Obama’s SCOTUS confirmation petard

There’s a lot of hoisting ahead for President Obama, the Senate Democrats, and their media allies when they try to force confirmation of a justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia.  Courtesy of Scott Ott, we have this video of Senator Barack Obama making the point that the Senate should examine more than the intellectual capability and moral character of a nominee.  Examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record – that’s right: philosophy and ideology – is important for the Senate to apply.

Chuck Schumer has already been exposed for his opposition to confirming any Bush nominees to the Supreme Court in the last year of Bush’s term, except under extraordinary circumstances:

And now Jim Geraghty of National Review has dug up the New York Times’ editorial board arguing that when voters hand control of the Senate to an opposition party in a midterm election, they have every right to resist a presidential nomination to SCOTUS.

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

As Geraghty dryly notes, “this is not the same Senate that confirmed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan…”

There’s a lot of hoisting ahead for President Obama, the Senate Democrats, and their media allies when they try to force confirmation of a justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia.  Courtesy of Scott Ott, we have this video of Senator Barack Obama making the point that the Senate should examine more than the intellectual capability and moral character of a nominee.  Examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record – that’s right: philosophy and ideology – is important for the Senate to apply.

Chuck Schumer has already been exposed for his opposition to confirming any Bush nominees to the Supreme Court in the last year of Bush’s term, except under extraordinary circumstances:

And now Jim Geraghty of National Review has dug up the New York Times’ editorial board arguing that when voters hand control of the Senate to an opposition party in a midterm election, they have every right to resist a presidential nomination to SCOTUS.

The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.

As Geraghty dryly notes, “this is not the same Senate that confirmed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan…”