GUARDIAN: Barack Obama predicted that America would not elect Donald Trump president because people would “make a sensible choice in the end”.
Speaking on Tuesday at a press conference in California after a meeting with south-east Asian leaders, the president condemned the entire field of Republican candidates for their rhetoric on immigration and climate change, insisting: “This is not just Mr Trump.”
Obama claimed that foreign observers are troubled by the views being aired at Republican debates and, while frontrunner Trump’s personality draws headlines, he is far from alone. “He may up the ante in anti-Muslim sentiment, but if you look at what the other Republican candidates have said, that’s pretty troubling, too.”
The rest of the world looks to America for leadership, Obama continued. “Look at the statements that are being made by other candidates. There is not a single candidate in the Republican primary that thinks we should do anything about climate change. That’s a problem. The rest of the world look at that and says, ‘How can that be?’”
Obama said he does not believe Trump will be president – holding the nuclear codes and ensuring the banking system does not collapse – because, he said, he had faith in the American people. “I think they recognise that being president is a serious job. It’s not hosting a talkshow or a reality show, it’s not promotion, it’s not marketing. It’s hard, and a lot of people count on us getting it right.
“The American people are pretty sensible, and I think they’ll make a sensible choice in the end.”
Speaking at Rancho Mirage in California, the president also vowed to fight Republicans all the way over the nomination of a supreme court justice to succeed the late Antonin Scalia. Senate Republicans have almost unanimously demanded that Obama should allow his successor to fill the vacancy following November’s election.
“The constitution is pretty clear about what’s supposed to happen now,” said Obama, contending that he should now nominate a justice for the Senate’s consideration. “Historically this has not been viewed as a question. There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years.”
Obama said he was “amused” when people claiming to be constitutional experts gleaned provisions that are not there. But he railed against obstructive tactics of Congress that have scarred his presidency, holding up numerous judicial and ambassadorial appointments.
Obama said people have now grown accustomed to a situation where every nomination is contested, everything is blocked, regardless of how qualified the person is.
“The fact it’s that hard that we’re even discussing this is, I think, a measure of how, unfortunately, the venom and rancour in Washington has prevented us getting basic work done. And this would be a good moment for us to rise above that.”
Obama continued: “I understand the stakes. I understand the pressure that Republican senators are undoubtedly under. The fact of the matter is the issue here is that the court is now divided on many issues, this would be a deciding vote, and there are a lot of Republican senators who are going to under a lot of pressure from various special interests and various constituencies and many of their voters to not let any nominee go through, no matter who I nominate. But that’s not how the system’s supposed to work.”
Obama noted that in 1988, President Ronald Reagan succeeded in getting Anthony Kennedy confirmed in his final year in office, even though many Democrats differed from ideologically. The vacancy on the court occurred earlier.
“It’s the supreme court, the highest court in the land. It’s the one court where we would expect elected officials to rise above day-to-day politics, and this will be the opportunity for senators to do their job. Your job doesn’t stop until you’re voted out or until your term expires. I intend to my job between now until January 20, 2017 and I expect them to do their job as well.”
Scalia, a conservative standard bearer, died on Saturday aged 79. Democrats made it clear that if Obama’s nominee is ignored or delayed, they will accuse the Republican majority of “nakedly partisan obstruction” and use that argument in their bid to win back the Senate in November.
The potential for this to resonate with voters already disillusioned with Capitol Hill gamesmanship has not deterred vulnerable senators in “purple states” – those winnable by either party – from uniting behind majority leader Mitch McConnell in saying that the next president should choose the next jurist.
Senator Rob Portman, who is facing a tough re-election contest in Ohio, a state that Obama won twice, was quoted by the Columbus Dispatch as saying: “This seat [on the supreme court] is about the direction of the country, and it’s kind of unique because it’s sort of a swing seat. I think it would be better to have it be part of the presidential election process.”
He was criticised by his principal rival, Ohio Democrat Ted Strickland, who said Portman “has a clear choice to make: he can look out for his party and DC special interests by holding back President Obama’s nominee, or he can do his job for the people of Ohio”.
But an aide familiar with Portman’s campaign told the Guardian that the debate would not hurt his campaign, dismissing Strickland as “the ultimate Washington insider and thus unfit and unable to effectively deliver a message about cleaning up ‘Washington dysfunction’ and ‘obstruction’.
“Moreover, once Senate Democrats shut down the Senate over this issue they will be complicit in any dysfunction and obstruction that results. It’s not an argument Strickland or Senate Democrats can win on.”
The supreme court will be an issue for some but less significant than the economy or national security come election day, the aide added. “Portman’s position is right on the facts. No president has been allowed to nominate and confirm a Scotus justice in nearly 80 years. And Portman’s position helps with his conservative base.”
Arizona senator John McCain, referred to an old speech by Democrat Chuck Schumer urging the Senate to block any nominations during the final year of George W Bush’s presidency should a vacancy arise.
“In 2007, Senator Schumer said we should wait until after the election and then let the next president nominate,” McCain told Phoenix radio station KFYI on Monday. “That was back in 2007 before the 2008 elections. I agree with him.”
North Carolina senator Richard Burr, facing a potentially tricky re-election bid, “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country,” he said. “For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
Roy Blunt of Missouri added: “This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Americans will be voting in just a few months, and that election should help determine the next member of the supreme court. The Senate should not confirm a new supreme court justice until we have a new president.”
Republicans Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin – all states that Obama won twice – marched in lockstep on the issue, too. They insisted that the American people should have a say, particularly because the decision will decide the balance of the court for generations.
One Republican did break ranks, however. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who does not face re-election this year, told The Tyler Cralle Show on Tuesday: “I think we fall into the trap if just simply say sight unseen, we fall into the trap of being obstructionists.”
But he warned: “If he puts forth someone that we think is in the mould of President Obama’s vision for America, then we’ll use every device available to block that nomination.”
Senate Republicans have the numbers to “delay, delay, delay” as presidential frontrunner Donald Trump put it. They outgun Democrats 11-9 on the judiciary committee, which would hold confirmation hearings and vote on whether to send the nominee to the full Senate. Once there, the Republicans hold the majority, 54-46, and, with moderate Republicans already siding with McConnell, there is little prospect of persuading 14 Republicans to join Democrats in breaking a certain filibuster.