Sen. Jeff Sessions has already made it abundantly clear that he intends to oppose pretty much anyone that President Obama nominates to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, and he keeps coming up with new reasons why, despite the fact that Obama has not even made the announcement yet.
But I have to say that his latest justification is rather remarkable, as he is now accusing Obama of seeking a nominee who has no respect for the Constitution and who sees it merely as an "inconvenience" to be sidetracked ... just as Obama does:
Sen. Jeff Sessions says that a Supreme Court nominee who followed President Obama's legal philosophy of considering the impact of a decision rather than following the law would not be qualified for the high court.
“He said that he wanted a judge who would consider the impact the decision would have on ordinary Americans,” Sessions (R.-Ala.) said in an interview with HUMAN EVENTS. “That’s a call to something other than the law and the facts. That’s a call to something more akin to politics than law. And so again I think the President’s presenting a troubling philosophy, and you have to assume that’s the kind of judge he’s going to nominate.”
Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said that kind of standard shouldn’t be confirmed whether it’s espoused by a liberal or conservative.
“You can have a liberal or conservative judge who has such strong personal views that they can’t -- and won’t -- follow the law,” Sessions said. “Both of those are disqualified.”
He questioned whether Obama considers the Constitution when making decisions. “I think the American people are coming to recognize that the President sees the Constitution as an inconvenience…a handicap to achieving the agenda that he has,” he said.
