REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA
AND HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH OF JORDAN
AFTER BILATERAL MEETING
Oval Office
We are so grateful for the support that you've shown me and our people, our country. Truly, no country other than the United States has given us so much support -- whether it’s to the economy so that we can take the challenge of refugees to our country, but also to the military and security so that we can defend our borders, but also secure our people. The help that we’ve gotten from you, Mr. President, from your administration, from the Congress, and the people of the United States is something that is very difficult to express in any words. And we are very, very grateful for that.
I’m also here to thank the President for his tremendous leadership in dealing with the threat of ISIS -- Daesh -- specifically when it comes to the challenges in Syria. We are all working together as part of the international team to try to find, as the President said, a political solution. Yet, at the same time, the threat of Daesh is one that has taken some of our consultations today on how do we defeat Daesh as quickly as possible -- not only in Syria, but also to reach out to our Iraqi brethren to make sure that they too are part of this struggle against extremism.
I do think that we are moving in the right direction. The coordination with the United States is exceptional. And again, I’d like to thank you, sir, and all your institutions for working very closely with us in this respect.
So I’m actually leaving Washington very optimistic about the level of support from the United States, the leadership that the President has shown on the issue of Syria. And hopefully, the discussions between yourself and the Russians will move the process in the right direction. But also looking at the larger picture when we're looking at the challenge of ISIS and their franchises around the world, I think that the future looks much better with the leadership of the United States.
We did, again, as the President said, speak about bringing hope to the Israelis and Palestinians. These are obviously challenging times, but hope is something that we have to bring both sides. And we did talk about this issue and to see what we can do in 2016 to bring the momentum in the right direction.
But I actually am here just to thank the President and the American people for all the support they’ve given for our country and how truly grateful I am for your leadership, sir, for your support to me and my people.
Q Mr. President, can you respond to Mitch McConnell’s comments yesterday about your Supreme Court choices and the fact that they’re not planning on holding a hearing whatsoever?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, the Constitution says that I nominate candidates for the Supreme Court when there’s a vacancy, and that the Senate exercises its constitutional role in advise and consent. I’m going to do my job. We are going to go through a process, as we have done in two previous Supreme Court vacancies, to identify an outstanding candidate that has impeccable legal credentials and would bring the kind of ability and compassion and objectivity and legal reasoning to the Court that the Highest Court in the Land demands.
One side made the nomination, and then Leader McConnell and all the members of the Senate are going to make a decision about how do they fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. I recognize the politics are hard for them, because the easier thing to do is to give in to the most extreme voices within their party and stand pat and do nothing. But that’s not our job. Our job is to fulfill our constitutional duties.
And so my hope and expectation is that once there is an actual nominee and once this is no longer an abstraction, that those on the Judiciary Committee recognize that their job is to give this person a hearing, to show the courtesy of meeting with them. They are then free to vote whatever their conscience dictates as to whether this person is qualified or not. In the meantime, the American people are going to have the ability to gauge whether the person I’ve nominated is well within the mainstream, is a good jurist, is somebody who’s worthy to sit on the Supreme Court.
And I think it will be very difficult for Mr. McConnell to explain how, if the public concludes that this person is very well qualified, that the Senate should stand in the way simply for political reasons. We’ll see what happens. And I think the situation may evolve over time. I don’t expect Mitch McConnell to say that is the case today. I don’t expect any member of the Republican caucus to stick their head out at the moment and say that. But let’s see how the public responds to the nominee that we put forward.
The one thing I think is important to dispel is any notion that somehow this is some well-established tradition, or some constitutional principle that a President in his last year of office cannot fill the Supreme Court vacancy. It’s not in the text of the Constitution. Ironically, these are Republicans who say they believe in reading the text of the Constitution and focusing on the intent of the Constitution. But none of the Founding Fathers thought that when it comes to the President carrying out his duties, he should do it for three years and then on the last year stop doing it.
There’s an argument that, well, the President shouldn’t do this because he is a lame duck. Well, the truth of the matter is, is that traditionally the term “lame duck” refers to the two or three months after an election has taken place in which a new President is about to be sworn in. I’ve got a year to go. I don’t think they would approve of me abdicating on my duties as Commander-in-Chief and to stop doing all the other work that I got to do. Well, this is part of my job.
There’s been arguments that for 80 years this has been the tradition. Well, that’s not the case. Justice Kennedy was approved after being nominated by Ronald Reagan in Ronald Reagan’s last year of office. They say, well, that’s different because he had been nominated in 1987, even if he was confirmed -- or ’85 -- even if he was confirmed in ’86. Well, the notion that there is some two-month period in which suddenly it all flips and everything shuts down, that’s not a credible argument.
What other arguments are they making? They suggest that, well, there had been a couple of times where Democrats said it would be wise for a President not to nominate someone. First of all, we know senators say stuff all the time. Second of all, these were comments that were made where there was no actual nomination at stake. So it has no application to the actual situation that we have right now.
I’m trying to think of any other reeds that they’re grasping here as to why they would not carry out their duties. And I can’t really think of one.
I recognize that this is an important issue for their constituencies, and it’s particularly sensitive because this was Justice Scalia’s seat that is now vacant and that a whole host of decisions on the Supreme Court could turn on this ninth justice and their vote.
But that’s how our democracy is supposed to work. And what I do -- the last point I’ll make -- we have already seen a breakdown of the judicial appointment process that gets worse and worse each and every year, each and every Congress. It becomes harder and harder to get any candidates for the judiciary confirmed. We saw Senator Reid have to employ the so-called “nuclear option” because there was such a logjam in terms of getting judicial appointments through.
If, in fact, the Republicans in the Senate take a posture that defies the Constitution, defies logic, is not supported by tradition simply because of politics, then invariably what you’re going to see is a further deterioration in the ability of any President to make any judicial appointments. And appointments to the Supreme Court as well as the federal bench suddenly become a complete extension of our polarized politics.
And at that point, not only are you going to see more and more vacancies and the court systems break down, but the credibility of the Court itself begins to diminish because it’s viewed simply as an extension of our politics -- this is a Republican judge or this is a Democratic judge, as opposed to, this is a Supreme Court justice who is supposed to be standing above the day-to-day politics that take place.
So I understand the posture that they’re taking right now. I get the politics of it. I’m sure they’re under enormous pressure from their base and their constituencies around this issue. I’ve talked to many of them, and I’ve told them I’m sympathetic. And, by the way, there’s not a lot of vigor when they defend the position that they’re taking, that they wouldn’t even meet, for example, with a Supreme Court nominee. They’re pretty sheepish about it when they make those comments.
So we’ll see how this plays itself out. But I’m going to do my job. I’m going to nominate somebody and let the American people decide as to whether that person is qualified. And if they are qualified, let the American people decide whether there’s enough time for the U.S. Senate to hold hearings and have a vote. It’s not as if, from what I see, the Senate calendar is so full that we don’t have time to get this done.
All right? Thank you, guys.
Q Your Majesty, Nadia Bilbassy with Al Arabiya. In light of the Syria accord and the cessation of hostility, how do you envision the next step in terms of fighting ISIS and pursuing a political career? And if I may, can you describe the current cooperation and coordination with the United States, considering the rise in challenges and crises in the Middle East?
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH: Well, as I said early on, the relationship and coordination with the United States is outstanding. And one of the reasons we’re here is to make sure that we’re taking the coordination between our two countries to the next level.
As to what is happening in Syria, obviously the political process is I think the priority of the moment. And we’re all supportive of what John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov are doing as part of a political process, but at the same time making sure that the second part of that dimension is the fight against ISIS and Daesh. And I think that both elements are complementary to each other.
Specifically, obviously to the southern part of Syria, it is whether or not, based in connection to what the Americans and the Russians have been doing, can we get a cease-fire going into the south alongside our border as part of a building block of the political process that helps move the politics of this issue forward between the regime and opposition forces. Because at the end of the day, Daesh is the enemy for all of us. And we’ll have to see how things are moving between the two foreign ministers.
But again, we’ve got some good initiatives moving in that, and we’re just keeping our fingers crossed that the political process continues to move in the right direction. And so far, I think things are --
PRESIDENT OBAMA: We’ll see.
HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH: -- we’ll have to keep our fingers crossed.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you, everybody.
（Boston Orange 周菊子報導）在波士頓市內已是傳奇之一，有87年歷史的“查理的三明治店（Charlie’s Sandwich Shoppe）”，今（24）早在政要雲集中，隆重剪綵，重新開張。
麻州州長查理貝克（Charlie Baker）顯然最有理由高興。他踏進店裏，和員工，老闆握手寒暄後，笑顏逐開的說，在波士頓內有家店名叫“查理”的感覺，真不是蓋的。他因此稱許店東德祿迪（Evan Deluty）把這家歷史名店保存了下來，還特地買了一袋藍莓鬆餅，帶回辦公室。總共只有32個座位，在四張桌子外，共有13個吧檯座的這餐廳，從1927年開張以來，曾經有32年是24小時營業，在種族隔離時代，是小山姆戴維斯（Sammy Davis, Jr）等非洲裔美籍爵士音樂家，以及波士頓市的傳奇社會運動家馬爾文金（Melvin King）等的聚集勝地，後來成為政客與社區領袖交換意見的最佳地點，連美國現任總統奧巴馬（Barak Obama），曾任副總統的高爾(Al Gore)等人，都曾是座上客。 
一年多前，原東主宣佈關門，這家以早餐出名的店就一直丟空在那兒，直到在南端經營史黛拉（Stella ）餐廳的德祿迪和太太甘迪絲（Candice）把它買下來，全部重新翻修，才又延續了這家老店的歷史，曾經光顧過這家餐廳的名人、政客留影，也保留在翻新了的牆上。
今早，波士頓現任市長馬丁華殊（Martin Walsh），前任市長雷夫連（Ray Flynn），大波士頓非洲裔傳奇人物馬爾文金（Melvin
King），以及麻州眾議員麥家威（Aaron Michlewitz），羅辛（Byron Rushing），波士頓市議會議長吳弭（Michelle Wu），波市議員林乃肯（Bill Linehan），米高法拉提（Michael
Fleherty）等人，也都趕來致意，寒暄。
馬丁華殊則說，“查理”重新開張意味著波士頓經濟向榮。他希望一家一家的，陸續有更多店開張。
