Senator Barack Obama filibustered the nomination of Justice Samuel Alito.
And just to prove that he’s not ALWAYS been right, he’s apologizing for that. It’s the most cynical apology on record in the history of the world.
He’s “apologizing” – well, “expressing his regrets” – because he wants a vote on a Supreme Court nominee who will turn the tables on American constitutional law.
As a senator from Illinois, Obama and 23 other senators attempted to stage a filibuster to block a confirmation vote on Alito, one of former President George W. Bush’s picks to serve on the bench. The filibuster bid failed and Alito was confirmed.
Conservatives have seized on Obama’s filibuster vote to accuse him of hypocrisy for criticizing Republicans for saying the next president, and not Obama, should nominate Scalia’s successor.
But Earnest said the GOP is going further than Obama did in pledging to not consider any nominee the president puts forward.
“These are two different things,” the spokesman said.
He argued that the Democrats’ 2006 filibuster of Alito was symbolic because he had the votes to be confirmed.
Let me first note that Joshua Earnest is anything but earnest. He’s the Baghdad Bob of U.S. politics. And here’s all the proof you’d ever need for that charge.
And he said Obama’s decision to filibuster was “based on substance” whereas the GOP’s blanket opposition to any Obama nominee is purely political.
What Earnest doesn’t mention is that for Democrats “based on substance” means opposed to a rational reading of the Constitution and “purely political” means standing for Constitutional law.
For Republicans, George Orwell’s 1984 is a literary classic. For Democrats it’s a “how-to” manual.