LIES: Obama is awarded THREE Pinocchios for insisting Senate has “constitutional duty” to vote on Garland


From the speech announcing the nomination of Garland (emphasis in bold is mine):

Tomorrow, Judge Garland will travel to the Hill to begin meeting with senators, one-on-one. I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him a fair hearing, and then an up or down vote. If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. It will mean everything is subject to the most partisan of politics — everything. It will provoke an endless cycle of more tit-for-tat, and make it increasingly impossible for any President, Democrat or Republican, to carry out their constitutional function. The reputation of the Supreme Court will inevitably suffer. Faith in our justice system will inevitably suffer. Our democracy will ultimately suffer, as well.

Below is a video of the speech in its entirety

This tripe earned three Pinocchios from Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler. Getting three out of a possible four Pinocchios is quite an achievement, as it’s omething that actually takes some effort, even for liberals who are pathological liars. So four Pinocchios is like pants on fire status, and there’s a reason Obama’s pants are never on fire.


(From our Political Humor Image Gallery)

Kessler lays things out very well:

One problem with studying this issue is that, because Supreme Court justices have lifetime tenure, there are relatively few examples. Over nearly 230 years, there have been only 124 Justices. Presidents have submitted 160 nominations, of whom 148 received action on the floor of the Senate, according to the Congressional Research Service.

So a tear in space and time, in the universe according to Barack Obama, has occurred around 12 times without the dire prediction of the Supreme Court and the Senate falling in on itself. Then there’s this.

(T)here’s the case of Justice Henry Baldwin, who died in April 1844. That was also an election year, but the sitting president, John Tyler, was not running for reelection, having been expelled from the Whig Party during his presidency. So in effect, the Whig-controlled Senate was run by an opposition party.

Tyler made nine Supreme Court nominations during his presidency, but only one was approved. He made three nominations to fill Baldwin’s seat, all of which were rejected by the Senate until the new president, James Polk, took office. Polk was a Democrat, and even his first choice for the seat was rejected by the still-majority Whigs.

Emphasis in bold is added for this one, you’ll see why.

During the 1852 campaign between Democrat Franklin Pierce and Whig Winfield Scott, Justice John McKinley died in July. President Millard Fillmore, a Whig who was not running for reelection, nominated three candidates — one in August, one in January and one in February. The Democratic-controlled Senate took no action on two candidates and the third withdrew after the Senate postponed a vote until after inauguration. One of Fillmore’s nominations was never even considered by the Senate, while the other was simply tabled.

Pierce thus was given the Supreme Court nomination once he became president. (His nominee was confirmed one day after the nomination was submitted to the Senate.)

Is THAT the type of partisanship Obama warned would destroy our government? WHAT A SURPRISE that it came from Democrats.

So, in conclusion:

It is also clear that politics has always played a role — and the Senate has set the rules to act as it wants. Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. Indeed, the patterns don’t suggest the Senate used procedures out of constitutional duty, out of deference for what the Constitution says or what previous Senates have done. Instead they used procedures based on the political circumstances of each confirmation.

It’s matter of opinion whether a refusal to consider a nominee is a dereliction of constitutional duty or walking away from a constitutional responsibility. But the Senate majority can in effect do what it wants – unless it becomes politically uncomfortable. Democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.

Stick that in your Marxist pipe and smoke it, liberals.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.