEY: These are the Biden Rules.Republicans who have the majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee have concurred. In a letter signed by all GOP members of that committee they declare that "this committee will not hold hearings on any new Supreme Court nominee until after our next President has been sworn in."
The Biden Rules recognize “the framers intended the Senate to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility.”
The Biden Rules recognize the wisdom of those presidents – including another lawyer and former state lawmaker from Illinois -- who exercised restraint by not submitting a Supreme Court nomination before The People had spoken.
The Biden Rules recognize the court can operate smoothly with eight members for some time, and “the cost of such a result, the need to re-argue 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 assuredly would be a bitter fight.”
The Biden Rules recognize that under these circumstances, “[the President] should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”
The Biden Rules recognize that under these circumstances, “[It does not] matter how good a person is nominated by the President.”
The Biden Rules recognize that “once the political season is under way … 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.”
The Biden Rules recognize that “Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.”
The Biden Rules recognize that under these circumstances, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke on the Senate Floor on Tuesday and reaffirmed Grassley's support for Biden Rules. No hearings on any Supreme Court nomination until after the election is over.