From Senator Roy Blunt (r):
Senator Roy Blunt @RoyBlunt
The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president. (2/2)
7:39 PM · Feb 13, 2016
….the classic ‘legal’ definition of chutzpah….a person who kills his parents and pleads for the court’s mercy on the ground of being an orphan….
This afternoon, via Twitter, from Mike Pence (r):
Vice President Mike Pence @VP
…Justice Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98-0 and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg received support of 96 Senators. If we lived in a more respectful time, Judge Brett Kavanaugh would be overwhelmingly confirmed by the United States Senate. #ConfirmKavanaugh
3:03 PM – 28 Aug 2018
Some of the responses:
If we lived in a better time, you’d be an anonymous potato farmer.
Actually he would be still be a DJ on a low-powered radio station somewhere in an Indiana cornfield.
If we lived in a more respectful time, all records would be released #WhatAreTheyHiding
#UnindictedCoConspirator doesn’t get to pick his own judge.
Remind us again how many votes Merrick Garland got.
If we lived in a more respectful time, you would not be Vice President.
If we lived in a more respectful time, Judge Merrick Garland would have been overwhelmingly confirmed by the United States Senate instead of being back burnered for months and months by your party. What a hypocrite!
Manafort’s top draft pick.
Сделать Америку великой Снова.
Well blame your boss for not living in respectful times.
Traitor says what?
If the documents had all been released already we’d have no problem beginning hearings. This nominee lied in confirmation hearings held on his appointment to the circuit court. We will not seat a man of no integrity.
Trump once said, “Most people aren’t worthy of respect.” His behavior toward others continues to demonstrate this belief. The lack of respect is coming from the top. If you wanted to live in more respectful times, you shouldn’t have helped him into the WH. #MerrickGarland
If we lived in a more respectful time, your boss would not Tweet hate towards everyone except those who bow at his feet. #YourBossIsUnindictedCriminal #NoKavanaughUntilMuellerIsDone
This is disgusting. If we lived in a more respectful time, the GOP would have given Merrick Garland A HEARING. And in a more respectful time, Trump would not be sitting in the Oval Office, and you, as transition head, would not have ignored bipartisan concerns over traitor Flynn.
what about MERRICK GARLAND? where was the respect owed him? where was his vote?
garland’s not on the record perjuring himself. garland wasn’t working in concert to hide 85% of his records from congress. garland didn’t say that a POTUS couldn’t be indicted.
Um…and Elena Kagan had to show ALL her papers from when she was an advisor the White House. THAT is the holdup over Kavanaugh. Republicans are damming up the flow of those documents that will be incriminating against Kavanaugh. Respect has nothing to do with it; documents do.
What was the final vote for Merrick Garland?
Was the president who nominated them under investigation for committing treason and working with Russia to make himself president?
If we lived in a more respectful time, you wouldn’t be in office. #complicit
Judge Merrick Garland deserved the support of every member of the United States Senate. If we lived in a more respectful time, Garland would have been easily confirmed. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. #ReleaseTheRecords
NOPE Sorry Kremlin Ken. We don’t want a Putin appointed president to decide who sits on our highest court.
How DARE you complain about times not being “respectful”. The man you are enabling and hiding behind is the least respectful and most abusive person in our government, and is the top reason why our country is so divided and disrespectful. Get HIM to change, or stop your whining
Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland.
What was the vote on Merrick Garland, @VP?
“If we lived in a more respectful time…” With all due respect Mr. Vice President, get bent.
Only if we lived in less corrupt days.
have you had your irony surgically removed, or are you just that incapable of understanding it?
You have got to be kidding me. Tell me this is a joke.
Two words: Merrick Garland. Three more: so shut up.
A president under investigation should not pick his judge. #NoHearings
If we lived in a more respectful times, Merrick Garland would be a Supreme Court Justice, actual Nazis wouldn’t be running for public office, and Donald Trump wouldn’t be either a celebrity or a president.
Yep. Justice Merrick Garland fully agrees.
The ABSURD posturing around blocking Merrick Garland’s nomination and refusing to even let a vote happen has left your party with ZERO moral high ground to complain about lack of cooperation with Supreme Court nominations, you jackass
Not forgetting the confirmation vote for Merrick Garland, you pompous, purpose-less poser.
The hypocrisy runs deep in this one.
Merrick Effing Garland you putz
You set the standard.
Now live with it.
The difference is Scalia and RGB we’re appointed by a democratically elected administration. #NoNewAppointments
You’re a stooge, a crook and a flunky, Pence. Everybody knows it, even those who pretend otherwise to your face.
It goes on and on.
Mike Pence (r) is a putz. And probably the only reason why Donald Trump (r) won’t be impeached, convicted, and removed from office.
Oh, wait, that was for Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee for the vacancy on the court. The republicans obstructed his nomination for 293 days, never giving his nomination a hearing or a vote.
Senator Roy Blunt (r) didn’t seem to suffer any consequences for obstructing the will of the people, did he?
Are you listening, Claire?
Chutzpah, too, considering Roy Blunt’s (r) active obstruction of the nomination process for Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Twitter yesterday, from Senator Roy Blunt (r), taking cluelessness on social media to a whole ‘nother level:
Senator Roy Blunt @RoyBlunt
Needless delay in confirming 8th Circuit Court nominee is bad for #MO. Time to vote on Justice Stras’ nomination
2:55 PM – 2 Nov 2017
Some of the responses:
And don’t pretend to give a damn about Missourians. You’ve been bought and paid for.
If the 8th circuit position was vacant for 4 years it still wouldn’t make up for the shenanigans you pulled with Merrick Garland.
You need to research & check with your constituents. How about a #TownHall to discuss him.
Needless delay in confirming Supreme Court nominee is bad for MO. Time to vote on Judge Garland’s nomination.
Merrick Garland sound familiar to you? We will not forget.
There’s an election going on right now. We don’t confirm judges in election years, Roy.
Weird. You weren’t this enthusiastic about filling vacancies from 2010-2016. It’s like this isn’t a good faith argument…
Needless delay in even interviewing Merrick Garland made you look like what you are..a partisan hack who cares NOTHING about MO
You held up Merrick Garland for a year, you perjury supporting hypocrite
You unconstitutionally blocked the most qualified SCotUS nom in modern history for no reason. You have no moral high ground here.
Roy Blunt (r) thinks the peeple of misoori our stoopit.
Missouri’s biggest problem is that her Republican politicians burn red hot while the Democrats run lukewarm at best. That contrast is on full display as the zero hour for Judge Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed approaches and our Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill has to make up her mind about whether or not she is willing to reward Republicans for stealing a Supreme Court seat from a first-rate centrist and giving it to a die-hard radical ideologue with an instinct for affable obfuscation.
And make no mistake, Gorsuch is a rightwing advocate in originalist clothing. Analysis of his votes on the 10th circuit indicate that he “is to the right of both Alito and Thomas, and by a substantial margin.” His tenure will be a disaster for working people, the middle class, women and those interested in separation of church and state.
But his views, although important, are not the main issue. The other Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland is. As Gary Legum asserts in an article in Salon, the Republicans’ exercise of raw power to deny Judge Garland a seat on the court and what it presages for democratic government is the challenge that Democrats are facing:
This is not about grabbing back a “stolen” Supreme Court seat. This is about a principle of republican government that the GOP has smashed. Had the party considered Garland’s nomination and then shot him down in a fair and open vote, Democrats would have no argument here. But the unprecedented obstructionism of the Republican Party makes Gorsuch’s confirmation a proxy in a larger fight that is about the nature of political power, not ideology. And the language of power is the only one the modern Republican Party seems to understand.
Sadly, it doesn’t look like Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill is up to dealing with folks who speak that language. As I write this, she’s coyly flirting with both conservatives and progressives. According to Politico , the lady won’t commit. There are rumors that some centrist Democrats are trying to broker a deal that would let them confirm Gorsuch in return for a few scraps from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Whether or not McCaskill is part of that group – who knows? When it comes to Gorsuch, maybe she will or maybe she won’t, she’s not saying.
McCaskill has, of course, been subjected to enormous pressure to give Donald Trump a victory, and she’s not blind to the fact that Missouri went overwhelmingly for Trump – a fact that Missouri’s GOP waves around like a cudgel. As State Rep. Paul Curtman, one-time* Tea Partier extraordinaire, proclaimed, “Sen. McCaskill can show Missourians she understands the message Missouri voters sent last November by voting to confirm Judge Gorsuch.”
Maybe. Though McCaskill might do better to consider those of us who rejected that message. As well as the fact that we may be joined by more than a few disillusioned Trump voters. Along with some of those who sat out the election to protest the picture of Hillary Clinton painted by Russian provocateurs. Lots of those folks realized what they’d done on Nov. 9. Buyers remorse is a real thing.
One thing’s for sure. No one who voted for Paul Curtman will ever vote for Claire McCaskill. And if she votes to send Gorsuch along his merry, aw-shucks way to the Supreme Court, lots of folks who voted for Hillary Clinton might be of a similar mind.
The real shame, though, is that I’m obliged to cast this issue in terms of realpolitik when it’s the moral dimension that is compelling. Missouri blogger Duane Graham makes the case for what this nomination means for those of us who depend on McCaskill to stand up for our values:
In any case, what we need now is a fierce stubbornness in this fight. But we also need a fierce patience to compliment that stubbornness. John Dryden said, “Beware the fury of a patient man.” Kierkegaard said, “Patience is necessary, and one cannot reap immediately where one has sown.” Today we filibuster an injustice. Tomorrow the filibuster may be gone. And some fine day in the future we will decide, with a simple majority, who sits on the Court.
Or, maybe, just maybe, Mitch McConnell will not want what’s left of his reputation to die on a hill with Tr-mp’s tattered and tainted flag planted on it. Maybe he will keep the filibuster, Gorsuch will go back to the Tenth Circuit, and we will have a more moderate, less Scalia-like nominee. We will never know, though, unless Democrats stand up and fight like hell. …
Why doesn’t McCaskill understand that lukewarm won’t do it this time?
*I say “one-time Tea-Partier” because I’m not sure the Tea Party is a thing anymore. Doesn’t tbe fringe of the fringe now label themselves differently? A little embarrassed because of past excesses perhaps?
Uh, Merrick Garland?
Today on Senator Claire McCaskill’s (D) Facebook page:
Last April, Claire met with President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Chief Judge Merrick Garland, after strongly urging her Republican colleagues to do their job and consider the President’s nominee. Today, in that same spirit, she met with President Donald J. Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.
As a former Jackson County prosecutor, Claire sat down with Judge Gorsuch to hear from him on his record and views. “I was glad for the opportunity to sit down with Judge Gorsuch,” said Claire. “I’m looking forward to seeing his confirmation hearing.”
In case you haven’t noticed yet, Claire, they’ve already lit their torches.
A message for Claire McCaskill (February 1, 2017)
How about a primary challenge? Jason Kander v. Claire McCaskill? (February 6, 2017)
Oh, please let it be so. I know that we’re all at the mercy of bought-and-sold politicians everyday, but GOP Senator Roy Blunt has so little respect for the people who vote for him, that he doesn’t even try to hide the sold sign. What it would it be like to have a Senator who worked for us and not for Montsanto-AT&T-Exon-etc.? At least ostensibly.
For that matter, if we (the people) manage to get Hillary Clinton (the assured candidate, I am assured by all) into the White House, she’ll need a few more Democrats in Congress and those in the know say that the Senate is the place where it can happen – only five Senate seats need to be flipped. (I know – Clinton could use lots more Democrats in the House as well, but that’s likely a fever dream.) And best of all would be if one of the Democratic Senate upgrades could be Jason Kander, Roy Blunt’s challenger. I’ll be more than happy to see ol’ Roy to slink off to lobbyist paradise to reap the rewards for his untiring efforts on behalf of his heretofore unofficial clients.
So it is with real delight that I read this little NPR snippet from an article which identifies the nine most vulnerable senators. And number eight is:
8. Missouri (R-Blunt): This contest in the Show Me State might be the dark-horse contest to watch. Democrats got one of their best recruits this cycle when Secretary of State Jason Kander jumped in the race. Even Republicans privately admit that the 34-year-old Afghanistan veteran worries them running against Sen. Roy Blunt, whom Democrats are eager to paint as too much of a Washington insider. If Missouri comes in play in the presidential race, this one could quickly give Republicans a huge headache.
Our job, it is clear, is to do whatever necessary to help move ol’ Roy even higher on the list. And to help us, we have Roy Blunt himself who is steadfastly refusing to do his constitutionally mandated job and meet with, fairly consider, and vote on Supreme Court Nominee Judge Merrick Garland. Republican truculence over the Supreme Court is not going unnoticed and, since over 60% of Americans disapprove GOP of obstruction on this matter, attracts unwelcome attention to already vulnerable pols:
Obama appeared on several local TV stations Monday afternoon making the case for Garland. No surprise, they were in markets with vulnerable Senate Republicans who Democrats are trying to pressure to move on the nomination — or pay a steep electoral price. […] Obama also sat with stations in Phoenix; Manchester, New Hampshire; Cincinnati; Kansas City, Missouri; and Des Moines, Iowa. [Bolding added]
There’ll be lots of corporate money in the mix this year, and we know that Blunt’s client base will probably put up to keep Blunt up, but now that he’s been identified as a weak link, the pressure to topple him will also escalate. And what a lovely sight Humpty Dumpty’s fall would be.
President Obama’s weekly address:
The White House transcript:
Remarks of President Barack Obama as Delivered
The White House
March 19, 2016
Hi, everybody. One of the most consequential responsibilities our Constitution grants a President is appointing a Supreme Court Justice. The men and women who sit on the Supreme Court safeguard our rights. They ensure that ours is a system of laws, not of men. And they’re given the essential task of applying the principles written into our founding documents to the most challenging questions of today.
So this is a duty I take very seriously. It requires me to set aside short-term politics in order to maintain faith with our founders. And on Wednesday, after weeks of consultations with Republicans, Democrats, and leaders across the country, I selected a nominee whose unmatched experience and integrity have earned him the respect and admiration of both parties – Chief Judge Merrick Garland.
Judge Garland grew up in my hometown of Chicago, with parents who taught him to work hard and deal fairly. As a young lawyer, he left a lucrative private firm to work for half as much in public service. Eventually, he oversaw the federal response to the Oklahoma City bombing, working side-by-side with first responders, victims, and their families to bring justice for an unspeakable crime. And everywhere he went during that investigation, he carried with him in his briefcase the program from the memorial service with each of the victims’ names inside.
For the last 19 years, Judge Garland has served on what’s known as “the second highest court in the land” – the D.C. Circuit Court – including the last three years as Chief Judge. On the bench, he’s shown a dedication to protecting our basic rights. A conviction that powerful voices must not be allowed to drown out those of everyday Americans. An understanding that justice isn’t simply abstract legal theory; it affects people’s daily lives. And a spirit of decency, modesty, and even-handedness in his work. Judge Garland is admired for his courtesy, his devotion to family, and his civic-mindedness – for the past 18 years, he’s served as a tutor for young students at a local D.C. elementary school.
During my time as President, through three separate Supreme Court appointments, in conversations with Republicans and Democrats alike, one name came up more than any other – Merrick Garland.
I understand that we’re in the middle of an especially noisy and volatile political season. But at a time when our politics are so polarized; when norms and customs of our political rhetoric seem to be corroding – this is precisely the time we should treat the appointment of a Supreme Court justice with the seriousness it deserves. Because our Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics, not an extension of politics. And it should stay that way.
So I ask Republicans in the Senate to give Judge Garland the respect he has earned. Give him a hearing. Give him an up-or-down vote. To deny it would be an abdication of the Senate’s Constitutional duty. It would indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. It would make it increasingly impossible for any President, Republican or Democrat, to carry out their Constitutional function. To go down that path would jeopardize our system of justice, it would hurt our democracy, and betray the vision of our founding.
I fulfilled my Constitutional duty. Now it’s time for Senators to do theirs. I hope that they take the time to reflect on the importance of this process to our country. I hope that they’ll act fairly. And I hope they’ll work in a bipartisan fashion to confirm Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. That’s how we can uphold our pledge to liberty and justice for all – for our time and for generations to come.
Thanks everybody. Have a good weekend.
“…I fulfilled my Constitutional duty. Now it’s time for Senators to do theirs…”
We’re not entirely convinced that Senator Roy Blunt (r) is listening.
Originalism in a time of argle-bargle (February 14, 2016)
Jason Kander (D): the Supreme Court and Roy Blunt (r) (February 15, 2016)
Sen. Roy Blunt (r): can’t be bothered to even attempt to appear to do his job (February 23, 2016)
Jason Kander (D) to Roy Blunt (r): #DoYourJob (February 25, 2016)
Tell Roy Blunt to do his job (March 4, 2016)
Sen. Roy Blunt (r) won’t do his job and the sun also rises (March 17, 2016)