Accuracy in Media

CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer called out the hypocrisy of Democrats who are demanding that Senate Republicans hold hearings and a vote for President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court. It came during an interview with Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz  (D-FL) on Wednesday:

Blitzer: When President Obama was a U.S. Senator, Congresswoman, as you know, back in 2006, he filibustered the nominee Samuel Alito, who’s now the Justice Samuel Alito, something he now says he regrets. And when Vice President Biden was a U.S. Senator back in 1992, he said President Bush, and I’m quoting him now, ‘should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.’

So if it was good for the Democrats then to make these kinds of statements during an election year in the case of Biden, why can’t the Republicans do that now?

Wasserman Schultz: Well, let’s be clear, when Barack Obama was filibustering, he had that opportunity because there was a nominee that was being given a hearing. So, I mean, they have the perfect right to filibuster, to debate it, to do anything they want, while letting the process unfold. But to suggest that they aren’t even to going to grant courtesy meetings to his nominee, to not have hearings, to not take this nominee through the process, vote the President’s nominee down if that’s what they choose to do.

After mentioning that there were some Republicans who thought there should be hearings, Wasserman Schultz then talked about the constitutionality of what Senate Republicans are doing:

For a party that has a whole bunch of Republicans that say that they are strict constructionists—if you strictly read the United States Constitution, it is the president’s role to nominate a justice for an opening on the Supreme Court, and the Senate’s role to advise and consent. It is not in the Constitution to do that when they feel like it, to do it when they want to make sure that their, their, their presidential candidate is able to appoint one. It’s to just do it when there’s an opening.

There are some Republicans—senators facing tough re-election battles in November—who have said they are willing to meet with Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, who was introduced this week as his choice to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. But there is nothing in the advice and consent clause of the Constitution that places a timetable on when the Senate should act on presidential appointments, so they are perfectly within their rights if they choose to take their time on the nomination.

 




Comments

  • John Heizer

    The Senate isn’t “taking their time.” They are flatly REFUSING to do it. There’s an important difference so your statement is highly inaccurate!

  • Help

    Who cares

  • leftistfiltharethecanceronsoci

    Imagine supporting a political party that has that dingbat at the head of the table?

  • larry

    what an ignorant arrogant but-ugly piece of shit (had to spell it out for this duplicitous stool sample)… she can lie, change positions and demonstrate her lack of ethics at the drop of a hat… dems really are going down down for the count if this stupid bitch is the best they can do…

  • AP Besser, Jr.

    Remember the Dem mantra: “Hypocrisy is the Vaseline of social intercourse” Also, Dem obstructionism gave rise to the term being “Borked!” Dems, don’t attempt to take the high road in this conversation…you could not find the high road with GPS!!!

  • Jerry

    She is ignorant I see nothing in advise and consent in meaning confirm one now. It tells me that the Senate can advise the Liar of a President that this is either the time to do it or not the time to do it, and telling the Liar of a President when they will get around to doing it.

  • Ted

    It’s absurd that ANYONE commenting on politics in this country would b*tch about one political party being hypocritical … when ‘hypocrisy’ has seemingly become the byword of EVERY individual politician, regardless of his or her particular political persuasion!

  • sox83cubs84

    Making Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz look stupid and/or hypocritical in an interview is common. What IS surprising is a reporter on normally liberal CNN doing it.

  • Ron

    Listening to DWS speak is truly a surreal experience. I wouldn’t recommend it, however, if you’re prone to migraines.

  • Webuppp

    Yo john, back to the huffingdrugs post for you and the rest of the progressive drones. Always On the wrong side of history must be tuff.

  • Gen11American

    Good for you, Mr. Blitzer! Finally, someone with brains from CNN recognizes the truth and isn’t afraid to reveal it! The hypocrisy of the left is so disgusting, every time one of the Demos comes on, I have to switch to JTV or else I’ll grind my teeth down to nubs or else upset my dog by swearing at the TV! How much more crap do the Demos think the American people are going to take before we shut them down and out of the political system altogether! No one deserves it more than they because they’re degrading and ruining this country, overruning it my illegals, overruning it with muslims who treaten our national security, degrading our youth with legalized drugs in state after state, destroying the credibility of our election system with massive voter fraud, and even allowing foreign dictators to provide large campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton! When did that practice become legalized? If it has been, the laws need to be changed to prevent any foreign influence in our elections, including by the Saudis!

  • Gen11American

    When Obama puts forward an anti-gun, anti-second amendment liberal judge who could overturn the conservative SCOTUS court for 30 years, and did so while Obama is in his last year in office, and is nothing but a lame duck which we cannot wait to be rid of, the Republicans in Congress had BETTER do everything they can to block that nominee, even if it means taking turns pretending to be in session 24/7 from now until the election in November 2016! Obama has done enough damage to this country without adding more!