Comment And Response To "The Definition Of Stupid"

Every so often, someone leaves a comment using the link provided at the bottom of each post.  And occasionally a comment is worthy of a response.

In my "Definition Of Stupid" post of 2/22/16, I criticized Republicans for again threatening obstruction, this time over President Obama's eventual nominee to fill the current Supreme Court vacancy.  Senate Republican refuse-niks have told Obama not to even bother picking a person, because they will deny that person a hearing, but even with a hearing, they'd all automatically vote against confirmation.  Because . . . Obama.

I and a great many others called bullshit on their claims that waiting for the next president to take office is standard procedure in such cases and the way things have always been done.  Some conservatives hopped on a video snippet from an old Joe Biden speech as proof-positive of some age-old precedent.  My commenter Mr./Mrs. Anonymous was among this group:
______________________________________________

AnonymousFebruary 23, 2016 at 5:38 AM

“The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling hearings on the nomination, until after the political campaign season is over,” Biden said in a floor address on June 25, 1992, about reforming the Supreme Court confirmation process.

He said the cost of keeping the court split 4-4 would be "quite minor" compared to the "bitter fight" that would ensue if the president tried pushing through a nominee.

_____________________________________________

Beware the two-sentence quote from a ninety-minute speech given 24 years ago!

Biden was speaking in the aftermath of the contentious Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings (a total circus if you're old enough to recall).  In June of 1992, there was no vacancy on the Court, no nominee in waiting.  Biden was speaking hypothetically of the entire confirmation process itself.  He did not urge his colleagues to categorically deny a nominee a hearing as today's Republicans are;  instead he was complaining about the politicization of the process, and asking for more executive-legislative teamwork in making Court selections.

He made the statement quoted above by Mr./Mrs. Anonymous in the context of some future president picking justices without any Senate consideration or cooperation.  And then, Biden said this: 

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course, both for the white House and the Senate.  Therefore I stand by my position.  If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate, or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."

And yesterday, Joe Biden released this statement:

"Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court.  Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year.  This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject.  Indeed, as I conclude in the same statement critics are pointing to today, I urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended.  That remains my position today."

Biden was not calling for spiteful, partisan delay and obstruction.  There is no precedent for eleven months of inaction just because the Senate majority dislikes the duly elected President.

Joe is charmingly idealistic in his wish for us to all just get along.  It would be lovely, but it ain't gonna happen.  Everything is politicized and polarized to the max, and there's no going back.

Republicans do not give a shit about the cost of any "bitter fight," and have specialized in perpetually stalling Obama's nominees, judicial and other.  They see no reason to treat a Supreme Court vacancy any differently.  But it is different.  This is not an obscure District Court in Idaho, it's the SCOTUS!  Obama will choose a nominee, and it will be a good one.  And yes, it is an election year, not only for President but for a lot of sitting Republican Senators as well.  Everyone will be watching.

If the Republicans make a mockery of it, if they again blockade and obstruct at every turn, if they refuse to give the nominee a hearing, or if it's just a joke hearing with a quick party-line "no" vote, they will again look BAD -- the return of the shut-down geniuses!  They will pay a price at the polls.
   
Even if they succeed in running out the clock on Obama, what if Hillary wins the White House?  What then?  Ignoring the vacancy will not fill it.  Might as well deal with it now, because the issue is not like wine -- it will not get better with age.