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.
I'm fine with evaluating the nominee on his or her merits, and then rejecting or approving based on that evaluation. I'm not fine with rejecting a nominee regardless of his merits, simply because this President nominated this person. And it seems to me that that is exactly what the Republicans are proposing. Out and out rejection based on who is doing the nominating, rather than a careful review of the nominee himself.
The Democrats started this with Robert Bork. You reap what you sow.
That was the best part of the debate . . . I was laughing so hard.
Teddy then showed Dickerson the nastiest look, and Dickerson backed off and apologized. Dickerson knows his stuff.
Mick
I was very happy about that part of the debate. moderators sometimes call the candidates out on their BS and I wish it happened more often. That's why i always wanted jon Stewart to moderate a debate.
The Democrats started this with Robert Bork. You reap what you sow.
Quite a few Republicans also voted against Bork. Reagan made another nomination, which was passed quickly. And no, it didn't start there, as there has been many nominees who have been rejected and withdrawn before Bork.
There is absolutely no reason the senate should confirm a nominee to the SCOTUS who will gut our protections under the Bill of Rights (i.e., the second amendment). Thus far Obama's nominations to the SCOTUS have been partisan hacks who put their ideology ahead of the law of the land.
Dems held a SC nominee for just over a year....so whats the problem? You don't like it, so what?
Was the SC able to function then? Of course they were.
If you are referring to the process to confirm a Justice to the Supreme Court upon the retirement of Justice Abe Fortas, I am sorry to inform you that the Senate did not "hold up" a nomination for "over a year" but rather considered three nominations before confirming Harry Blackmun to the Court. The rejection of both Clement Haynsworth, and G. Harrold Carswell well based upon well founded objections by both Republicans and Democrats. That is a difference of both substance and fact.
As for the disingenuous argument that Obama should have the ability to even nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia, as has been pointed out, Reagan did nominate three candidates, Robert Bork, Douglas Ginsberg both of whom were rejected by the Senate before deciding on the nomination of Anthony Kennedy.
There is absolutely no reason the senate should confirm a nominee to the SCOTUS who will gut our protections under the Bill of Rights (i.e., the second amendment). Thus far Obama's nominations to the SCOTUS have been partisan hacks who put their ideology ahead of the law of the land.
That's all in the eye of the beholder, did you feel the same way about the conservative appointees under Reagan and the Bush family.
The Democrats started this with Robert Bork. You reap what you sow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
There is absolutely no reason the senate should confirm a nominee to the SCOTUS who will gut our protections under the Bill of Rights (i.e., the second amendment). Thus far Obama's nominations to the SCOTUS have been partisan hacks who put their ideology ahead of the law of the land.
Disapproving of a SPECIFIC nominee for SPECIFIC reasons is quite a bit different than vowing to block ANY nominee proposed by the president.
As an aside, I find it amusing that the only protection that some think important in the Bill of Rights is the 2nd amendment. Perhaps it's the only one they know -- after coveting thy neighbor's wife -- oh wait.
The Democrats started this with Robert Bork. You reap what you sow.
Bork was far to the right, but even he got a vote and saw half a dozen Senators from his own party say "no." When Obama nominates a centrist that is either denied a vote or voted down, they'll end up looking very silly.
I'm fine with evaluating the nominee on his or her merits, and then rejecting or approving based on that evaluation. I'm not fine with rejecting a nominee regardless of his merits, simply because this President nominated this person. And it seems to me that that is exactly what the Republicans are proposing. Out and out rejection based on who is doing the nominating, rather than a careful review of the nominee himself.
Supreme Court nominations have always been a political game and likely always will be.
There are hundreds -- perhaps thousands of judges in this nation that could do just fine as a Supreme Court Justice. Out of that pool of possibles, the POTUS always always always nominates somebody who they believe will support their party's political agenda. Congress in turn approves or denies based mostly on political agenda.
Unless Barack Obama nominates somebody pro-life and anti-gun control etc., there's no way in hell this Congress will allow Obama to seat another Supreme Court Justice.
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.
