Unsurprisingly, Maria Cantwell reveals herself as a shameless partisan hack

maria cantwell

Oh, it looks like Maria is as tired of her partisan hackery as I am.

Of course we all know that Senator Maria Cantwell is a shameless partisan hack, so it’s no surprise when she confirms it as she did today.

…I cannot support cloture and will not support the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judicial qualifications aside, Cantwell objects to the fact that Gorsuch doesn’t share her policy positions.

Don’t forget that when George W. Bush nominated Gorsuch to the federal bench in 2006, he was considered so non-controversial that he was confirmed by a unanimous voice vote of those present, including Maria Cantwell.

What a hypocrite.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Politics

3 responses to “Unsurprisingly, Maria Cantwell reveals herself as a shameless partisan hack

  1. James Knodle

    Why, you’d be surprised that, for instance,that the Republican majority would refuse to take action on a judicial nomination, for instance, based on the policy positions of, for instance, President Obama.

    • It's Only Words

      Let’s see if you can guess who said this:

      “As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

      The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. …

      I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

      Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.

      In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.”

  2. Dean hedges

    Was it Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell who said, ” women should get more social security benefits because they live longer?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s