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.
a bunch of scared whining weasels the republicans are. if this president was a conservatives they would be screaming to have him nominate asap.
And if it were a republican president, the left would be screaming to not do it...
Oh, wait, they did...
Quote:
"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization.
And if it were a republican president, the left would be screaming to not do it...
Oh, wait, they did...
But continue....
Schumer is not the Democratic leader as McConnell is. Nor does Schumer say absolutely not to do it, nor does Schumer say not to hold a vote on it. .
One Senator announcing his opinion that they should vote down a nominee unless he meets certain standards is a bit different than the Senate leader saying no vote no matter what.
Whatever happened to the premise "Elections have consequences"? Obama won the 2012 vote with 5M more votes than his competition. Most republican gains have been in mid-term elections. Despite many republican state houses redistricting to restrict competion, the majority are showing up on Presidential year cycles to vote, and they are not voting republican.
To be honest, if I were a republican Senator, I'd actively try to advise the President to pick a moderate while my team still has the majority and be done with it. Presidential year elections haven't gone well for their side lately, why gamble that the team will somehow do well in 2016 when 2008 & 2012 didn't go so well?
Both Clinton and Sanders poll higher than the strongest republican candidates. The names at the top of the ticket matter, and I haven't seen any on the republican side that can counter either one of those two. The only chance republicans have is if Bloomberg enters the race and fractures the democrats.
It stopped when BOTH sides of aisle stopped compromising. We are far too polarized these days to do anything.
I agree with you that Bloomberg COULD hurt Dems but he'd also hurt Republicans. I align with his views more than anyone else except his nanny state legislation.
Anyone else think it was a miscalculation of conservatives to start imploring Obama not to nominate a replacement? It makes them look desperate and like obstruction is all they have in their deck of cards.
Why not "Mr. President, fulfill your Constitutional authority and send us your nominees; and we'll conduct ours and give them a very thorough vetting to determine if they are appropriate for the highest Constitutional Court in the land. If you give us left-wing extremists, we won't let them through. But we'll give your nominees a fair and timely hearing, because we have nothing to fear in upholding our duties in accordance with our Constitution."
Wouldn't that have been a refreshing message that for once makes conservatives at least appear constructive?..
It seems that conservatives want to claim that they are upholding the Constitution; yet it also seems that they are terrified of letting the Constitutional process actually play out.
I suppose that it is a chicken or egg situation, but really what is being conveyed when people try to use Kennedy as an example is that he was nominated by the president in an election year. He wasn't. Preciseness of language is important. Read Confucius. He feared that tyranny would erupt if language wasn't rectified, because then words can mean anything the elites in power wanted it. Read 1984 for more language corruption. Contrary to the opinion of Hillary's husband, "is" means something specific.
He was nominated just shy of an election year. Wasn't the Senate in recess when he was nominated? It was just after Thanksgiving, with Christmas around the corner. So the Senate wouldn't have even really have had the opportunity to consider his nomination until 1988, would they have?
That what chuckie said in 2007, in 2016, not so much.
That was his personal desire, a one man plan, and sure enough, nothing was blocked. Today we are talking about the GOP (as whole) organizing to commit what they (in 2007) called "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” and amounted to “blind obstructionism.”.
I suppose that it is a chicken or egg situation, but really what is being conveyed when people try to use Kennedy as an example is that he was nominated by the president in an election year. He wasn't. Preciseness of language is important. Read Confucius. He feared that tyranny would erupt if language wasn't rectified, because then words can mean anything the elites in power wanted it. Read 1984 for more language corruption. Contrary to the opinion of Hillary's husband, "is" means something specific.
Nit picking over the definition of an election year, we have been in an election year for 3 years, anyway he was approved in the year of the election, precisely.
There are literally hundreds of qualified lower court justices out there who are strict interpreters of the Constitution of the United States who would never DREAM of twisting, spinning, or outright disregarding it in favor of the "judicial activism" that is just a sugar coated way of saying TREACHERY.
Scalia was one of these Pro-Constitution Justices, and naturally, conservatives want him replaced with such a person.
So the president nominates a justice, but congress has to approve the nominee.
So should the republican congress just send Obama a LONG list of Strict Interpreter lower court justices, and tell him:
"These are the people we will approve if you nominate them. There are about 239 people here and you can have your pick of the litter."
That way liberals can't gain election year traction by saying republicans are blocking a supreme court appointee.
Instead, if Obama refuses to nominate ANY of these qualified people, then it will instead be OBAMA who has to explain to the public why each any every one of these people, who again simply obey the constitution, are supposedly unqualified.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that whoever the democratic nominee turns out to be will be forced to take a position on it as well.
It is the President's JOB to "nominate"
Why should repubs bail him out?
He CERTAINLY HASN'T done then any favors these 7 years.
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.