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.
To be fair, it was Obama that said "Elections have consequences".
True enough. And Obama is the president and will remain the president for another 11 months because he won reelection. And one of the jobs of the president is to nominate Supreme Court justices.
It is up to McConnell to schedule Senate hearings to approve the nomination. If he decides not to schedule any such hearings, as McConnell apparently has decided, then there will be none. And if there are no hearings, there will be no vote of approval in the Senate, and therefore it will be left to the next president to make their own selection.
^^^^^ Not allowed to rep you again yet. ^^^^^ This answers the question I just posed to the same poster who prompted your response above.
Saltine, while this may be recent news to you, the judge died well before Obama made his decision. It's a shame that you lag so far behind in current events. Had you paid attention, you would have seen many others (including candidates) that made comments against government policy in regards to this event (calling for delaying the nomination). I hope you don't support any of those anti-Americans.
As much as I wish Obama was not the one to nominate a replacement, the reality is that is his responsibility. He should waste no time doing his job during such an unfortunate event.
It is up to McConnell to schedule Senate hearings to approve the nomination. If he decides not to schedule any such hearings, as McConnell apparently has decided, then there will be none. And if there are no hearings, there will be no vote of approval in the Senate, and therefore it will be left to the next president to make their own selection.
Obama is sure to nominate someone. Then the Republicans will be in the uncomfortable position of having to explain for almost a full year why they refuse to schedule hearings. You can bet it will become a campaign issue that the Democrats will keep front and center.
It will be a long, long year in which the GOP will have to continually try to justify this very blatant obstruction if they decide to go that route.
^^^^^ Not allowed to rep you again yet. ^^^^^ This answers the question I just posed to the same poster who prompted your response above.
And then we see if the Senate flips in November, then Democrats choose the Supreme Court Justice while Obama is still in office. Plus, it sets the precedent that Democrats don't have to entertain Supreme Court hearings from as far out as a year before the next president.
I hope you realize that's why I posted the 9 justices in 2005 and which POTUS nominated each. The post to which I was responding said the liberals on the court were responsible for the decision. At that time only 2 Supreme Court justices had been appointed by a Democrat.
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.
Not allowed to rep you again yet. ^^^^^ This answers the question I just posed to the same poster who prompted your response above.