Over the years, Hillary Clinton has shown herself to extremely flexible on the issues based on the way the political winds are blowing. She was for traditional marriage before she was pro gay marriage. She opposed issuing state driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants before she decided to advocate for so-called “immigrants rights.” In her 2008 presidential campaign, she defended her vote to invade Iraq, and now she says she would never have supported the invasion.
These are just a few examples of her flip flops but last night she added to the list when the issue of nominating a SCOTUS Justice came up during the Democrat Debate. Secretary Clinton insisted that the United States Senate must hold hearings and vote on whoever the President nominates to the court. However, that’s not the same tune she was singing back in 2005 when she (rightly) pointed out that the Senate could, ” deny advice and consent.”
Watch her positions then and now:
At the Democrat National Committee Women’s Leadership Forum in 2005, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said the following:
“I believe this is one of the most important roles that the Senate plays. This, after all, is in the Constitution. We are asked to give advice and consent or to deny advice and consent.”
The 2005 Hillary Clinton seemed to understand that it is within the Senate’s Constitutional authority to act or not to act. She was clear. She was correct. But fast forward to 2016 and the political winds have shifted, as they always do for Democrats, and Hillary has decided to align herself with the partisan position instead of stand for what is clearly in the best interest of the American people.
Do you think the United States Senate should hold a hearing for the open position on the U.S. Supreme Court or should they wait for the new president to nominate a new Justice? Comment below.