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 Democrats stopped President Reagan's nominee Robert Bork in 1987.
Bork was a very controversial choice. And you fail to mention that Reagan subsequently nominated Kennedy on November 11, 1987 and he was confirmed on February 3, 1988.
Last edited by helenejen; 02-13-2016 at 10:15 PM..
No balls involved. McConnell knows perfectly well that Obama can nominate someone today, tomorrow, whenever. And whoever he chooses, McConnell has no say in that either.
Harry Reid certainly exerted his will over what 'business' came to the floor of the Senate and what 'business' did not. Is the process for nominating a justice to SCOTUS materially different than other business in this regard?
First of all, the death of a Supreme Court justice is different from the passing of just about any other elected official, as this is literally one of the only ways to have this person removed from their position--even if the will of the people dictated that they be gone a long time prior. I have little doubt that were the shoe on the other foot, the reactions from some conservatives would be equally "abhorrent."
Second of all, I'm not sure that a precedent truly exists for this situation, particularly because of the divided nature of the country. No matter what happens, a good chunk of people will be upset. That said, regardless of who wins the Presidency in November, I think that there is a decent chance that the Democrats take back the Senate, so if the Republicans play stall-ball for 11 months they might find themselves in a precarious political position come January 2017 if/when the Democrats turn around and do the exact same thing.
Why would you be happy? Because you've disagreed with him? You should be ashamed of yourself if you really feel this way. But, I suppose it's all political to people like you.
hasn't he wanted death for gays? I know an eye for eye leaves the whole world blind and all but yeah, that rhetoric causes issues.
Yeah 2 minutes in is a blatant lie. I wish this forum had fact checking.
Mitch the witch was the first to politicize it, right after he got done sucking out all of Scalia's blood
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.
Well, he can say whatever he wants but he will not be the next president to install a supreme court justice. The GOP will never let that happen. The GOP might be baffoon's but they are not that dumb and yea, liberals would do the exact same thing if the roles were reversed. Hell, Harry brought the fewest number of bills to the senate floor than any majority leader in history.
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.
O wastes no time politicizing Scalias passing.
