[h=1]Disgusting: Hillary Snubs Benghazi Victims, Says No One Died In Libya[/h]
Mar 15, 2016
image: http://9953-presscdn-0-37.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Hillary-bored-700x333.jpg
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apparently forgot about the Benghazi terror attack victims in a recent interview.
According to The Hill:
“Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton argued late Monday that U.S. involvement in deposing Libya leader Moammar Gadhafi had not cost any American lives.
“Libya was a different kind of calculation,” she said of military involvement there in 2011 compared with current efforts in Syria during a MSNBC town hall in Springfield, Ill.
“We didn’t lose a single person,” the former secretary of State added. “We didn’t have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO.”
Mar 15, 2016
image: http://9953-presscdn-0-37.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Hillary-bored-700x333.jpg
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apparently forgot about the Benghazi terror attack victims in a recent interview.
According to The Hill:
“Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton argued late Monday that U.S. involvement in deposing Libya leader Moammar Gadhafi had not cost any American lives.
“Libya was a different kind of calculation,” she said of military involvement there in 2011 compared with current efforts in Syria during a MSNBC town hall in Springfield, Ill.
“We didn’t lose a single person,” the former secretary of State added. “We didn’t have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO.”
[h=3]Alex Shephard[/h]
18 hours ago
Mark Wilson/Getty
[h=1]Orrin Hatch once said there was “no question” Merrick Garland could be confirmed to the Supreme Court.[/h]Hatch is one of the most respected U.S. senators and has served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on three separate occasions. Hatch has also been an outspoken advocate of the Republican strategy to wait to confirm a Supreme Court nominee until after the presidential election in November, recently telling the Federalist Society that this was “the chickens coming home to roost” for the Obama Administration.
But Hatch has also been a long-time advocate for Merrick Garland, who President Obama will nominate to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. In 2010, when he was considered for the slot that ultimately went to Elena Kagan, Hatch said that he had known Garland for years. He added that, if nominated, he would be a “consensus nominee” and that there was “no question” he would be confirmed.
And just last week, he praised Garland and indicated he was a qualified candidate, saying, “The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”
By nominating Garland, Obama has put Republicans like Hatch on their back foot. They’ll argue that this is about process—about waiting for the American people to decide. Obama’s nomination of Garland is a transparently political maneuver that shows just how transparently political his opponents are being.
Watch A Fox Host Tell Sen. Orrin Hatch He's Partly Responsible For "Politicizing" Supreme Court Nominations
Neil Cavuto: "No Offense, Senator. You've Played A Part In Politicizing It"
[COLOR=#999999 !important]Video ››› March 16, 2016 3:36 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
269
[/COLOR]
From the March 16 edition of Fox Business' Cavuto: Coast to Coast:
Neil Cavuto: "No Offense, Senator. You've Played A Part In Politicizing It"
[COLOR=#999999 !important]Video ››› March 16, 2016 3:36 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
269
[/COLOR]
From the March 16 edition of Fox Business' Cavuto: Coast to Coast:
NEIL CAVUTO (HOST): Alright, now to Orrin Hatch. But before we get to Orrin Hatch today, I want you to take a listen to this, Orrin Hatch in 1997:
[BEGIN VIDEO]
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): Now, I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. I know him personally. I know of his integrity. I know of his legal ability. I know of his honesty. I know of his acumen, and he belongs on the court.
[END VIDEO]
CAVUTO: Alright, Orrin Hatch with me right now. Senator, what changed?
SEN. HATCH: Nothing, except 19 years, and the fact was, that was a nomination to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a very high court in our country but it's not the Supreme Court. The difference between that and the Supreme Court is that the Supreme Court really can make the law. It can interpret the Constitution anyway they want to, and some think they can make the Constitution --
CAVUTO: Well no doubt. But fast-forward some years later, 13 years later, in 2010, you were talking about Judge Garland saying that "I have no doubt that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes" -- This was when he was among those being considered for the Supreme Court -- "And I will do my best to help him get them."
HATCH: Well, I cleared the way for Merrick Garland, and I still think very highly of him. Now, I'll be very honest with you, I haven't read a lot of his cases in the recent years and that becomes a must before any of these things can happen. But I still have a very high opinion of him and -- but I do think we should not bring up a Supreme Court justice and get in this big mess again, wrecking the court, during this really toxic presidential year. And that really bothers me.
[...]
CAVUTO: What if it is Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders who becomes president? Do you think Republicans would rue the day that they missed a chance at a moderate pick for the court. Because either one of those folks would probably pick someone a little bit more to the left.
HATCH: Well, this is the most important issue in this presidential campaign and it's a big reason why people should vote for the Republican nominee, whoever that may be. Because the next president is probably going to have somewhere between three and four judicial picks on the Supreme Court, and that could turn the whole Constitution around, in accordance with some of these activist, liberal Democrat judges that just don't seem to worry too much about what the Constitution says.
CAVUTO: You know Senator, I understand what you're saying, sir, and I appreciate that you know it's a crazy election year, and all. But by that reasoning, nothing would ever get done in an election year because it's a toxic environment. And, true to form, nothing really does get done on budget matters, on legislative matters. Why should Republicans play that game that is notoriously played out in election years and say, "you know we're going to be different? We're going to, in this environment, weigh the president's choices, come up with budgets, come up with legislation, do the kind of stuff that cynics don't think we can." And if you don't like this nominee, vote him down.
HATCH: Well it isn't quite that simple. Joe Biden made it very clear, when he talked a year and a half before the electio,n that you should not be putting people up during a presidential election --
CAVUTO: Why? Why?
HATCH: There's good reason for that.
CAVUTO: Why? Why?
HATCH: Because it's a toxic environment, it demeans the court; people then make the court into a politicized institution --
CAVUTO: It's always politicized, senator. It's always politicized. And by that math you would just rule out the last year of any Congress, of any senator, of any president for getting stuff done. You could send a powerful signal by saying, "You know what? We are going to hold hearings, we don't like the guy, we're going to vote him down, but we know the Democrats have played these games. We know we in the past have played these games. We're not going to play these games."
HATCH: We're sending a powerful signal that once voting has started in a presidential election campaign, in that particular toxic environment -- especially the one we have today that is very toxic -- we should not be bringing up the Supreme Court nomination.
CAVUTO: Well you know, Senator, how early these campaign years start -- earlier, and earlier, and earlier. By that math you could argue a year ago that you shouldn't have started this process. You know what I'm saying? That it gets out of control.
HATCH: I'm talking about a presidential year. This is, you know, we all know the president is a lame duck president. And there is a question whether a lame duck president, during a really toxic year like this should be nominating --
CAVUTO: When does he become a lame duck, senator? Is it the last year? Because that's a long time.
HATCH: When it comes to the Supreme Court, yes. Because let me tell you something, especially this year, I've never seen such a toxic year, such a horrific year as we have right now. And these Supreme Court nominations shouldn't be great big battles every time a president picks somebody. And the president ought to be careful to pick people, whoever the president is, that literally will do the job, and not allow politics to take over.
CAVUTO: So you would subscribe to that senator, if it's a Republican president who gets in, the last year he's in office, he submits a name, you as a Republican and a prominent one at that would tell him, "No, we can't consider it."
HATCH: Well, I think we would. I mean, we -- I've actually advised presidents not to do that. But unfortunately, we haven't had any late situations where someone has been put up, other than Justice Kennedy. And that was after they had smeared Bob Bork, and hurt [Douglas H.] Ginsburg --
CAVUTO: Fair enough, nevertheless it was in the final year of Ronald Reagan's presidency.
HATCH: Well, but everybody just kind of gave up at that point.
CAVUTO: I understand that but there is precedent.
HATCH: Yea there's precedent, but it wasn't a toxic year like this, nor was it a year where people are all up in arms about everything. And frankly, that's what bothers me. I'm tired of the court being politicized. And this is politicizing the court during this particular year.
CAVUTO: Well no, no offense, senator. You've played a part in politicizing it. Now, maybe that wasn't your goal, but both parties do this.
HATCH: I don't think so.
CAVUTO: And I think it would be interesting to see a guy like you who is widely respected, both sides of the aisle say, "you know what I've had enough of this nonsense."
HATCH: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
CAVUTO: I said, maybe it's a great time for you to say, "I've had enough of this nonsense. Let's do this."
HATCH: I've had enough of the nonsense that's occurred in some of these past processes. And they occurred not in a presidential year, where voting had already started and half the voting is over. Look this is not the way to do Supreme Court nominations. And frankly it isn't the person -- it isn't the person that we're against. It's this system that really doesn't work well. And, it diminishes the court, reduces the respect for the court, and frankly, I don't want anything to do with something that's going to diminish the respect of the court.
[BEGIN VIDEO]
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): Now, I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. I know him personally. I know of his integrity. I know of his legal ability. I know of his honesty. I know of his acumen, and he belongs on the court.
[END VIDEO]
CAVUTO: Alright, Orrin Hatch with me right now. Senator, what changed?
SEN. HATCH: Nothing, except 19 years, and the fact was, that was a nomination to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a very high court in our country but it's not the Supreme Court. The difference between that and the Supreme Court is that the Supreme Court really can make the law. It can interpret the Constitution anyway they want to, and some think they can make the Constitution --
CAVUTO: Well no doubt. But fast-forward some years later, 13 years later, in 2010, you were talking about Judge Garland saying that "I have no doubt that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes" -- This was when he was among those being considered for the Supreme Court -- "And I will do my best to help him get them."
HATCH: Well, I cleared the way for Merrick Garland, and I still think very highly of him. Now, I'll be very honest with you, I haven't read a lot of his cases in the recent years and that becomes a must before any of these things can happen. But I still have a very high opinion of him and -- but I do think we should not bring up a Supreme Court justice and get in this big mess again, wrecking the court, during this really toxic presidential year. And that really bothers me.
[...]
CAVUTO: What if it is Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders who becomes president? Do you think Republicans would rue the day that they missed a chance at a moderate pick for the court. Because either one of those folks would probably pick someone a little bit more to the left.
HATCH: Well, this is the most important issue in this presidential campaign and it's a big reason why people should vote for the Republican nominee, whoever that may be. Because the next president is probably going to have somewhere between three and four judicial picks on the Supreme Court, and that could turn the whole Constitution around, in accordance with some of these activist, liberal Democrat judges that just don't seem to worry too much about what the Constitution says.
CAVUTO: You know Senator, I understand what you're saying, sir, and I appreciate that you know it's a crazy election year, and all. But by that reasoning, nothing would ever get done in an election year because it's a toxic environment. And, true to form, nothing really does get done on budget matters, on legislative matters. Why should Republicans play that game that is notoriously played out in election years and say, "you know we're going to be different? We're going to, in this environment, weigh the president's choices, come up with budgets, come up with legislation, do the kind of stuff that cynics don't think we can." And if you don't like this nominee, vote him down.
HATCH: Well it isn't quite that simple. Joe Biden made it very clear, when he talked a year and a half before the electio,n that you should not be putting people up during a presidential election --
CAVUTO: Why? Why?
HATCH: There's good reason for that.
CAVUTO: Why? Why?
HATCH: Because it's a toxic environment, it demeans the court; people then make the court into a politicized institution --
CAVUTO: It's always politicized, senator. It's always politicized. And by that math you would just rule out the last year of any Congress, of any senator, of any president for getting stuff done. You could send a powerful signal by saying, "You know what? We are going to hold hearings, we don't like the guy, we're going to vote him down, but we know the Democrats have played these games. We know we in the past have played these games. We're not going to play these games."
HATCH: We're sending a powerful signal that once voting has started in a presidential election campaign, in that particular toxic environment -- especially the one we have today that is very toxic -- we should not be bringing up the Supreme Court nomination.
CAVUTO: Well you know, Senator, how early these campaign years start -- earlier, and earlier, and earlier. By that math you could argue a year ago that you shouldn't have started this process. You know what I'm saying? That it gets out of control.
HATCH: I'm talking about a presidential year. This is, you know, we all know the president is a lame duck president. And there is a question whether a lame duck president, during a really toxic year like this should be nominating --
CAVUTO: When does he become a lame duck, senator? Is it the last year? Because that's a long time.
HATCH: When it comes to the Supreme Court, yes. Because let me tell you something, especially this year, I've never seen such a toxic year, such a horrific year as we have right now. And these Supreme Court nominations shouldn't be great big battles every time a president picks somebody. And the president ought to be careful to pick people, whoever the president is, that literally will do the job, and not allow politics to take over.
CAVUTO: So you would subscribe to that senator, if it's a Republican president who gets in, the last year he's in office, he submits a name, you as a Republican and a prominent one at that would tell him, "No, we can't consider it."
HATCH: Well, I think we would. I mean, we -- I've actually advised presidents not to do that. But unfortunately, we haven't had any late situations where someone has been put up, other than Justice Kennedy. And that was after they had smeared Bob Bork, and hurt [Douglas H.] Ginsburg --
CAVUTO: Fair enough, nevertheless it was in the final year of Ronald Reagan's presidency.
HATCH: Well, but everybody just kind of gave up at that point.
CAVUTO: I understand that but there is precedent.
HATCH: Yea there's precedent, but it wasn't a toxic year like this, nor was it a year where people are all up in arms about everything. And frankly, that's what bothers me. I'm tired of the court being politicized. And this is politicizing the court during this particular year.
CAVUTO: Well no, no offense, senator. You've played a part in politicizing it. Now, maybe that wasn't your goal, but both parties do this.
HATCH: I don't think so.
CAVUTO: And I think it would be interesting to see a guy like you who is widely respected, both sides of the aisle say, "you know what I've had enough of this nonsense."
HATCH: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
CAVUTO: I said, maybe it's a great time for you to say, "I've had enough of this nonsense. Let's do this."
HATCH: I've had enough of the nonsense that's occurred in some of these past processes. And they occurred not in a presidential year, where voting had already started and half the voting is over. Look this is not the way to do Supreme Court nominations. And frankly it isn't the person -- it isn't the person that we're against. It's this system that really doesn't work well. And, it diminishes the court, reduces the respect for the court, and frankly, I don't want anything to do with something that's going to diminish the respect of the court.
Alex Shephard
18 hours ago
Mark Wilson/Getty
Orrin Hatch once said there was “no question” Merrick Garland could be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Hatch is one of the most respected U.S. senators and has served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on three separate occasions. Hatch has also been an outspoken advocate of the Republican strategy to wait to confirm a Supreme Court nominee until after the presidential election in November, recently telling the Federalist Society that this was “the chickens coming home to roost” for the Obama Administration.
But Hatch has also been a long-time advocate for Merrick Garland, who President Obama will nominate to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. In 2010, when he was considered for the slot that ultimately went to Elena Kagan, Hatch said that he had known Garland for years. He added that, if nominated, he would be a “consensus nominee” and that there was “no question” he would be confirmed.
And just last week, he praised Garland and indicated he was a qualified candidate, saying, “The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”
By nominating Garland, Obama has put Republicans like Hatch on their back foot. They’ll argue that this is about process—about waiting for the American people to decide. Obama’s nomination of Garland is a transparently political maneuver that shows just how transparently political his opponents are being.
Even CNN is calling the Demoscum hypocrites on this matter.
[h=2]Blitzer Calls Out Wasserman Schultz on Democrats’ Supreme Court Hypocrisy[/h]SHARE
TWEET
BY: Jack Heretik
March 16, 2016 2:23 pm
CNN host Wolf Blitzer called out the hypocrisy of Democrats to demand Senate Republicans give President Barack Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court a hearing and then vote for confirmation.
Earlier on Wednesday, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the seat left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Garland currently serves as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, has maintained that Republicans must give Garland a fair hearing and confirmation vote.
Wolf pointed out past moves by both Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
“When President Obama was a U.S. Senator, Congresswoman, as you know, back in 2006, he filibustered the nominee Samuel Alito, who’s now the Justice Samuel Alito, something he now says he regrets,” Blitzer said. “And when Vice President Biden was a U.S. Senator back in 1992, he said President Bush, and I’m quoting him now, ‘should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.’”
“So if it was good for the Democrats then to make these kinds of statements during an election year in the case of Biden, why can’t the Republicans do that now?” Blitzer asked.
“Well, let’s be clear, when Barack Obama was filibustering, he had that opportunity because there was a nominee that was being given a hearing,” Wasserman Schultz said. “So, I mean, they have the perfect right to filibuster, to, you know, to debate it, to do anything they want, while letting the process unfold. But to suggest that they aren’t even to going to grant courtesy meetings to his nominee, to not have hearings, to not take this nominee through the process, vote the president’s nominee down if that’s what they choose to do.”
Wasserman Schultz also criticized what she called not following the Constitution.
“For a party that has a whole bunch of Republicans that say that they are strict constructionists—if you strictly read the United States Constitution, it is the president’s role to nominate a justice for an opening on the Supreme Court, and the Senate’s role to advise and consent. It is not in the Constitution to do that when they feel like it, to do it when they want to make sure that their, their, their presidential candidate is able to appoint one. It’s to just do it when there’s an opening,” Wasserman Schultz said.
Nothing in the Constitution says that the Senate must take action within a certain timeframe.
Democrats might have spoken BS, as have Republicans on this issue in the past, but they didn't prevent a qualified Supreme Court Nominee from getting a vote in a POTUS's last year. This is such nonsense. There's no such thing as a Biden Rule. A POTUS serves 4 years, and there's no such thing as stopping because it's his last year. This is just another example of the disgusting treatment and stonewalling of Obama, just because he's Obama. They would be wise to confirm this guy, because Hillary isn't going to bring up such a middle of the road nominee, and Drumpf might bring up Judge Jeanine, Judge Judy, Judge Mills Lane or some other fake TV judge.
There's no such thing as The Biden Rule, you idiotic Sick Brit Twit. Hypocrites like you and old Mitch can allude to it all they want, but it doesn't exist.
"The "Biden Rule" is a nonexistent rule referring to 1992 remarks by then-US Senator Joe Biden regarding US Senate consideration of Supreme Court nominees in the final year of a US Presidency. The term was first used in 2016 during the debate surrounding the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination."
