“If I were a Republican — whether the Majority Leader all the way down to the county clerk — and every nominee I would say no hearings. No votes. Lame ducks don’t make lifetime appointments. There is no precedent. And I will simply add, the base will not forgive anyone. Senators will lose their jobs if they block the blockade. There should be an absolute blockade on this.”
(H/T: Hugh Hewitt via Instapundit)
Remember, Kelly Ayotte is in favor of abdicating her legislative power by showing approval for Obama’s EPA and its Clean Power Plan – a clear crossing of the separation of powers as the Executive branch is simply legislating what it will execute – no Senate need apply. So the question will be is how she will react to the death of Justice Scalia. Thus, I find this troubling:
Ayotte opposed the confirmation of Justice Elena Kagan, stating that Kagan was unqualified. Ayotte said that she probably would have voted in favor of confirming Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
So, can we Trust her voting here? Certainly no one can say that Sotomayor is an Originalist in interpreting the US Constitution, being a wiseLatina and all (Sotomayor’s phrase). I am quite leery – I just on’t know how she will vote on whether or not she would judge only on “legal qualifications” or whether ideology would have any part. Frankly, I’m thinking that almost anyone who has been nominated, with the exception of Harriet Meirs, should be qualified legally. But as we have seen lately, the Court is certainly polarized politically as well. No, not always on Repub vs Dem but in how the Constitution: Originalist meaning vs Living document. One is absolutist, trying to ferret out what the Framers actually meant at the time while the Livingsters are almost of the notion of “here’s my desired outcome so how do I make that fit”?
Who are the most likely republicans to defect? I’ve drawn up a short list of republicans who have developed relatively moderate reputations since 2010:
-
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) was elected in 2010. Ayotte is up for re-election this year, but she’s running in the state of New Hampshire, which has been blue in presidential elections since 2000. That said, she overcame a contentious primary in 2010 against a Tea Party rival, and may be unwilling to risk another challenge.
Then the political question becomes, with 46 Democrats (including independents Bernie Sanders and Angus King), is there any remote way to get 14 Republicans to sign on to a justice who might vote to overturn Citizens United, restore the Voting Rights Act, supportRoe v. Wade, support public-employee unions in the Friedrichs case, and the many other matters on which the conservative majority has in essence been 5-4 for all these years?
Fourteen is a big number. The election factors into this. There are some Republican senators from purple or blue states who might be hurt in their re-election bids by balls-to-the-wall obstruction. But there aren’t 14. There are four. Rob Portman of Ohio, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
And let’s not forget her populating the lower courts from which most nominees will be plucked – Kelly Ayotte was in favor of this judge that is not in favor of private property rights:
And what does now US District Court Judge, thanks to Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Wilhelmina Marie Wright hold on the Right to Personal Property? Right out of the Critical Race Theory (that EVERYTHING, knowable and unknowable, always proves racism):
The practice of American racism is based on two principles: the sanctity of property and the belief in the hierarchy of races. The first of these principles is firmly protected by the words and action of the Constitution; the second is proscribed by the words of the instrument, but not by its effect. History shows that when these two principles are juxtaposed (which happens constantly), property rights are given absolute priority.
To be fair, I did go to her website and saw that she has put TWO entries in about this (different titles, same text):
“We’re in the midst of a consequential presidential election year, and Americans deserve an opportunity to weigh in given the significant implications this nomination could have for the Supreme Court and our country for decades to come. I believe the Senate should not move forward with the confirmation process until the American people have spoken by electing a new president.”
We’ve seen the “evolving Kelly” before – I’m not holding my breath. Let’s just say that I am sufficiently cynical to hold the thoughts that perhaps, JUST perhaps, this might depend on how her scramble to keep her seat away from Maggie “The Red” Hassan is going. For the naysayers out there coming my way that I am so terrible about even thinking about this, I have just a one word answer for you: Amnesty.
Hugh also had this, on all these Democrats yelping about that the Congress MUST take up any nominee that Obama puts up and HOW DARE the Republicans block a President’s nomination:
Furthermore, he criticized Sen. Patrick Leahy , who earlier in the program claimed any act to block a nomination would ignore the Constitution. “Patrick Leahy who was on here just earlier voted 27 times to block a vote to a Republican nominee between 2001-2003. Patrick Leahy created the conditions that he was decrying.”
Yeah, that whole Democrat spiel that dissent is the highest form of patriotism – until they say it isn’t anymore schtick
