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.
Not at all. The Republican Senate is fulfilling its Constitutional obligations, just like the Dem Senate did under Reid. No difference.
Wouldn't it be easier to admit the name of the game is Politics and that's what the R's are playing. Reid, Obama, McConnell, all of them play. The issue for the R's is if announcing they won't consider any Obama nominee is smart politically; will it help or hurt their chances in November and of getting a Scalia-type justice rather than a Sotomayor-type.
What they're doing or even reversing course and approving a conservative judge if Obama amazingly nominates one is better than the alternative of 8 months of hearings and rejecting nominees like the previous two from Obama.
There is no requirement to hold hearings. You can stomp your feet and cry and whine all you want. Doesn't change a thing. The American electorate voted into office a Republican majority Senate to check Obama. They're doing so.
Wouldn't it be easier to admit the name of the game is Politics and that's what the R's are playing.
No, and I already explained why I believe such isn't the case...
"Playing politics" is just a one-upmanship game, the goal of which is to prevent the opponent from doing something just for the sake of preventing it. I can easily see that there's a HUGE ideology schism between the 2 parties and rather than this being a game or politics, each side really is adhering to their beliefs.
You, of course, are free to disagree and call it "playing politics." I just don't see it that way.
No, and I already explained why I believe such isn't the case...
"Playing politics" is just a one-upmanship game, the goal of which is to prevent the opponent from doing something just for the sake of preventing it.
I can easily see that there's a HUGE ideology schism between the 2 parties and rather than this being a game or politics, each side really is adhering to their beliefs.
You, of course, are free to disagree and call it "playing politics." I just don't see it that way.
The ideological schism is about the type of judge who should replace Scalia. The rationale the R's are using to not hold any hearings --- that a vacancy should not be filled by a 'lameduck' prez --- is pure politics. You can't actually believe they'd use the same argument if this was McCain's last year, or Reagan's.
I'm fine with the R's decision to not hold hearings, but they had other methods to actually vote against an ideological liberal. That's where the political calculations come into play.
"Playing politics" is just a one-upmanship game, the goal of which is to prevent the opponent from doing something just for the sake of preventing it.
Won't consider any nominee - sound familiar?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You, of course, are free to disagree and call it "playing politics." I just don't see it that way.
Spin and defend while we win.
Figured you'd want a dog in some of these fights since they're so important:
• Abortion
• Affirmative Action
• Voting
Quote:
Justice Scalia had a long record of deference to states regarding regulation of abortion. The Supreme Court that remains is fractured ideologically (with four liberals, three conservatives, and one unpredictable quasi-moderate).
The decision of the Court this Spring in the Whole Women’s case may determine the approach that the federal courts will take in considering future challenges to abortion regulations for many years to come. Justice Scalia’s absence will be sorely felt.
In the first direct response by lawyers and clients to the change in the Supreme Court, Dow Chemical Co. said on Friday it had settled a billion-dollar class-action case it has pending before the Justices, rather than risk a loss following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Without admitting that it had done anything wrong in this plastics pricing case, the company said in a press release that it moved to end the case because its legal position was relying heavily upon two five-to-four decisions written for the Court by Scalia.
The ideological schism is about the type of judge who should replace Scalia. The rationale the R's are using to not hold any hearings --- that a vacancy should not be filled by a 'lameduck' prez --- is pure politics.
No, it's an ideological schism, like I said.
Quote:
I'm fine with the R's decision to not hold hearings, but they had other methods to actually vote against an ideological liberal. That's where the political calculations come into play.
I disagree. Not holding hearings is one of the several methods available to them to stay true to their ideological beliefs.
If Dems had "won" and kept the Senate, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
The American electorate got fed up with Obama's and the Dems' antics, got angry about getting screwed by Obamacare, rejected a Dem majority House and Senate, and gave both to the Republicans.
There is no requirement to hold hearings. You can stomp your feet and cry and whine all you want. Doesn't change a thing. The American electorate voted into office a Republican majority Senate to check Obama. They're doing so.
The only ones stomping their feet are you, McConnell, and the Republicans. The Democrats and Obama will just wait them out while publicly shaming them until McConnell caves under pressure from the Democrats and endangered Republicans or the American people usher in Democrats to replace failing Republicans, as well as putting another Democrat in as president.
Either scenario works for me, the biggest question is which one will McConnell choose.
The tears of despair from the extreme liberals on this thread are delicious.
Weird, what "tears of despair?" The only thing I see in this thread is right wingers desperate that McConnell will hold out until January 2017 before allowing any hearings for a Supreme Court nominee from Bernie or Hillary, or maybe from Obama in December 2016.
Granted he first has to hold out until then, and there are lots of things the Democrats can do to put pressure on McConnell. Besides, holding out is only helping the Democrats and making it easier for the Supreme Court to vote on things Scalia would have voted against.
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.
