Yesterday, this blog addressed Hillary Clinton’s take on Citizens United and its impact on election law. As a lawyer, most would believe that Hillary Clinton would be aware that partisan politics have no place on the Supreme Court. Yet her hypocrisy on this issue is more clearly evident than it is with President Obama, or Sen. Sanders. At least Obama addressed his attempt to stall a SCOTUS nomination.
As has been the case with so many Hillary “issues,” she failed to mention her attempt to block the nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to the Supreme Court. The Washington Times published an article in which Sen. Chuck Grassley pointed out the absurdity of the timing and likely reasons for her focus:
Mr. Grassley, in a statement Monday, said Mrs. Clinton’s attack on him was a campaign ploy to try to divert attention away from her secret email account during her four years as secretary of state. Both Mr. Grassley and Mr. Johnson have been investigating her emails.
Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short said Mrs. Clinton’s attacks were odd because she herself took part in filibustering President George W. Bush’s judicial picks, including an attempted blockade on Samuel A. Alito Jr.
“The only reason Hillary Clinton is calling on Republicans to breach decades of bipartisan precedent of not confirming election-year Supreme Court nominees is so she could have a liberal majority on the court to help her carry on President Obama’s legacy of executive overreach if elected.”
It is not uncommon for Clinton to flip-flop when the timing benefits her political ambitions as evidenced by Michael Short’s comment above. Said another way, for Hillary, the “Biden rule” only applies when there is a Republican President. Many look at this for what it is; an attempt to shift the public’s attention away from a potential FBI investigation and her dramatic primary losses in three straight states while continuing attempts to build a radical, left-leaning court that would support executive overreach. The fight is not over the President's ability to nominate a candidate but rather the Senate's proper decision not to grant that candidate a hearing.
Clinton continued stating that this "obstructionism" has provided:
. . . the same disregard for the rule of law that's given rise to the extremist candidacies of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz . . . .
Oddly enough, the Democratic party has supported the rise of a self-proclaimed democratic socialist that recently ran the table in three primaries during elections that have largely seen a downturn in democratic turnout due to the lack of voter enthusiasm.
The people deserve the right to speak on the next Supreme Court Justice, just as they chose the majority in the Senate. The Obama/Clinton combo has done enough damage to last a lifetime and many are infuriated with the continued executive overreach, lackadaisical foreign policy, and troublesome military strategy. Hillary has a plan to get around such problems: more executive overreach. The right must unify in 2016, if for no other reason than to ensure Hillary's defeat while there is still something to protect. Applaud your Republican Senators for standing up for the people's right to speak on the future of the Supreme Court by not acting on the nomination of Judge Garland to the Supreme Court until after the election in November.