Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama should pick the nominee and the Senate should hold a vote on it. If the vote fails we will see where that will put us. If the Senate refuses to take any action on the nominee, blocks a vote, etc I think this will be a problem that will linger. There are far more Republicans running for re-election to the Senate this year, especially in swing states or states that tend to lean the other way as a whole, so that is another variable to all of this.
A Congressional session runs for one year, January 3rd to sometime in December. There are two sessions for each “Congress” (odd year to odd year). Adjournment means that Congress is out of session, it is closed to business. This is in contrast to a recess, which we might think of as “time off” or “pause.”
After Congress is adjourned, there are formal processes involved in reconvening. The Constitution forbids either the Senate or the House to adjourn for more than three days without the permission of the other chamber.
A “recess appointment” can not be made during adjournment. There is no provision for appointment during adjournment.
They can go ahead and vote everyone down. How does that differ from not having a vote?
If there were no difference, the Republicans would be saying "send us your nomination and let us vote."
Instead they've made it clear they don't want to vote because (1) the appointee might actually get confirmed and (2) regardless of the outcome, they will be on record voting against a qualified woman or minority.
You can only delay for so long until it's obstruction. There's no value in delaying in this case.
Actually, most independents, as well as conservatives do not want another Obama appointee if it is in the same vein as the previous two. So it might just work great for them to obstruct until a new President is sworn in. Have to figure that Obama will appoint someone who will agree with his views of how the country should go.
If the next president is Hillary, I can see the nomination being Obama, if it is another dem, than who knows.
If it is a republican president, and there is still a republican senate, then we have to wait and see. But what would be ironic is if a republican president appoints a firm conservative and the dems try to filibuster and a republican senate removes the right to filibuster a supreme court appointment. (Remember, Harry removed the right of a filibuster for all Federal court appointees, other than the Supreme Court.)
Now, if Obama wants to play nice, find a very middle of the road appointee, and there are plenty on both sides and see what happens; it might have a different result. But we all know, from his previous picks of Kagan and Sotomayor, that he prefers extreme progressive judges, and I cannot see this senate even considering one again.
And as an independent, I sure hope they will obstruct in that case!
Also, is there a democrat here that would say that the dems would not do the same if it was reversed and let's say Breyer had passed away the last year of GW Bush's administration? I don't think so!
Have the republican ever sit back to think they "represent people", they are not "dictators, even as much as they want to think they are", they were elected to do a job, and they've failed at that, in pursuit of trying to be dictators, and if they don't get their way, they play block and tackle, deny and defeatist games.
They Insult America !!!!
All that went out the door when Eisenhower left office. The Dems are quite an embarrassment too
You hit the nail on the head. For a liberal, the ends justify the means. The constitution is living and breathing (read: non-existent) when it stands in the way of their agenda (which, by the way, is not good for the country). When they can use the constitution to justify their policy, they act like strict constitutionalists.
A Congressional session runs for one year, January 3rd to sometime in December. There are two sessions for each “Congress” (odd year to odd year). Adjournment means that Congress is out of session, it is closed to business. This is in contrast to a recess, which we might think of as “time off” or “pause.”
After Congress is adjourned, there are formal processes involved in reconvening. The Constitution forbids either the Senate or the House to adjourn for more than three days without the permission of the other chamber. A “recess appointment” can not be made during adjournment. There is no provision for appointment during adjournment.
Sure hope you are right! Cause I bet the senate will not take a recess this year.
Of Those that do way too many don't know anything about who they are voting for or much about the issues.
I wonder how many can name their Congressional representatives.
Many Americans don't even know who the vice President is.
How many do you think can name the Speaker of the House?
How abouteven 5 of the current SC judges.
Your 12% means NOTHING.
It means only 12% of Americans approve what Congress does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
