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.
The great and powerful O has spoken, and wasted no time politicizing the passing of Scalia. Really disgusting. We can do nothing but wait and see.
C'mon seriously?
The GOP strategists on the Sunday show this morning said that 15 minutes after the death was announced, they were bombarded with emails from 'concerned republicans' advising on the need to obstruct any nominations.
The GOP candidates had canned responses ready to go.
McConnell and Reid immediately put out statements (well before Obama had commented on anything more than sympathies to the family).
So let's not pretend that the politics of this were not seized upon on all sides.
If the Congress did what people elect them to do, you would think their approval rating would be higher than 12%. Practically every American disapproves their partisan games.
" 12%."
About 50% of Americans don't even vote.
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?
If the GOP obstructs an appointment of a new Justice until after the election, the Democrats are guaranteed a victory in the House, Senate, and for president. This election then will have unprecedented impact and will motivate more democrats to get out and vote.
I think you predicted the dems would win back the house and that they would keep the Senate in the bast election.
I also remember something about Walker NOT winning the recall in Wisc.
You record is so dismal, it should be discounted out of hand.
Yes. It was dumb of the GOP to announce they will reject any nominee from Obama, because they basically admitted being partisan hacks. If they are going to reject, then reject and come up with reasonable explanations why a nominee is not suitable. It's stupid to come out and say they will reject just for the sake of playing partisan politics.
"they basically admitted being partisan hacks"
Unlike the dems who ARE partisan hacks and REFUSE to admit it.
The longer we can wait while stopping SCOTUS from eviscerating Constitutional Rights, the better.
Please show us where in the Constitution it states that one party should refuse to consider a legal and constitutional presidential nominee for the Supreme Court for more than a year if they hope that by then the political climate will better favor them.
One, while Democrats (especially Senator Edward Kennedy) were utterly opposed to Judge Bork, they did not 'delay, delay, delay'. President Reagan nominated Judge Bork on July 1, 1987, and the Senate voted on his nomination on October 23rd (after rather lengthy hearings).
While I did not think Judge Bork was a very good choice, I did think the Senate should have approved him, all in line with my thought that nominees made by a President should be approved, unless there is a very good, articulate reason not to. Simply disagreeing with their legal philosophy is not, I think, a good reason.
However, one factor was that when the political pressure got 'hot', even President Reagan began to back off, much to Bork's disappointment (as he discussed in his book). Another factor was that many were still upset over Bork's actions in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Nixon administration (however, Mr. Bork was simply carrying out orders to fire Mr. Cox and accept the others resignations).
To date there have been 12 such nominees voted on and rejected by the Senate (not counting those nominees whom withdrew their name), dating back to George Washington. To say that the "Democrats" began the process with Judge Bork is misleading, at best.
One must also recall that many people, over the years, appointed to the high court often surprise the President that nominated them. We have had 'conservative' judges become liberal Justices, and vise versa. It is indeed a different view from the top of the mountain.
"Simply disagreeing with their legal philosophy is not, I think, a good reason."
I respectfully DISAGREE.
A judge should NOT have legal philosophy IF that philosophy is based on politics. and political agendas.
The are SUPPOSED to base their ruling ON TH LAW. NOT legal philosophy.
The guy isn't even in the ground yet and you're the one salivating at the possibility of making the SC more to your liking. Pathetic.
Seems like the SC is good and just when it suits your agenda, and legislating from the bench when the SC doesn't agree with you. I wish people like you would make up your damn minds.
Stop crying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000
Because Obama is not likely to nominate a candidate who we will agree with.
^^^^^ The new GOP spin only because they don't want a liberal appointed to the court. This argument has nothing to do with the constitution or framework of our founding fathers.
"The new GOP spin only because they don't want a liberal appointed to the court."
And the libs WANT a liberal and "has nothing to do with the constitution or framework of our founding fathers."
What is the difference?
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.
