Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-17-2016, 01:17 PM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,931,892 times
Reputation: 7458

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2016, 01:18 PM
 
12,270 posts, read 11,306,221 times
Reputation: 8066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2016, 01:55 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
12,755 posts, read 9,623,716 times
Reputation: 13164
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveToRow View Post
Where in the Constitution does it say a Senator must approve a President's nominee to the Supreme Court, or any Court?

Oh, that's right it doesn't. Most liberals wouldn't know that, having never actually read the Constitution.
It does not say a senator must approve a nominee.

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)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2016, 01:56 PM
 
14,941 posts, read 8,555,251 times
Reputation: 7360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2016, 02:16 PM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,080,924 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
Kirk will fulfill his constitutional duties and there will be votes on Obama's appointment. Nothing in the constitution that says he has to vote yes.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2016, 02:18 PM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,080,924 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Predetermining that they will not vote for an unknown nominee, that makes a lot of sense.
"]Predetermining that they will not vote for an unknown nominee,"

That is what Shumer said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2016, 02:19 PM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,080,924 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier View Post
It does not say a senator must approve a nominee.

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)
"The Constitution says the Senate MUST VOTE, either for or against."

It does NOT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2016, 02:26 PM
 
12,270 posts, read 11,306,221 times
Reputation: 8066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2016, 02:37 PM
 
1,438 posts, read 776,156 times
Reputation: 1732
Kirk-Illinois
Johnson-Wisconsin
Ayotte-New Hampshire
Toomey-Pennsylvania


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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2016, 02:50 PM
 
18,986 posts, read 9,041,195 times
Reputation: 14688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier View Post
It does not say a senator must approve a nominee.

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:55 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top