Obama’s Double-Shot Of Hypocrisy Over Supreme Court Nominations


We all know by now what a hypocrite Barack Obama is.

He now claims that the Senate needs to quickly confirm any nominee he throws up for the Supreme Court, while as a Senator he led the charge to filibuster George W. Bush’s pick of Samuel Alito.

When he was asked why he was such a hypocrite, Obama gave a mealy-mouthed answer:

“You know the a, look, I think what’s fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any single party,” Obama replied. “This has become just one more extension of politics. And there are times where folks are in the Senate, and they’re thinking as I just described primarily about, ‘Is this gonna cause me problems in a primary? Is gonna cause me problems with supporters of mine?’ So people take strategic positions, and I understand that.”

So here’s what Obama said on the Senate floor when they were debating Alito’s nomination:

“There are some who believe that the President – having won the election – should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether or not a Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls on the senate to advise and consent. I believe tit calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology and record. When I examine the philosophy, ideology and record of Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled.”

It’s bad enough that our “Constitutional Law Professor” of a president doesn’t seem to sure how to interpret one of the plainest clauses in the Constitution. What’s worse is that he seems to be oblivious to how incredibly stupid he sounds. For a president who seems to care so much about “optics,” this is incredible.

For the record: The President appoints a Supreme Court Justice with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Any suggestion that the Senate must advise and consent is preposterous.