When pressed on Monday morning on his position on whether the Senate should consider a Supreme Court nominee from President Obama, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush took a stronger stance against confirming a justice this year.
Bush had said on Sunday that “it is not important to me” whether Senate Republicans set up a vote on the Obama’s nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away over the weekend. He also acknowledged that the president had constitutional authority to nominate a Supreme Court justice during Saturday evening’s GOP debate.
He shifted to tougher rhetoric Monday, however, on NBC’s “Today Show,” where co-host Savannah Guthrie asked Bush if Obama’s nominee should get a vote in the Senate, noting that some of rivals, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) have called for the Senate to block Obama’s nominee.
“It’s up to Mitch McConnell in the Senate. I’m not a senator. I’m not running for the United States Senate. If he’s going to take that path, I’ll respect that completely. What shouldn’t happen in a election year, a president in a very divisive kind of time, should [not] nominate someone and have it be passed,” Bush replied. “There shouldn’t be deference to the executive.
Guthrie asked Bush if it was a “cop out” to say that the decision belongs with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
“I am taking a position,” Bush said in response. “If there is an up-or-down vote, it should be rejected based on the history of how President Obama selects judges. If there’s no vote, that’s fine too.”
“What I’m saying is there shouldn’t be — an Obama justice should not be appointed in an election year. Let this be an important part of the election process because there’s a lot riding on this,” he continued.
Watch the interview:
Babs probably threatened to ground him.
BZZZZZ - Transaction failed - Lack of funds in Walk-Back account.
Please re-insert foot and try again.
A Winnie, this one.
As a hypothetical JEB! Let’s say a “librul” justice had passed away during the last year of W’s reign of terror, would he have had the constitutional right to nominate a replacement, or would it have been up to Harry Reid? Hmmm.
“This is a very divisive time, so let me add some more divisive rhetoric to the subject,” because no one has even hinted that there is a valid reason for the Senate to refuse to carry out its constitutional obligation.