What happens to republican senators that vote for an Obama supreme nomination? (ideology, election)
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.
Doesn't matter perhaps. You've seen this before, maybe.
Step 1: On November 8, 2016, elect a Democratic majority in the Senate (not crazy since there's a 24-10 differential in seats up for election)
Step 2: On January 3, 2017, the new Senate members get sworn in.
Step 3: On January 4, 2017, the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, deploys the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominations, Ted Cruz has to put away his copy of Green Eggs and Ham and cry in the corner in a fetal position.
Step 4: On January 4, 2017, President Obama nominates a Eric Holder (haha) to the vacancy left by Scalia. Senate holds hearings.
Step 5: On January 19, 2017, the Senate confirms Eric Holder and he is appointed as a SCOTUS Justice.
Step 6: On January 20, 2017, President Obama leaves office.
Mick
Your chronology doesn't account for the Republican filibuster of Holder, unless you are silly enough to believe that the Democrats will have over 60 Senate seats after this year's election.
Gone in next election and you people are living in a dream world.
Yup. Democrats aren't going to vote for them anyway and their Republican supporters will desert them. You may as well bite the bullet, tell the MSM to slag off and just say no to the whole process. To hell with Obama, Republicans don't owe him a thing. Elections have consequences, and this is one of them. Let the Democrats whine, who cares.
Last edited by Dockside; 02-17-2016 at 02:02 PM..
Reason: sp
Predetermining that they will not vote for an unknown nominee, that makes a lot of sense.
I don't think one needs to be Karnak the Magnificent to predict the pedigree of Obama's next choice.
Look, both sides pick based on political ideology ... that is no secret.
In a perfect world politics would play no role in such appointments, however, that is impossible when leftists Democrats insist on selecting liberal ideologues who have no reservation about ignoring the intent of the framers ... but rule instead based on their ideological positions, Constitution be damned.
Progressive liberal policies too often directly conflict with the Constitution, so sadly, they WILL NOT CHOOSE a constructionist, even though that IS THE PRIMARY DUTY of a Supreme Court Justice ... to rule on Constitutional law, as intended by the framers.
Liberals simply ignore intent, and go into incoherent explanations as to why such things as outright gun bans don't actually ,"infringe" on the right to bear. Of course, such garbage is nonsensical and absurd. But that's the way they roll.
It is quite the irony for liberals to shout about Republicans refusing to approve Liberal Justices who will absolutely violate their sworn oath to defend the Constitution, as they look for any avenue to bypass or sidestep it.
And there is NOTING in the Constitution that says they HAVE to VOTE.
By taking NO action the are "advising" the President that they do not want the nominee.
It would be nice if the GOP had half the cojones Reid and Pelosi shared between them. They would've told the GOP to get bent and that would've been the end of it. All this handwringing in the GOPe is why Trump is popular with so many Republicans and Independents. Why can't the Republican leadership just say no, why do they have to use Bill Clinton-like legalisms to keep the door cracked open to the possibility of hearings. Why do they fret about being obstructionist when their base wants them to be?
These are GOP Senators in states that go blue every presidential election. If they block a Supreme Court nominee from a president their states voted for twice, their already slim chances of reelection are toast.
The Constitution says the Senate MUST VOTE, either for or against.
Now, who was it who didn't read the Constitution??? (much less this thread)
No matter how many times you say it, you will inevitably get the same response:
"Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate must approve the president's choice???????"
It's as if our rightwing friends here are too intellectually challenged to understand that no one is asking for a rubber stamp of the president's choice. We are simply asking that they follow the process outlined in the Constitution and vote one way or another. Just as has been done for every other Supreme Court nominee since the beginning of U.S. history.
And still, I have no doubt that someone will respond to this post with the inevitable asinine response anyway:
"Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate must approve the president's choice???????"
Why is everything that was good enough for every previous president is never good enough for this one?
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.