Bill Maher Sums Up The ‘Problem With Today’s Conservatives’ In 5 Minutes

posted by Omar Rivero November 16, 2013

When it comes to pointing out just how conservatives and the Republican Party are, and have been, wrong on just about every major issue of contention in recent history, nobody does it quite like Bill Maher.
On this week’s edition of HBO’s Real Time, Maher presented a powerful segment join the connection between conservative Supreme Court justices and the influx of corruption in our political system.
While describing this connection, he beautifully summarized the “problem with today’s conservatives”. I would say more, but I probably shouldn’t spoil it for you. Let’s just say that it is a very important message that every American needs to understand.
Please watch the video below and share this and other related articles on social media forums so that everyone will draw the connection between voting Republican and our corrupted political system.

Read More

Warrantless search: Supreme Court considers a puzzling case

The Supreme Court decided years ago that when a home's co-occupants disagree over a request for warrantless search, the objector holds sway. But if that person is arrested and led away, then what?

By Warren Richey 18 hours ago

 

 If police show up at the front door of a house occupied by two people and request permission to search the house, what happens if one occupant says no and the other says yes?

Seven years ago, the US Supreme Court answered that question, ruling that in the event of a tie between disagreeing occupants the objecting occupant wins. There would be no consent for a police search.
On Wednesday, the high court took up a similar case, but with an important twist. What happens if one occupant objects to a search, the police then arrest the objecting occupant, and subsequently obtain consent to search from the other occupant?
That’s the question in Fernandez v. California (12-7822), a case involving a police search of an apartment in Los Angeles shared by a suspected street gang member and his girlfriend.
The case is important because it will help define the contours of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by the police.
More specifically, it will help give clear notice to the police and to judges what the rules are when police seek permission to conduct a warrantless search of a residence.
Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officials are required to obtain a judicially-authorized warrant before conducting a search of a home. But there is nothing stopping police from simply asking an occupant for permission to search.
If permission is given, no warrant is necessary and any evidence or illegal contraband discovered can be seized and used in a trial.
The high court case stems from a series of events in October 2009 involving Walter Fernandez, a suspected member of the Drifters, a criminal street gang.
The events began with an armed robbery by someone with a gang-related tattoo on his head who matched Mr. Fernandez’s description. Shortly after the robbery, two police officers were positioned near Fernandez’s apartment building, a known hangout of the Drifters.
The officers saw a man run into an apartment. Moments later they heard yelling and the sounds of a fight. After calling for backup, five police officers approached the apartment.
A woman, Roxanne Rojas, answered the door, holding a two-month-old baby. Ms. Rojas’s face was freshly bruised and it appeared she’d been bleeding.
As the police asked Rojas to step outside, Mr. Fernandez appeared in the kitchen wearing only boxer shorts. He was sweating. “You don’t have any right to come in here,” he told the police. “I know my rights.”
The officers entered the home, placed Fernandez under arrest for suspected domestic violence against Rojas, and took him downstairs and away from his girlfriend.
As they were leading Fernandez downstairs, one of the officers noticed the tattoo on the suspect’s head and that it matched the description from the recent robbery. The robbery victim was brought to the apartment building where he identified Fernandez as the person who robbed him.
Roughly an hour after Fernandez was led downstairs, the lead police officer returned to the apartment. He asked Rojas for her consent to search the apartment. According to briefs in the case, Rojas did not want to consent to the search, but she did so anyway.
Police found a sawed-off shotgun, ammunition, and a knife. They also found clothing matching the description given from the robbery scene.
Fernandez was charged with three different crimes, unlawful possession of firearms, domestic violence, and robbery.
Before the trial, his lawyer sought to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the apartment. He argued that the police did not obtain valid consent to conduct the search. They either needed consent from both Rojas and Fernandez or they needed a warrant, he said.
The trial court rejected the argument. Fernandez then pleaded no contest to the gun charges, pending the outcome of his appeal.
In the meantime, he was convicted of the two other charges and sentenced to 14 years in prison.
At issue before the high court is whether Rojas’s consent was enough to justify the police search, or whether the search was improper because Fernandez had clearly stated his objection to a search when police first arrived.
The justices appear to be sharply split on the issue. Several expressed concern Wednesday that if they established a hard and fast rule that the objection of a co-tenant could not be overturned by the other, it might leave women who are domestic violence victims in a precarious position.
“It’s her house, too,” Justice Stephen Breyer said. “Can’t she invite people into her house, too, whom she wants, including the policeman?”
Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford Law School professor representing Fernandez, said a domestic violence victim could retrieve a dangerous or illegal item from the house and give it to police at the front door. He added that if there was probable cause to suspect a crime, police could secure the house long enough to obtain a search warrant.
Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed skepticism about Professor Fisher’s position. He said if the court endorsed a rule that would allow a co-tenant’s objection to stand long after the co-tenant had been charged and removed from the scene it would mark a “vast expansion” of the court’s prior legal precedent.
Fisher said the Fernandez case was a rare instance, and that in most cases police would obtain valid consent. He said if the high court upholds the search of Fernandez’s apartment it would give police complete control to conduct warrantless searches by simply removing an objecting occupant whenever the other occupant would allow a search.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked why police did not obtain a warrant.
Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that police might have been concerned that other gang members would show up and attempt to retrieve any known contraband in the apartment.
Assistant US Solicitor General Joseph Palmore urged the justices to uphold the warrantless search based on the girlfriend’s consent.
In the high court’s 2006 case, he said, the justices ruled that if one of two co-occupants refuses to consent to a police search – when both co-occupants are present at the house – the police must abide by the wishes of the objector.
In contrast, he said, both co-occupants were not present at the time police obtained the agreement of Rojas to allow the search.
“When the objector is absent, there is no tie, and the normal rule applies,” Mr. Palmore said. “The normal rule is that each occupant has the authority in her own right to admit visitors to her own home.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked why police felt a need to search the apartment. Rojas’s statement to police did not include any detail that would suggest there might be illegal items or contraband in the house, she said.
“I think this was just a pure – ‘We want to find something else,’ ” she said.
Palmore said the police officers were in the gang unit and were aware of a possible connection between Fernandez and the earlier robbery.
“They at that point had probable cause to get a warrant,” he said. But he added that they were justified in seeking Rojas’s consent to speed the investigative process.
A decision in the case is expected by next June.

Read More

Supreme Conflict

By: Stephen Spaulding

November 13, 2013

Justice Clarence Thomas will headline a black tie fundraising dinner tomorrow evening for The Federalist Society, which describes itself as “a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.” Its purpose includes “reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.” Joining Justice Thomas onstage and as a speaker will be Judge Diane Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
By appearing, Justice Thomas and Judge Sykes will violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges – although the Code of Conduct does not bind the Supreme Court. More on that point later.
Today, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York, Common Cause and the Alliance for Justice filed a formal complaint with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals against Judge Sykes and sent a letter to Chief Justice Roberts requesting that the Supreme Court adopt a formal Code of Conduct.
At the outset, I should make it clear that there is no ethical lapse when Justices of the Supreme Court appear before legal organizations like the Federalist Society, irrespective of the organization’s ideological bent. If anything, members of the Court should be encouraged to engage with the public and legal organizations of all stripes, rather than remain cloistered and isolated from civil society.
The problem occurs when members of the judiciary – sworn arbiters of impartial justice – are featured as speakers at fundraisers that advance the private interests of their sponsors.
The Code of Conduct covers this concept. Specifically, Commentary to Canon 4(C) states that “[a] judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event.”
The Federalist Society’s annual dinner coincides with its annual convention and is clearly a fundraiser. For at least the past two years, the dinner program booklet included a long listing of corporations and law firms that the Federalist Society “gratefully acknowledge[d]” for “their generous support of the annual dinner.” “Gold sponsors” in 2012 and 2011 included Chevron Corporation, Pfizer, and Verizon, while “silver sponsors” included Time Warner, Inc., Facebook and PepsiCo, Inc. While most of the convention takes place at the Mayflower Hotel, the separately ticketed annual dinner occurs at a much larger venue a couple of miles away.  It has been sold out for days. Attendees for the past few years have included more than 1,200 lawyers, lobbyists, Members of Congress and other guests. This year, the price of admission is $200.  Justice Thomas’ and Judge Sykes’ photographs appear on the website selling the tickets.
Justice Thomas has a long history of flouting the Code of Conduct. In 2011, on the very day that the Supreme Court met in conference to decide whether to hear the Affordable Care Act cases, he joined Justice Antonin Scalia in headlining the Federalist Society’s 2011 annual dinner. The event was billed as a “celebration of service” for their time on the bench.
Other justices have been featured guests and speakers at previous annual dinners. The 2012 fundraiser featured Justice Samuel Alito, 2011 featured Justice Thomas and Scalia, 2010 again featured Justice Scalia, and 2009 featured Justice Alito.
Justice Thomas has traveled on the Federalist Society’s dime, too. Four years ago, Justice Thomas disclosed that the Federalist Society reimbursed him for an all-expenses paid trip to Palm Springs, California for a “speech.” As the New York Times reported, Justice Thomas’s visit coincided with “a political retreat for wealthy conservatives” that was “organized by Charles and David Koch,” the billionaire industrialists and benefactors of libertarian causes, and took place over the same span of days. A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court confirmed that Justice Thomas made a “brief drop-by” at the Koch retreat “and had given a talk.” Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that the Federalist Society had “no meetings of its own at the venue,” and quoted the Society’s President Eugene Meyer as saying that they “‘knew the justices were going to be out there [in Palm Springs],’ and would be interested in hearing what they had to say.”
Common Cause asked the Federalist Society to disclose whether any separate Federalist Society events took place over those four days in 2008 in Palm Springs, but never received a response. (Justice Scalia also disclosed that the Federalist Society paid for his trip to the vicinity in California one year earlier. Think Progress released documents from Koch Industries about previous meetings, which advertised that they had “featured such notable leaders as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas”).
Justice Thomas also failed to disclose more than $680,000 that his wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, received in compensation from the Heritage Foundation.  After Common Cause drew attention to this matter, he quickly amended several back-years of disclosure forms, blaming his mistake on a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, joined by 52 fellow Members of Congress, sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States, requesting a referral to the Attorney General for an investigation after it was learned that Ms. Thomas was paid $1.6 million during the years Justice Thomas checked the “none” box for spousal income on his annual forms.
Our highest court should meet the highest ethical standards.  Although the justices are the only judges not bound by a formal, transparent code of ethics, the Supreme Court has publicly agreed to abide by its principles and could formally adopt a transparent code at any time. Chief Justice John Roberts dedicated his 2011 Year-End Report to the topic, stating that the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges “plays the same role” for the Supreme Court as it does for the rest of the federal judiciary. He wrote that “Members of the Court do in fact consult the Code of Conduct in assessing their ethical obligations” and “are all deeply committed to the common interest in preserving the Court’s vital role as an impartial tribunal governed by the rule of law.” Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer have said this, too.
Clearly, however, nothing has not stopped some members of the Court from repeatedly offending Canon 4(C)’s prohibition on headlining fundraisers for private organizations. And there’s nothing binding. That’s why we filed a formal complaint against Judge Sykes – who is bound by the Code – and a letter to Chief Justice Roberts, urging adoption of the Code.
Common Cause commends Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and Senators Murphy, Blumenthal and Whitehouse for their leadership on this issue. They have introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013 – bicameral legislation that would require the Court to promulgate a code of ethics that includes the 5 canons of the Code of Conduct, with any amendments the Court determines to be appropriate. This is an important action showing that transparent ethics and accountability matter, and that the Supreme Court should be held to the same ethical standards as everyone else.
Our democracy will be stronger for it.
For more on Common Cause’s work on Supreme Court ethics, you will find more resources here and from the Alliance for Justice here

Read More

GOP’s unparalleled radicalism: Time for Democrats to go nuclear on judges!

Republicans are nullifying vacancies on a key law-making court so they can subvert the law. They must be stopped

Brian Beutler

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa,
on Capitol Hill in Washington,
Monday, May 20, 2013. (Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

When last we checked in, Senate Republicans were vowing to effectively nullify three vacant seats on the ultra-powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by denying confirmation to all of President Obama’s nominees — to prevent Obama from giving the court a more liberal balance.
These filibuster threats were disconnected from all juridical merits. They were instead the tactical core of a subversive plan to preserve the conservative status quo on a court that will settle a tremendous amount of administrative law between now and the end of Obama’s presidency. Put another way, Republicans were threatening to use the Senate’s filibuster rules to improve the statistical odds that the court will upend Obama administration regulations — to unilaterally change law from their minority position in the Senate.
Democrats were obviously unhappy about this, and began threatening — once again — to nuke the supermajority cloture rule, this time as it pertains to judicial nominees.
A week and a half later, Republicans have successfully filibustered two D.C. Circuit Court nominees, and are promising a hat trick. They seem inclined to call the Democrats’ bluff, and are using political psy-ops as a kind of deterrent against the threat that Dems will go nuclear.
But the nullification strategy is radical, and entirely new. It transgresses the semi-stable norms — regarding professional qualification and ideological temperament — that had previously governed which nominees were subject to rejection by the minority. And so the persuasive power of GOP threats are self-limiting.
“Be careful what you wish for,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “[I]f the Democrats are bent on changing the rules, then I say go ahead. There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases out there that we’d love to put on the bench. The nominees we would nominate and confirm with 51 votes will interpret the Constitution as it was written. They are not the type who would invent constitutional law right out of thin air.”
This is a bizarre warning. If Democrats change the rules, then future Republican presidents will flood the judiciary with … precisely the kind of conservative jurists they’ve been nominating and getting confirmed for years and years.

When Clarence Thomas was confirmed, Democrats held the majority in the Senate. It’s not just that there was no filibuster. Democrats controlled the chamber and allowed the minority to confirm him with an up or down vote. Most Dems voted no, but he was confirmed 52-48. On Tuesday, Cornelia Pillard got 56 votes in the Senate, more than Thomas but four short of the 60 required to overcome a filibuster.
Republicans controlled the Senate when Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia, but not only did Democrats decline to filibuster him, he was confirmed unanimously.
Things had become significantly more polarized and contentious by the time George W. Bush became president, but his two Supreme Court nominees (not counting Harriet Miers, an outlier whom Republicans sank on their own) were both confirmed pretty easily. John Roberts on a 78-22 vote, facing no filibuster; Sam Alito by a vote of 58-42 after a bunch of Democrats helped the GOP break a symbolic filibuster. At no point in George W. Bush’s presidency did Democrats try to moot court vacancies by refusing to confirm a category of nominees, or accuse Bush of court packing simply by trying to fill those vacancies.
But that’s where we are today.
It’s true that the elimination of the judicial filibuster would allow a future Republican president to fill vacancies more expeditiously. But it would give Obama the same power.
For Grassley’s threat to have any teeth, he’d need to warn Democrats that Republicans will confirm hyper-radicals whom they’ve been too timid to nominate in the past, or would unilaterally add seats to appellate courts and pack them with right-wing judges. But that would be crazy.
Alternatively, Republicans could just agree to confirm some of Obama’s judges. I think Democrats would probably drop the nuclear threat if Republicans cleared two of Obama’s three D.C. circuit nominees. Maybe Republicans could secure the confirmation of a third, more conservative judge, or get the remaining seat on the court eliminated legislatively.
But their current position — daring Dems to go all the way nuclear or cave completely — gives Dems almost no choice but to pull the trigger. If Republicans had meritorious objections to any of these nominees, the nuclear threat would be a disproportional escalation. Obama could find other judges. What they’re doing instead is a judicial replay of their unacceptable bid to unilaterally gut Wall Street’s consumer watchdog office and void the National Labor Relations Board. Democrats didn’t stand for that, and won. Republicans caved and confirmed several waylaid executive branch nominees over the course of just a few days. They should run the same play again. And if Republicans don’t fold, they should go nuclear.
Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is on the same page.
“I think we’re at the point where there will have to be a rules change.”

Brian Beutler is Salon's political writer. Email him at bbeutler@salon.com and follow him on Twitter at @brianbeutler.

Read More

Is Ginni Thomas' Expanding Activism a Problem for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas?

Her fierce political advocacy with Groundswell revives conflict of interest questions surrounding her husband.

—By Stephanie Mencimer

| Fri Jul. 26, 2013 9:03 AM PDT

Rex Curry/ZumaPress and Chris Zumma/ZumaPress

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Her role in Groundswell, the coalition of conservatives waging a "30 front war" against progressives and the GOP establishment that was revealed by Mother Jones on Thursday, revives questions about the propriety of Thomas' activism on issues that have or could become the subject of Supreme Court cases.
Conflict of interest issues were first aired during Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991, when critics argued that Ginni Thomas' political work might compromise her husband's objectivity. At that time, her political resume included stints as a Capitol Hill aide to a Republican congressman; a staffer at the US Chamber of Commerce, where she fought the Family and Medical Leave Act; and as a political appointee at the Labor Department during the first Bush administration. Thomas didn't leave politics after her husband was confirmed. "I did not give up my First Amendment rights when my husband became a justice of the Supreme Court," she has said in the past. She would later return to the Hill as a staffer to House majority leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas) and work for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank. But in those jobs, Thomas kept a relatively low profile.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

That changed around the same time that the tea party exploded in American politics, and Thomas became an outspoken member of the movement. In late 2009, Thomas founded the political advocacy group Liberty Central, which would later become a fierce player in the opposition to health care form. Detractors pointed out that Liberty Central was a potential vehicle for people with interests before the Supreme Court to make anonymous donations that might influence her husband.
The group was formed with a $500,000 anonymous donation that came as the Supreme Court was considering Citizens United, a case that ultimately resulted in loosening the restrictions on corporate giving to political campaigns. The anonymous donor was later revealed to be Harlan Crow, the Texas real estate developer. Crow was also a friend of Clarence Thomas', and he was later linked to a scandal involving the justice's failure to publicly disclose gifts from the developer and trips aboard his private jet. (It didn't help that Justice Thomas had also failed to include his wife's $150,000 annual salary from Liberty Central on his financial disclosure forms, which he later had to amend.) In January 2011, the good-government group Common Cause asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Justice Thomas should have recused himself from Citizens United based on his wife's role at Liberty Central. (Common Cause also asked the IRS to revoke Liberty Central's nonprofit status. Nothing came of either request.)
Thomas ultimately stepped down from Liberty Central, and the group merged with the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a nonprofit started by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich (who's best known for writing a book claiming that Bill and Hillary Clinton hung sex toys on the White House Christmas tree while Clinton was president). But she continued to be deeply involved with the opposition to Obamacare. She formed Liberty Consulting, which focused on health care issues, and, while never registering as a lobbyist, she began visiting members of Congress as an "ambassador" from the tea party movement. Due to her outspoken anti-Obamacare advocacy, and the fact that she was earning a living in connection with it, liberal activists called on Justice Thomas to recuse himself from ruling on matters related to Obamacare. He declined to do so and later joined the minority in voting to overturn the health care law, as he was widely expected to do.
The recent revelations about Thomas' role in Groundswell will no doubt resurrect the debate over whether her advocacy causes conflicts for her husband. Gun safety, immigration, voting rights and voter ID, environmental concerns—all of these issues have been covered by Groundswell, and all of them are subjects that regularly come before the Supreme Court. (Ginni Thomas did not respond to a request for comment.)
Arn Pearson, vice president for policy and litigation at Common Cause, says that Thomas' work with Groundswell raises "important questions about appearances of conflict, especially if the things she works on end up coming before the Supreme Court, and especially if [the members of Groundswell] end up getting involved in elections." The work she's doing now, he says, doesn't pose quite the same conflicts as her anti-Obamacare advocacy, in which she was directly attacking a specific law whose future rested with the Supreme Court her husband sits on.
The broader problem, Pearson says, is that the Supreme Court has no real mechanism for dealing with possible conflicts of interest, because the high court has refused to subject itself to the same code of conduct that applies to the rest of the federal court system. That code spells out the rules judges must follow to avoid conflicts—rules that include not making speaking appearances at politically tinged fundraisers, as Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito have done in the past. Another rule requires federal judges to recuse themselves from cases in which a spouse has a financial interest, a provision that would seem to be relevant to the Thomases.
Democratic members of Congress, including Connecticut Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), are trying to remedy the situation with two bills that would bind the Supreme Court to the same ethics rules as lower court judges. The bills could be introduced as early as next week, but they don't have a single Republican co-sponsor, making their future fairly dim.
One thing that may insulate Justice Thomas from potential conflicts over his wife's work, in the near-term at least, is congressional gridlock. "I don't know how we're going to get any more conflicts out of Congress because they don't pass anything," Pearson says.

Read More

GOP Senator In 2005: ‘I Would Never Filibuster Any President’s Judicial Nominee, Period’

By Ian Millhiser on November 8, 2013 at 9:47 am

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN),
 who is filibustering the president’s
 judicial nominees, period.

CREDIT: AP

Last week, Senate Republicans filibustered Patricia Millett’s nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as part of a broader effort to keep that court under Republican control. One of the senators who joined that filibuster was Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who pledged in 2005 that “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”
Next week, nearly every Republican is expected to vote to filibuster President Obama’s other two nominees to the DC Circuit, one of whom is one of the most important women’s rights attorneys of the last two decades. Sen. Alexander, the man who pledged never to filibuster any judicial nominee, is also likely to join these filibusters.
Nor is Alexander alone in his willingness to do something that he once pledged never, ever to do. To the contrary, here are quotes from 11 other sitting senators, many of whom didn’t just oppose judicial filibusters, but outright labeled them unconstitutional:

• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It’s the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.”
• Tom Coburn (R-OK): “If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent. That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee. And that happened for 200 years.”
• John Cornyn (R-TX): “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations.
• Mike Crapo (R-ID): “Until this Congress, not one of the President’s nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.”
• Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “I think filibustering judges will destroy the judiciary over time. I think it’s unconstitutional”
• Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”
• Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.”
• Jeff Sessions (R- AL): “[The Constitution] says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties by a two-thirds vote, and simply ‘shall advise and consent’ on nominations…. I think there is no doubt the Founders understood that to mean … confirmation of a judicial nomination requires only a simple majority vote.”
• Richard Shelby (R-AL): “Why not allow the President to do his job of selecting judicial nominees and let us do our job in confirming or denying them? Principles of fairness call for it and the Constitution requires it.”
• John Thune (SD): Filibustering judicial nominees “is contrary to our Constitution …. It was the Founders’ intention that the Senate dispose of them with a simple majority vote.”

All of these statements were made when George W. Bush was president. But that should not matter because, as Sen. Cornyn said at the time, “we need to treat all nominees exactly the same, regardless of whether they’re nominated by a Democrat or a Republican president.

Read More