They thought the same thing. That's why we can amend it.
Junebug, do you believe Senate Republicans should refuse to vote on appointees nominated by Democrat Presidents?
I'm no literalist of the Constitution by any means, but where in the Constitution is an order that if something is "firmly established as an institution...it...becomeconstitutionally mandated?"
To the contrary, the fact that the constitution has a process for amendment indicates that the framers thought it shouldn't be de facto amended by a "living constitution" hermeneutic.
I agree that Obama should nominate someone that was unanimously appointed to a lower court by the Senate recently.
I agree that Obama should nominate someone that was unanimously appointed to a lower court by the Senate recently. That will inflict the highest political price for Pubs trying to deny a vote. They fell over themselves to claim no vote before Obama nominated anyone because they know if Obama nominates the right candidate it would be hard to stand against that specific candidate. Obama can't give them the gift of nominating someone with a hint of controversy or contention to give them another excuse.
And regardless, even a moderate taking Scalia's spot on the bench shifts the court massively.
And as others have said, the worst possible scenario for Pubs still stems from this course of action, as they pay a political price in a huge election for a blatantly obstructionist attitude, a label which they have been trying to shed, and an even more liberal judge ends up taking the seat next year.
It is interesting that the board libs are not advocating for the best person to become justice, but the one that would inflict most damage to republicans if blocked.
The weird part is that the 'Pubs have the votes to stop anyone they don't want. Cruz or Rubio wouldn't need to filibuster anyone. Despite that McConnell and Grassley have already boasted they won't ever even allow a vote. Sri and Kelly weren't recently confirmed with zero disapproval because they were partisan hacks. Why shouldn't Obama nominate either and make the 'Pubs explain why they're obstructing?
I agree that Obama should nominate someone that was unanimously appointed to a lower court by the Senate recently. That will inflict the highest political price for Pubs trying to deny a vote. They fell over themselves to claim no vote before Obama nominated anyone because they know if Obama nominates the right candidate it would be hard to stand against that specific candidate. Obama can't give them the gift of nominating someone with a hint of controversy or contention to give them another excuse.
And regardless, even a moderate taking Scalia's spot on the bench shifts the court massively.
And as others have said, the worst possible scenario for Pubs still stems from this course of action, as they pay a political price in a huge election for a blatantly obstructionist attitude, a label which they have been trying to shed, and an even more liberal judge ends up taking the seat next year.