Hillary Clinton Calls Mitch McConnell’s Stance on Supreme Court Nomination ‘Disappointing’

[brooklynite]

Source: The New York Times

Hillary Clinton called Senator Mitch McConnell’s statement that the next president, not President Obama, should appoint a successor to Justice Scalia “disappointing” and “totally out of step with our history and our constitutional principle.”

Speaking at a Democratic fund-raising dinner in Denver, Mrs. Clinton denounced Republican presidential candidates and the Senate majority leader’s pledge to not allow Mr. Obama to replace Mr. Scalia, who passed away at a West Texas ranch on Saturday. “For any of us who needed a reminder of just how important it is to take back the U.S. Senate and hold onto the White House, just look at the Supreme Court,” Mrs. Clinton said.

“I know that our thoughts and prayers are with the Scalia family tonight and I am also thinking and praying for the future of our country,” she said. “It is outrageous that Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail have already pledged to block any replacement that President Obama nominates”

“Barack Obama is the president of the United States until Jan. 20, 2017,” she continued. “That is a fact, my friends, whether Republicans like it or not.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/13/hillary-clinton-calls-mitch-mcconnells-stance-on-supreme-court-nomination-disappointing/

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Lest we forget her and Mitch Voted together when it counted most .

[brooklynite]

2. You were opposed to John Kerry equally?

[LuvLoogie]

4. I think DU might have tape worms...

[orpupilofnature57]

17. Not equally, But Eventually .

[stonecutter357]

5. Bernie is a pacifist ?

[George II]

12. I believe Sanders voted for more bills to fund the MIC than Clinton did.

[orpupilofnature57]

18. No, and he's not a War -Monger like the former Secretary

[George II]

11. Since you "went there", Lest we forget Sanders and Mitch Voted together more times than Clinton did!

[orpupilofnature57]

16. NOT on Iraq & The BAIL-OUT !!! Or let me repeat " When it counted " .

[justiceischeap]

34. So all those other votes didn't really count or stand for anything

Got it.

[orpupilofnature57]

39. I doubt it, But Yes they ALL count, When were Mitch &Hillary together ? Calling Edward Snowden a

traitor, of course she " Reevaluated " that in the first debate, after Bernie said he was a person who informed US what our government was spying on, Hillary was a part of that .

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Disappointing? That's a little tepid.

How about "outrageous".

[olddad56]

49. it is called political savey. Of course it was outrageous, but she chose her words wisely.

[90-percent]

6. oh oh oh I GOT THIS!

"Now Mitch! CUT IT OUT!"



-90% Jimmy

[SoLeftIAmRight]

10. yep - that should do it!

Like it did with Wall st.

[stonecutter357]

7. K&R!

[houston16revival]

8. She's walking a fine line here

being reasonable and statesmanlike

without being (as) partisan as McConnell and the Republicans

She's quoted elsewhere as saying it 'dishonors' our Constitution

Good choice - Republicans cannot be allowed to honor
President's Day by trampling on President Obama's Constitutional rights
and obligations.

[riversedge]

22. :-) Well said.

[NCjack]

9. I think Hillary is being appropriately loyal to Pres. Obama. The Repugs are rolling the dice

on the come that they can nominate an establishment presidential candidate at their convention AND win the presidential 2016 instead of taking a centrist (or cloaked rightist) put forth by Pres. Obama. So, I believe that the replacement will drag on to the next president.

Likely either Hillary or Bernie will make the appointment to replace Justice Scalia.

[DFW]

13. She should just send McTurtle this brief message:

[lark]

14. All Dems should vote no on every single bill the repugs put forward

until and up or down vote is allowed for SCOTUS. Only vote on important things to the country like raising the debt, otherwise don't offer amendments, don't play, just vote NO on every single bill McConnell brings to the floor. Hoping Obama can make recess appointments for SCOTUS like he can with other courts. Does anyone know if he can legally do that?

[William Seger]

28. He might if there was a 10-day recess, but there won't be

The Republicans can simply schedule pro forma sessions during the breaks.

[lark]

46. Hopefully, Obama won't have to do this.

But I'd certainly not bet on that. Also, Repugs are really lazy so hopefully won't be able to bring this off because no one shows up. Another also, Obama might nominate a moderate that was appointed to the appeals court with no dissents at all. That would be difficult for the Repugs to parlay into no vote.

[George II]

15. McConnell is one HUGE reason why Clinton needs to get the nomination and the Presidency.

[orpupilofnature57]

20. Not.

[whereisjustice]

21. Why? So she can mildly scold them for their tryanous behavior in couched language that ensures

Wall Street keeps pumping money into her bank accounts?

[JudyM]

30. Why her more so than Sanders?

He has far more experience getting things through our divided, partisan senate.

[George II]

31. Actually he doesn't, but aside from that, 39 Democratic Senators have endorsed Clinton, none....

....have endorsed Sanders. That is a good indication of which of the two candidates would be more effective with the Senate as President.

I certainly hope no one chimes in with the predictable "of course, they're the establishment like she is".

[JudyM]

40. Not so fast, on both of your points!

Sanders has been far more effective, he's been nicknamed the "Amendment King" because he gets so many of his ideas through the divided congress. Recent example is working with rethugs to get major funding for community clinics into ACA. Match up what they've accomplished in just the time she was in the senate. You will see.

As to your other point, endorsing her over him doesn't mean these Dems won't support his initiatives if he wins the White House! They're not rethugs. OTOH, sanders is trusted and respected on both sides of the aisle (there have been a number of articles including interviews if you care to google) and has worked side by side collaboratively hammering out compromises for *years* with them. He has far more experience and success than Hillary in working within the system. Why do you think he's been reelected for so many years by wide margins? Hillary is a lightning rod that rethugs will salivate to obstruct and then proudly wave that flag in front of constituents and donors.

Hopefully you are willing to think about this side of the coin.

[George II]

41. I think you should look further into his record in Congress and the level of respect he has....

....with his peers.

I can't get into it here because I'd risk an immediate hide, but his reputation precedes him.

[JudyM]

42. I have read about it. Certainly he has opinions that are far left of most, but everything I've read

is otherwise positive. Actual interviews, etc. Have you been lingering on anti-sanders propaganda sites?

[George II]

43. No, insulting that you even say that. And I've seen actual interviews too.

[JudyM]

44. It was just a tease, since there's plenty of pro-Clinton, anti-sanders propaganda out there.

Some of it even purports to have photographic evidence

[George II]

45. By the way, in his career in Congress (House and Senate), do you know how many....

....pieces of legislation Sanders wrote and got passed?

[JudyM]

53. I don't, but i imagine not a lot because his process is to work through amendments to bills

that are otherwise popular enough to stand a shot at passing. Congress doesn't like regulating itself or its keppers, after all. I'll look at any links you might want to provide... It's not as if I'm not interested in opposing info.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. "Dis-appointing" is exactly what he's intending.....

Maybe she should make an appointment about appointing.

[Gothmog]

23. McConnell is an idiot

McConnell may help the Democrats take back control of the Senate

[randys1]

27. As is Grassley, and I mean actual, literal idiots. These men are the least

that any nation has to offer for service.

That is why they are where they are, the dumber they are the easier to control.

[randome]

24. Why do they keep dispensing mild umbrage like this?

Why not call them out for their laziness? Their inability to actually work for a living? 'Disappointing'? They're not doing what they were hired to do!!!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[justiceischeap]

35. Because if HRC uses strong language, then she becomes the "b*tch" candidate

Women can't talk any old way, you know. If we do, then we're b*tches, or we're emotional, or unstable or we're ball busters... on and on and on.

Plus when the clown car is all but imploding, it's a matter of perception... if she goes "off the script" so to speak, then she's no better than the Republicans (and many Sanders' supporters say that on daily basis, so why add fodder to that argument?).

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

48. Seems like a weakness. Are you really saying women will cower down to men just

because they might call them a name? None of the women I know would be that timid.

[justiceischeap]

51. It is a weakness but it isn't hers, it's society's

None of the women you know, I'm assuming anyway, are running for national public office.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

52. That is correct.

Have a nice evening!

[RoccoR5955]

25. Disappointing?

That is an understatement! Why is it not an outrage? Talk about lack of enthusiasm.
If she thinks that this is a disappointment, I wonder how she would feel if her platform items were not worked on during her term? Would they be a minor thing, just as this seems to be?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. "Disappointing"? What's wrong with "outrageous"?

Call it like it is, Hillary.

[LuvLoogie]

29. Senator Sanders "I strongly disagree" with McConnell. Where is the "Outrage!?"

Can we stipulate that serious candidates for President avoid the hyperbole of their partisans?

“It appears that some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate have a very interesting view of our Constitution of the United States,” Mr. Sanders said. “Apparently, they believe that the Constitution does not allow a Democratic president to bring forth a nominee to replace Justice Scalia. I strongly disagree with that.” (Several Republican candidates said President Obama should let the next president choose the justice or urged the Senate to block the nomination.)

“I very much hope that President Obama will bring forth a strong nominee and that we can get that nominee confirmed as soon as possible,” Mr. Sanders said. “The Supreme Court of the United States has nine members, not eight. We need that ninth member.”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/14/bernie-sanders-says-obama-should-be-allowed-to-nominate-supreme-court-justice/?_r=0

[BlueMTexpat]

32. Good point! eom

[justiceischeap]

36. Well, at least he said he disagreed.

You just know HRC totally agrees with McConnell because she didn't say otherwise--she's just pandering with her "disappointment." She's HRC... the devil incarnate, as bad as Rubio, Trump and Cruz all rolled into one. Evil, evil Hillary!

[LuvLoogie]

37. She is Hillary Lannister, complicit in the popping of balloons and other skullduggery.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

54. Yeah, but when he wags his finger you know he means it! n/m

[tclambert]

33. Whoa, Hillary, such fiery language! You sure you wanna take such a strong position?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. "Disappointing" is a denunciation?

That's kindergarten teacher talk. Why not just say "inappropriate" if you're going that route?

Now if she said,"Pig-headed and petty," THAT would be a denunciation.

[24601]

47. Why would she say something that could antagonize the next Democratic Leader in the US Senate?

Because Chuck Schumer made the same declaration on 27 July 2007, when Bush had about 18 months left in his 2nd term.

Here's the link to the DU thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1456104

There was no outrage on DU, other than anger that Sen Schumer had not do so sooner.

That's why I don't get excited when Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats play the same old games with each other.

And there are some that will be outraged at the idea of filibustering a nomination President Obama makes to the court.

Except that it was fine when Senator Obama voted to Filibuster Bush's nominee Alito. The only outrage on DU was with Democratic Senators, like Minority Leader Reid, for not supporting the filibuster.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x66732

Hillary voted for the war because she triangulated that she needed to support it to keep a presidential bid viable. Any doubt in anybody's mind that all of her votes are calculated precisely along those lines?

Move along citizens, nothing going on here that resembles statesmanship, just more politics as usual.

[hollowdweller]

50. I see this as a HUGE loser issue for the GOP

I just can't see their strategy being a good one.

I mean I understand, it hurt me when Thomas filled Marshall's seat but that was how it was. Everybody would have though that the Dems were crazy to try to hold it open, so even though people are used to GOP crazy more now it just highlights that they are unable to govern and if Hillary wins I would expect her to pound them on it during the election.

I think the even split favors us most of the time.

I also think maybe better than average chance for the dems to take back the senate. So they could have some very moderate candidate Obama puts forth or maybe put it off and Hillary or Sanders puts in somebody stronger. How would they like it if Hillary put Obama in there and the dem senate shot it right thru??