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 got a laugh out of this one, bad for the nation, really or maybe just the GOP.
“Whether everybody in the meeting today wanted to admit it, we all know that considering a nomination in the middle of a heated presidential campaign is bad for the nominee, bad for the court, bad for the process, and ultimately bad for the nation," Grassley said in a statement.
I got a laugh out of this one, bad for the nation, really or maybe just the GOP.
Me too.
And no one's really discussing the downside.
Only outlook seems to be that all obstruction is all good.
Quote:
“Kind of amusing, the GOP is making their vulnerable incumbent senators walk a plank on SCOTUS in the hope that Trump might get to pick,” tweeted former Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer.
I got a laugh out of this one, bad for the nation, really or maybe just the GOP.
“Whether everybody in the meeting today wanted to admit it, we all know that considering a nomination in the middle of a heated presidential campaign is bad for the nominee, bad for the court, bad for the process, and ultimately bad for the nation," Grassley said in a statement.
With a few small changes, Grassley could be accused of plagiarizing Biden's remarks to the Senate in 1992:
"Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution."
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
McConnell is simply playing obstructionist games, so I'm not surprised. The sooner he gets defeated or retires, the better off America will be. The modern Republicans claim to despise SJW and their tactics -- except they use the same tactics SJW use. Not to mention their tones are strikingly similar. Same kind of tone and tactics, same no-compromise spirit -- only from the opposite direction.
With a few small changes, Grassley could be accused of plagiarizing Biden's remarks to the Senate in 1992:
"Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution."
True but then Biden wasn't the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee or the Senate and more importantly he didn't follow through on his threat nor did any of the others.
Mr. Grassley, in the interview on Wednesday, said he hoped Judge Kelly would be on a short list of potential Supreme Court nominees for the next Democratic president.
“In this particular instance,” Mr. Grassley said about the election-year vacancy, “it has got to be the process, and the person doesn’t matter, see.”
He also broke with the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who has flatly ruled out meeting with the president’s nominee.
Mr. Grassley said that he had not yet decided whether he would do so, and that Judge Kelly, as an Iowan, would be welcome in his office any time.
It's just Republican opportunistic politics as usual. What's the big deal?
If the guy kicked the bucket while a GOPer was in Oval Office, they're be beating like hell to get some new stiff in there asap yesterday already. This is to be expected on either side.
I wish that someone that supports Senator McConnell's position would come on here and answer the question: where does the Constitution state that the Senate has the power to not consider a Supreme Court nominee during 'election season'?
Note that I believe the Senate has the power to reject any and all nominees put forth by Obama. Indeed, they may keep rejecting such nominees until next January. But to say that they will not even consider or vote on a nominee during 'election' season seems unsupportable.
What is 'election' season? I believe the first candidates announced in May 2015 (or maybe a month or two prior to that). Is that when 'election' season began?
As I noted earlier in this thread, it could be argued that the only 'election' season recognized by the Constitution is the period between the Constitutionally established day for the Presidential election (first Tuesday after the first Monday in November) up to the date of the following December when the Electoral College actually casts their votes for President (a period of about 5 or 6 weeks).
Some have also spoken of the president being a 'lame duck' president. However, traditionally (for again, it is not in the Constitution) the 'lame duck' period begins when the new president is elected, up to the swearing in of said new president. The new president used to be sworn into office in March, but the Constitution was amended to push the date back to January, so the 'lame duck' factor was not as much in play.
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.
