Heritage Foundation says keep Supreme Court at 8 if Clinton wins

Posted by | November 3, 2016 17:45 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly Politics

Republish
Reprint


The conservative Heritage Foundation is urging senators not to do their jobs.

Dan Holler, Heritage Action’s vice president of communications and government relations, signaled that this year’s Republican blockade of President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, is just the beginning of a fight that could last the entire first term of a Clinton presidency. “You’ve seen John McCain and others talk about the need to not confirm any liberal nominated to the Supreme Court,” Holler said. “That’s exactly the right position to have.”

It’s “unacceptable,” he added, for moderate Republican senators to roll over and allow a President Clinton to shift the court radically to the left.

Holler said the obstruction of any Clinton Supreme Court appointee is going to require “an immense amount of willpower” from Senate Republicans.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

21 responses to Heritage Foundation says keep Supreme Court at 8 if Clinton wins

  1. Jeanne173 November 3rd, 2016 at 17:48

    And the beat goes on. VOTE!!!

  2. mea_mark November 3rd, 2016 at 17:54

    If they really tried something like that, I bet the chances of a SCOTUS judge being assassinated would go way up. No new judges, easiest way to influence the court is to kill one of the judges. This would be a very bad tactic for the GOP to try. We need a functioning court, not a bunch of childish actions by political leaders that are butt hurt, that could lead to real people getting hurt or killed.

  3. Jungle_Bhoy November 3rd, 2016 at 17:56

    Yeah great idea – if we lose, act like we won.

    • StoneyCurtisll November 3rd, 2016 at 20:02

      If they lose, they act like they one…:)

  4. arc99 November 3rd, 2016 at 18:00

    Usual BS from the right wing playbook. Our system is just wonderful as long as they are winning. But god forbid, they lose elections, then it is time to change all the rules.
    We must have voter id to combat non existent voter fraud. We must repeal the 17th amendment and return to selecting US Senators by a small cadre of oligarchs

    Now their whine is that the court size needs to be reduced. Obviously if Karl Rove’s 2004 musings about a permanent GOP majority had come true, we would not be hearing any of this. It is naked partisan hypocrisy, taking a position they would never support if they had won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections instead of losing it.

  5. amersham1046 November 3rd, 2016 at 18:18

    A simple majority of the Senate confirms the nomination , watch the races next week. the GOP just might be farting into the wind to prevent a new justice being named

    • arc99 November 3rd, 2016 at 18:44

      but it is those pesky filibusters which require only 1 Senator.

      under current Senate rules, 60 votes are required in order to end a filibuster. if the GOP insists on a permanent blockade, then the choice is clear.

      Democrats would have to invoke the “nuclear option”. Presumptive Majority Leader Schumer could then change the 60 vote rule. That change would require only a simple majority 51-49. So let us hope that the Democrats take control of the Senate. Then if the GOP wants to play hardball, the Democrats can hurl a few fastballs right back at them and eliminate the ability of the minority party to stonewall SCOTUS nominations.

      • amersham1046 November 3rd, 2016 at 18:55

        Should be able to find enough RINOs to limit the Tea Baggers BS

  6. StoneyCurtisll November 3rd, 2016 at 20:00

    It wasn’t but a few months ago the right wingers said, “wait until after the election” to appoint a new SSJ….(something about a Biden rule that isn’t really a rule)
    Now if they lose the election, they are going to refuse to allow any appointment to pass?..
    This isn’t going to go over well if it comes to fruition.

    • Jack E Raynbeau November 3rd, 2016 at 22:32

      They meant “Wait until after the election, if we win”.

  7. labman57 November 3rd, 2016 at 20:29

    Once again, conservatives have decided that the best way to preserve the tenets of the U.S. Constitution is to take an ideological dump on it.

    • granpa.usthai November 3rd, 2016 at 23:52

      they do on our flag every day, so WTH not!

  8. Jack E Raynbeau November 3rd, 2016 at 22:29

    The GOP is disgusting. I voted today. All blue.

    • granpa.usthai November 3rd, 2016 at 23:51

      ALL?

    • jamesboyle63@gmail.com November 4th, 2016 at 15:09

      Awesome!! I only vote for women and minorities. And they’re all blue too!!!

  9. granpa.usthai November 3rd, 2016 at 23:51

    I don’t give a F’ing damn how obstructionist these conservative christian republicans are.

    EACH and EVERY Citizen has the right to believe whatever religion they choose.

    There ain’t no damn way in hell you can force US to believe the only way to heaven is grabbing p*ssy for the orange savior you have chosen, not with this Constitution of The United States of America.

  10. bpollen November 4th, 2016 at 04:36

    This is direct legislative attack against both other branches of the government.

  11. Mike November 4th, 2016 at 05:42

    First off, elections have consequences.
    And secondly, the flaw in that strategy will appear with a couple split decisions … how long do you think the public will tolerate that …?

Leave a Reply