Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 13 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 2/24/16

N.Y. Times headline triggered G.O.P. refusal to consider Scalia Replacement

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   2 comments
Message Al Rodbell
Become a Fan
  (4 fans)

Here's the Times headline from Monday morning:

Joe Biden Argued for Delaying Supreme Court Picks in 1992

Here's how the headline should have more accurately read:

Sen. Biden to a G.O.P. President: You Must Nominate a Moderate for Court.

The debate on whether the Senate has the legal and moral right to refuse to consider a Supreme Court Nominee had been simmering since the death of Justice Scalia last week. Immediately after a statement by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying that the Senate would not consider his nomination, there was been push back. It is the Judicial Committee that would actually be the gatekeeper, as their decision made by the Republican majority to refuse to take up a given nomination will simply kill the nomination.

As this was simmering with many Republican Senators weighing in on the need to at the very least hold committee hearings over a Presidential nominee, this N.Y. Times story linked above broke. In the current linked article they do describe the last part of Biden's 1992 speech on the floor of the senate Since I did go on the video, and immediately noted that Biden has said that as leader of the Judiciary Committee he would in fact hold hearings on a nominee that was a moderate.

It is this part that should have been the headline in yesterday's article; rather the one that claimed that Biden echoed the current Republicans who are refusing to consider any Obama nominee This printed headline, which is what was tweeted across the country, very well could have provided cover for the Republican Judiciary Committee to send this official letter that they would not hold hearings on any Obama nominee, no matter how moderate. Biden's actual words were in a conciliatory tone, from the video in the article that began with"

" It is my view that if there is a vacancy (after July 1) now or later in the summer President (George W.) Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the presidential election"

This part although the time frame of absence of a Justice in his hypothetical case is half of what the current vacancy would entail, does present the case for the Senate to refuse consideration But, unlike the current Republicans, Biden soften his opinion with "in my view" and the "President could consider" not that that he, his committee or party would refuse to hold hearing for a nominee.

Towards the end, there is this part, that did not appear in the headline, and was only on a side bar of the online version. Biden closed with these words transcribed verbatim:

" long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the right course for both the White House and the Senate, therefor I stand by my position".. if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate, or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his Justices may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter. But if he does not, as is the President's right, then I will oppose his future nominees, as is my right.

Far from agreeing that the Senate should, as the headline implied, follow his lead in their absolute refusal to consider any nomination, Biden had said that he would, in fact, do exactly what the current Democrat party is suggesting, put forward a moderate nominee.

The Times headline set the tone for the balance of their article, and as such was a distortion of this most important statement by the Senator, now Vice President . What this Republican refusal will ultimately mean depends on the outcome of the Presidential election. However, it sets a precedent that could continue even if if a Democrat becomes President; as this boycott could continue if his/her party lacks a the super-majority (which is probable) to overcome this intransigence of the one branch that, at least ideally, transcends partisanship.

Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Al Rodbell Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Retired Commercial Printing Executive, developer of I.T. systems for the industry. Advanced degrees in Social Psychology, now living in Southern California
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Debate: Republicans Unite Against Atheists

Donald Trump - Veterans Day 1995

Choice: Pledge of Allegiance or Jail

Inside the latest California Sex Offender Law

Tea Party Congress: U.S. Constitution is Gods Work, Do Not Disturb

Obama's "Death Panel" Rescission

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend