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.
What's your point? Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58 to 42. There was no vacant Supreme Court seat for over a year.
Also, the Democrats (including then Senator Obama) didn't say they were going to block all nominees. They just didn't feel Alito had the right qualifications. Big difference!
I have to chuckle, because Marco Rubio said that John Roberts was a big mistake and he also was a Bush nominee but they're criticizing Pres Obama for protesting one of his other appointments in 2006.
Maybe after we learned that Bush lied about the WMDs some people lost faith in his judgment.
" the Democrats (including then Senator Obama) didn't say they were going to block all nominees."
I suggest you read through these threads and read wht Chucky Shumer told Bush what the dem were going to do.
Excellent post! Democrats are so blindly partisan that they don't recognize what their side does and need to be constantly reminded.
Not sure which is worse, that they're blindly partisan, so easily led, or possess such selective memory. Things have gotten so ridiculous of late you've got Harry Reid chastising Republicans for obstructionism when he blocked votes on nearly all legislation during his tenure as Senate Majority Leader from Jan 2007, through Jan 2015. Schumer is criticizing Republicans for threatening to block any potential Obama nominees for the vacant Supreme Court position when both he, then Senator Obama, and then Senator Clinton, along with 21 other Democrats voted for filibuster of Alito's nomination. Recently, Obama tried some ineffective spin about the nomination process evolving over time, and no one party being to blame. Bottom line, Democrats are just overtly hypocritical. Block, obstruct, change parliamentary procedure rules, filibuster, closed door votes, etc., and then shout the roof down if the GOP does the same thing.
It's exactly the same thing. A filibuster is a filibuster. Suck it up and FINALLY be a recipient of the shenanigans Dems pull all the time.
A filibuster for a few weeks is not the same as recommending the president not exercise his right to nominate. By the way you need to have a nominee in order to have a filibuster, one year does not equal to two weeks in any case.
If they decide to filibuster and it goes past November good luck in the next election.
A filibuster for a few weeks is not the same as recommending the president not exercise his right to nominate. By the way you need to have a nominee in order to have a filibuster, one year does not equal to two weeks in any case.
If they decide to filibuster and it goes past November good luck in the next election.
"as recommending the president not exercise his right to nominate"
And THAT is EXACTLY what the dems did when Shumer made his warning declaration.
They are not presently recommending a filibuster, they don't even want him to nominate anyone.
Alito's filibuster was regretful but would be no comparison, the filibuster lasted a few weeks.
Oh, that makes it ok on the Dem's part but not for the Republicans. Where does it state how long a filibuster may last?
Reality is -- this is an incredibly important and serious issue for the country. It's not just a question of which side gets their way. The Pres has very little time left in office. The appointee will be in for life. He/she should be appointed by the person who is elected by the will of the people now, not who was elected 4 years ago. Dems need to realize that a presidential term is also a changing term. It's not what it was when the people spoke at the last election. A lot has changed in the country and the sentiment of the voters. The voice of the people whose candidate will be elected in November should be reflected in such an appointment.
I hope and pray it won't be a Democrat who is elected, but if it is, so be it. That is the right way to make this appointment. Anything other than that isn't truly democratic.
So liberals need to stop the hissy fit, screaming about getting their way when it may not be what the majority of voters would prefer.
Oh, that makes it ok on the Dem's part but not for the Republicans. Where does it state how long a filibuster may last?
Reality is -- this is an incredibly important and serious issue for the country. It's not just a question of which side gets their way. The Pres has very little time left in office. The appointee will be in for life. He/she should be appointed by the person who is elected by the will of the people now, not who was elected 4 years ago. Dems need to realize that a presidential term is also a changing term. It's not what it was when the people spoke at the last election. A lot has changed in the country and the sentiment of the voters. The voice of the people whose candidate will be elected in November should be reflected in such an appointment.
I hope and pray it won't be a Democrat who is elected, but if it is, so be it. That is the right way to make this appointment. Anything other than that isn't truly democratic.
So liberals need to stop the hissy fit, screaming about getting their way when it may not be what the majority of voters would prefer.
The president has one year left in office that is not a little time, if they are not going to be allowed to appoint in their last year then change the constitution. There have been presidents that nominated a judge in December of their last term, so where do you draw the line. The sitting president was already "elected by the will of the people", why should he not exercise his rights.
If the position is important we shouldn't be waiting for a new president in January and just beginning the nomination process that could last months. There are too many important issues that could be impacted by a deadlock including the 2016 election.
Oh, that makes it ok on the Dem's part but not for the Republicans. Where does it state how long a filibuster may last?
Reality is -- this is an incredibly important and serious issue for the country. It's not just a question of which side gets their way. The Pres has very little time left in office. The appointee will be in for life. He/she should be appointed by the person who is elected by the will of the people now, not who was elected 4 years ago. Dems need to realize that a presidential term is also a changing term. It's not what it was when the people spoke at the last election. A lot has changed in the country and the sentiment of the voters. The voice of the people whose candidate will be elected in November should be reflected in such an appointment.
I hope and pray it won't be a Democrat who is elected, but if it is, so be it. That is the right way to make this appointment. Anything other than that isn't truly democratic.
So liberals need to stop the hissy fit, screaming about getting their way when it may not be what the majority of voters would prefer.
What you said shouldn't be done now, has already been done in the past. Thus, there is historical precedent.
In addition, perhaps someone can point to the part of the constitution that says that the president can nominate to fill SCOTUS vacancies -- except within a year of his term ending.
There was a time that the death of a Supreme Court justice wouldn't have brought America to the edge of constitutional crisis. But that was when the Republican Party was a political party willing to govern and not spend every ounce of effort trying to hamper Obama.
If they decide to filibuster and it goes past November good luck in the next election.
The Dems screwed themselves for at least a generation by shoving Obamacare down Americans' throats in a strictly partisan process. It'll kick the middle class in the balls even harder this year than last. They should really be feeling the pain by November. Think they'll vote for the *******s who did this to them? No way!
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.
