Senator Cory Booker knows how to read a fellow Senator's corrupt policy back to them for the filth that it is, and then some. He did just that when discussing whether or not trump should be permitted to even name a nominee for the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
In a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Sen. Booker talked about how shocking it was for him to discover as a young U.S. Senator that according to Mitch McConnell, U.S. Presidents apparently only had their powers for three of the four years they served. He was, of course, referring to the fact that while Obama was president, Justice Antonin Scalia died, leaving a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell successfully argued that the sitting U.S. President did not have the right to name a replacement, since there would be an election in ELEVEN MONTHS.
This strategy of blocking a nomination succeeded, and once trump was "elected," he picked a replacement who, naturally, was approved by this
ass-licking compliant Senate.
While this left young Booker perplexed, he is now arguing that by McConnell's own rules, Trump should not name a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Why, after all, there is an election in even LESS time! It is in less than FIVE months!
Furthermore - Booker relayed an even deeper, darker concern...should a president who is the subject of a criminal investigation be permitted to pick a Justice who might have his case come before him or her on the bench? Might that not be - *GASP* - a conflict of interest??? Trump exhibits the tendency to place loyalty over law. It's not unreasonable to suppose he will choose a nominee he has confidence would exonerate him should the Mueller investigation reach up to the Supreme Court. Is that suddenly okay with everyone on the Judiciary Committee?
Don't answer that. We already know it's okay with the Senators with "(R)"s after their names.
Partial transcript below:
At the time this was happening, I was new to the Senate and was frankly stunned that we would take away the Constitutional powers of a President of the United States with about a year left in their office as if we were to say that a President only has three years of that Constitutional power. We stripped it away and did not allow him to appoint someone. That was very stunning for me as a new Senator to this body that that would happen and I felt it was wrong at the time, but it was clearly a standard that was defended. We heard the language not only of Senator McConnell but we heard it of Colleagues that set the standard and if that’s the standard to abide by here we are now less months away from an election. And so …it was either a new standard being se, albeit one that I agreed with, or it was a constitutionally inappropriate or an offense to the Constitution – a naked power grab that was unconstitutional and [a] cynical assault, it was one of those two things and…if it was a standard we should abide by that new standard.↓ Story continues below ↓
I do want to point out one thing that hasn’t been mentioned by my colleagues that we should all know and be aware of, which is to me what I think is clearly a potential conflict of interest, one that has a profound reach. The President of the U.S., right now, is a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation – an investigation that every member of this Committee knows could end up before the Supreme Court.
This is a committee that has shown its ability to work across the aisle, I'm really proud of the things that I've been able to work with with a number of people on this committee.
(Interruption to clarify point about if president is subject of investigation)
We’ve seen numerous people that are close to the President, numerous people that were on the President’s campaign, numerous people on the campaign under investigation who have plead guilty, who have clearly been under investigation and this all could end up in front of the Supreme Court…and we have a President who in the past has seemed to be asking people for loyalty tests who has seem to have litmus tests in regard to this investigation.
And so If we’re not going to thoroughly discuss what it means to have a President with this ongoing investigation happening who is now going to interview Supreme Court justices, and potentially continue with his tradition of doing litmus tests, loyalty tests, for that person, we could be participating in a process that could undermine that criminal investigation. I think it’s in the best interests of our democracy for this committee to consider a nominee from a president - I think it's questionable. Should we be considering a nominee from a President who has a history of demanding these loyalty tests and we could be responsible for participating in something that could undermine that investigation.
I do not believe this Committee should or can in good conscience consider a nominee put forward by this President until that investigation is concluded. So not only do I believe we should abide by the rule set by McConnell but I think we should look at the larger moment we’re in in American history, the conflict of interest that’s clearly present with this President and we should delay this until the Mueller investigation is concluded. Thank you.