Republican chaotic response to Justice Scalia

United States Senator Mitch McConnell leaped to the media, post Supreme Couort Justic Scalia's sudden death, with his bombastic announcement about not approving any nominee presented by President Barack Obama to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.  

Senator Orin Hatch R-Utah gives chaotic interview on PBS News Hour

Even Republicans pushed back on this offensive and potentially seditiious announcement. It's the responsibility of the President of the United States to nominate qualified candidaets to fill judicial vacancies. Likewise, it's the responsibility of the US Senate to advise and consent with the President about the nominee who is presented. Except, Senator McConnell didn't remember how the US Constitution addresses these responsibilities. Instead, the United States Republican Senator Mitch McConnell chose to create his own unconstitutional rules.  Moreover, McConnell even forgot who elected President Barack Obama when he announced his interpretation of the Constitutional rules by saying the people whould decide who fills US Supreme Court vacancies.  It's possible Senator McConnell forgot about the past two presidential elections.

Even Republicans found McConnell's statement to be ludicrous.

Subsequently, Republicans decided to put Republican Senator Orin Hatch on damage control. Unfortunately, while trying to backpeddle out of McConnell's debacle, the Senator Hatch explanation was chaotic when he was interviewed on The PBS News Hour by journalist Judy Woodruff.  Two back to back interviews addressed the inappropriate McConnel response.  One from Senator Dianne Fienstein D-CA and the other from Senator Orin Hatch R-Utah.

Here's the chaotic transcript of the Senator Orin Hatch interview, following Senator Fienstein's interview about the President's judicial nominee:

JUDY WOODRUFF: The passing of Justice Antonin Scalia has unleashed a political battle of epic proportions that is reverberating from the campaign trail to Capitol Hill. President Obama has made it clear he will nominate someone. But, in the Senate, most Republicans say he shouldn’t, and, if he does, they won’t confirm.

We hear now from two senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which first considers any nominee.

First up, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. She joins us from San Francisco.

Welcome, Sen. Feinstein.

So, what is your response to your Republican colleagues who say this should be left to the next president?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California: Well, I would say this, Judy.

Fourteen nominees have been confirmed in the final year of a presidency in history. And, as a matter of fact, Ronald Reagan presented Judge Kennedy to become Justice Kennedy, and he became that and was confirmed in the last year of Reagan’s administration.

So, it is a well-established fact that this can happen. I mean, I remember back. One of my very first confirmation hearings was Justice Ginsburg. And both the chairman of the committee today, Sen. Grassley and Sen. Hatch, voted for her. And I remember their statements to this day about a president being entitled to his nominees, provided they were qualified, provided they had the requisite skills, the integrity, the moral compass to be enacted.

And they both voted for Justice Ginsburg. I wish we could go back to those days, because what’s happening now is very destructive of the process.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me just cite quickly what Sen. Hatch has said. And I’m going to be talking to him in just a minute. He said the Senate has never allowed a term-limited president to nominate someone this late in his term.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, the record reflects that 14 have been confirmed in the final year. We’re well able to do it in the time that remains.

Now, why not do it? Because what is left are several very important cases, whereby, if there is a tie vote, the appellate court decision takes precedence, therefore, shorting the justice system for whoever it was that was on the other side of the appellate court decision.

And we shouldn’t do that. That, I think, is destructive to what is, you know, a very well-put-together system of justice.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Just quickly, two other questions. Republicans say it was the Democrats who politicized this process with the way they went after Robert Bork, the way they went after Clarence Thomas, that the Democrats started this.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Yes, well, I wasn’t here then, so I really can’t comment.

But whoever it was, it seems to me the time has come to end it. And I had hoped that we were in the process of ending it. We have confirmed 11 judges last year. We have 78 pending. And it shouldn’t be that way. And, you know, Barack Obama has almost a full year left. Are you saying then that his hands could be — should be handcuffed and that he can’t make appointments in that full year of his presidency?

I think that’s a mistake. And one thing, one more thing. What goes around comes around. And I re-read Orrin Hatch’s statement after the Ginsburg hearing. And regardless of what has happened since then, I think he was absolutely right.

And so the ability to process a nominee becomes very important and I think very significant. And I would hope that Orrin would remember that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, Sen. Feinstein, how far to the center should the president lean in choosing a nominee? Should he try hard to find somebody who is going to appeal to Republicans, as well as Democrats?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, I think the answer to that question is yes, if you want to get someone confirmed, I think somebody that has gone through the confirmation process — and there are several who are well-qualified on that score — or somebody that would be seen as outstanding by both sides of the aisle.

And if either one of those were to happen, I think the chances of confirmation would be very high.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Sen. Dianne Feinstein joining us from California, we thank you.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Thank you, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And now to a Republican view, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. He’s also on the Judiciary Committee, and he joins us from Salt Lake City.

Welcome, Sen. Hatch. So the Republicans are in the majority. The president has said he is going to nominate someone to fill the term or to take the place of Justice Scalia. What is going to happen then?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, Utah: Well, the president has an absolute right to nominate whoever he wants to. And I would vote to protect that right.

But the Senate also has an absolute right to confirm or not to confirm. And so I do support Sen. McConnell in saying, but, look, let’s get it out of this terrible presidential brouhaha that is going on, and let’s get it over to the next year, and be fair to both sides, because what would happen is whoever wins the presidency is going to be able to make this nomination.

Usually, you never nominate anyone during the last year of a president. And the reason for that is because — well, there are many reasons, but one reason is because there’s always a very contested Senate primaries and also election, and, secondly, generally, one side or the other is going to get very, very upset about it.

I would rather get the Supreme Court out of that type of a condition.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we just heard Sen. Feinstein say that there are now 14 examples of nominations to the Supreme Court that took place during the final year of a presidency.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, in the last 80 years, there haven’t been. And I’m talking about 80 years, and except for — except for Justice Kennedy. But Kennedy was nominated in the prior year. And that was only after a bruising set of fights that resulted in basically a choice of Kennedy that both sides went along with.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me just come back to you with what not only Sen. Feinstein has said, but so many others, including the president.

He still has almost a year left in office, that it is the duty of the Senate to consider the nomination. Sen. Feinstein pointed out that when you supported Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Senate, who clearly was someone whose views were different from yours, you said the president…

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: That’s right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: … should — choice should be respected.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, I think the president’s choice should be respected. That doesn’t mean you have to have — you have to accept that choice.

And, in this situation, just think about it. They are already voting in the primaries. We’re already in full swing in the presidential election, at least the primaries. It’s contentious as can be. It’s the most obnoxious political system, series of problems that I have seen in the whole time I have been in the United States Senate.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, are you saying that — then that the majority of Republican would not hold hearings on the Judiciary Committee?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, I think if you are not going to allow it to come up in this brouhaha year, where there’s all kinds of infighting and screaming and shouting, yes, I don’t think any reason — there wouldn’t be any real good reason to have hearings.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And is there any precedent for that, for the Senate ever having refused to consider the president’s nominee to the Supreme Court?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, I don’t know about that, whether there is any precedent.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, when the president himself didn’t withdraw the nomination.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, we’re talking about Nino Scalia. We’re talking about his successor.

We’re talking about something that every Republican — person, every Republican revered and many Democrats revered, by the way, because they knew what a great jurist he really was. And we’re talking about having a system that doesn’t become the brutalized system that occurred in the Bob Bork nomination, one of the greatest legal minds in the history of this country, and they just brutalized him.

And then look at what they did to Clarence Thomas. The fact of the matter is, I would like to get it out of that type of brouhaha, and get it into the next year, where there should be no brouhaha, and whoever is president should be able to pick whoever that president wants.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you are saying, just to be clear, Republicans would sit on this nomination, not act on it?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, I’m saying the Republicans shouldn’t act on it, because the proper way is to get this done in a way that cools the whole process around electing judges, and in particular justices to the United States Supreme Court.

I just don’t want the court politicized. And this would be the biggest politicization the court in history. And that is saying something, because there have been some other times that certainly would come close to matching this.

But, in all honesty, I just don’t want to see the court denigrated any further than it would be in this very caustic election year with the way things are going right now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Even with a centrist choice?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, who knows whether it will be centrist or not. We will have to see.

Yes, the president might pick somebody that everybody can agree with. That’s another matter. I hope he does.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Sen. Orrin Hatch, we thank you very much.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Well, thank you.

Maine Writer- I have no idea what Senator Hatch was saying in the Woodruff interview. Apparantly, he wanted to replace the inappropriate McConnell knee jerk unconstitutional rules, even if his own interview didn't make any sense.

In my opinion, Senator McConnell was stupid to come out before any grieving for Justic Scalia to make the successor's nomination a very political process. There's a simple solution to the conundrum or "brouhaha" (as Senator Hatch says) created by Senator McConnell. Simply pull out a copy of the US Constitution and read it.

Only one truthful statement in Dick Cheney's defense of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques - torture

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is a bionic man. In fact, he admits his life today is a gift, because he was privileged to receive a form of life support rarely used on ordinary people who pay for health insurance.  

In fact, Dick Cheney calls his cure a miracle.  

In a 60-Minutes, television interview with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dick Cheney says his current health is "a miracle". He has lived with heart disease throughout his political career and especially when he served as the vice president. (I can't imagine right wing political nuts letting this kind of dangerous health condition pass on the current Vice President Biden....)

Nevertheless, Cheney's miraculous resuscitation, when he was plugged into a wall while an external heart kept him alive, and until a transplant was obtained, has not changed the former Vice President's stubborn refusal to admit to authorizing torture on suspected September 11, 2001 terrorists.

Although Mr. Cheney is steadfastly defending his role in authorizing water boarding on suspected September 11, 2001 terrorists, there was one - and only one- statement of truth in this discussion. Cheney told Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd, when interviewed on Sunday, December 14, 2014, that President George W. Bush (Bush 43) was, in fact, briefed on the use of water boarding, in spite of denials from the former President that he was not informed. I believe Mr. Cheney.

In fact, Mr. Cheney said that President Bush was fully informed about the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques or torture.  

It seems likely that President George W. Bush was fully briefed on interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, attacks. 

This statement disputes a conclusion reached by Senate Democrats in a report last week, said Cheney.

This information is contrary to the report by Democratic members of the Senate intelligence committee, that said Bush wasn’t briefed on specific CIA techniques until April 2006 -- four years after the program had begun.

“The notion that we were not notified at the White House about what was going on is not true,” Cheney said today on NBC’s Meet the Press program. 

Senator Dianne Feinstein's report, about the use of torture on September 11, 2001 suspected terrorists, should be public. It seems to me, Governor Jeb Bush, who wants to become his family's next president, must be asked to defend his brother's denial of this report. Governor Bush should tell Americans who knew what about torture, and when he knew it. This is important, because.....without the Florida election results of 2000, when President Bush's brother was the governor, the presidency of the 43rd president could never have happened. I believe someone must be held accountable for the illegal use of torture on suspected terrorists, especially in the absence of due process. Former governor Jeb Bush must be asked the tough questions about the use of torture, because he is largely responsible for the election of his brother, who probably knew and may have even authorized its use.

I can't remember ever defending former Vice President Dick Cheney, but I sincerely believe he's telling the truth when he says President George W. Bush knew about the use of torture, called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques". 

In fact, I suspect the former president probably supported using torture, because he was desperate to retaliate against Osama bin Laden.  

Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. Mr. Cheney should reveal all he knows before his bionics run out on him again.

A progressive political opportunity for First Lady Michelle Robinson Obama

Mrs. Michelle Obama is certainly too young and intelligent to fade quitely into the landscape after her husband's 2nd term as President ends her reign as First Lady, in 2016. 

Following in the bold footsteps of Mrs. Hillary Clinton, there are hints of Mrs. Obama possibly seeking a senatorial run to fill the seat of retiring Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Senator Michelle Obama? Is the first lady eyeing a Senate seat?

Let's hope  it's not a rumor. Perhaps Michelle Obama has her eye on the seat of California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is expected to retire in 2018. 

That's the rumor, according to Orb Magazine, a new gossip site out of the Bronx. In an article published last Thursday, the magazine speculated that the first family has its sights set on California post-White House, and the first lady on a possible Senate seat.

"Michelle Obama is being urged to move to California and pursue the Senate seat that will almost certainly be vacated by Dianne Feinstein in 2018 when she will be 85 years old," Orb reports. 

It later continues, "To lure her to the Senate race, supporters have been reminding Michelle that California is solidly Democratic and there is no apparent frontrunner to succeed Feinstein – certainly no one with the stature, broad appeal and fundraising connections Michelle has."

While few in the mainstream media paid much attention to the gossip when it was reported by the startup online publication quoting an anonymous source, ears perked when CNN's Candy Crowley gave the rumor a national platform by asking Sen. Feinsten about it in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union."

When Crowley asked Feinstein for her reaction to the speculation, the long-time senator from California punted.

"Well, I have no idea what I’m going to be doing in 2018. That’s four years from now, and that’s one of the nice things of a six-year term. I’ve served two years of my term and you know, I’ll make a decision in due time."

How likely is it that the rumor is true?

The Orb article suggested the Obamas are looking to relocate to Los Angeles – about as far removed from Washington as one can get – after the president finishes his term in 2016, which would allow Michelle Obama to fulfill the residency condition to run for Senate.

"Hawaii is too remote; Illinois is a cesspool of political corruption...and New York...is too dense with Clintons and Clinton acolytes," the magazine opines. California, however, is perfect.

To back it up, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that real estate brokers in the Golden State have claimed that Obama-appointed representatives have inspected houses in Palm Springs on the first family's behalf.

Of course, a Senate run would give the first lady – an Ivy League-educated attorney with a strong career that she reportedly set aside to support her husband's ambitions – an opportunity to pursue her own dreams.

“Barack could golf year-round and Michelle could emerge from his shadow after 20 years and retake control of her own life,” an anonymous source told Orb. “Remember, Michelle is a Harvard-educated lawyer whose career was more robust than Barack’s was when they met.”

And let's not forget that few can match Michelle Obama's name recognition, fundraising potential, and flat out popularity – at least in true-blue California. In fact, the first lady is a lot more popular than Barack Obama these days.

Thanks to her much-higher approval ratings and star power (who else can make a viral video dancing with a turnip to DJ Snake and Lil John's "Turn down for what?" and link it all back to a campaign for healthy eating?), it's Michelle Obama who's often hit the campaign trail to help Democratic contenders ahead of the midterms - not her husband, with whom some candidates don't want to be associated.

Still, we're inclined to think the rumor is just that: a rumor.

For starters, the source is as tenuous as they get – Orb is a relatively unknown publication that appears to publish mostly gossip, and, at least in the Michelle Obama article, quote only anonymous sources.

Even Sen. Feinstein – whose seat Michelle Obama is reportedly eyeing – doubts the story.

"I’m flattered, if that should be true," she told Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "Somehow I do not believe it is true, but I would be flattered if it were."

And of course, should she choose to run, Michelle the partisan candidate will suddenly become far more divisive than Michelle the 'above-the-fray' First Lady.

After all, the last first lady who ran for a Senate seat won – and went on to become Secretary of State, and may very well make a run for the Oval Office herself. Not bad for a former first lady better known for her headbands than her healthcare initiative back when the American public first met her.

Mrs. Obama is a Harvard-educated lawyer, former university administrator, and self-declared "mom-in-chief" who makes headlines with both her policy platforms and her fashion choices.