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.
I tend to agree. It is often said that the voting public has a 'short memory', and that a scandal will wither away after about six months. However, the Democrats would be able to keep this issue alive right up to Election Day.
I guess you are ignoring the fact that the Democrats have routinely engaged in the exact same thing? If they keep it alive, that fact will also be kept alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
I would suggest that the Senate duly hold a hearing on an Obama nominee, then reject him or her. Obama sends down a new nominee: Senate holds a hearing, rejects. And repeat as need be.
For what purpose? Besides, Obama is going to have a hard time finding someone willing to go down in flames for his sake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
At least, that way, the Senate Republicans can claim "we would gladly advise and consent to a new Justice, but not the Socialist Marxist Communists (you get the idea) nominees Obama keeps sending us".
It would not totally mitigate the damage, but it would to some degree.
Their best course of action is what they are doing; refusing to hold any hearings. The reasons are valid, one being that the public has voted for a majority Republican Senate and House, and many state governors and legislatures as well. The voting public does not want another liberal Supreme Court justice confirmed by a Republican majority Senate. THAT would be political suicide, since the voting public is already upset with RINOs and "establishment" politicians who say one thing and do another.
They were elected to do their job. Their job is a up or down vote. Not this.
For those saying "just reject candidates" No. Thats not their job.
Their JOB is to look at a candidate and decide if he or she will make for a good supreme court justice. PERIOD.
Politicizing this in this specific manner is failing to do their job.
Look, why not just vote on candidates? If Obama keeps suggesting candidates that are unsuccessful because they are voted down because they are a bad choice? THATS doing your job. This is partisan politics that harm the country.
"Their job is a up or down vote." WRONG.
It has been explained , to even you, that there is NO REQUIREMENT in the Constitution to hold a vote.
"Politicizing this in this specific manner is failing to do their job." Boy, your bias is really showing.
You act as if the dems NEVER politicized ANYTHING, INCLUDING SC nominations.
Why was it OK for Shumer and Biden and NOT McConnell?
I was thinking about this some. As I noted in another post there is no such thing as an 'election season', at least, if you look at the Constitution (although I argued that it could be the period between election day and the day the Electors cast their official votes for President and Vice President).
Now, let us suppose, for fun, that Donald Trump wins the Presidency this November, but that the Senate changes hands to a Democratic majority. Upon taking office in January 2017 Mr. Trump declares that he is ready to submit a nomination to the Supreme Court.
Why couldn't someone, like Elizabeth Warren or even (shudder) Hillary Rodham Clinton, or any other Democrat, immediately declare (and file the proper paperwork) that they are running for the 2020 presidency? If you have declared candidates, then it must be 'election season'. Hence, the Democratic majority in the Senate would declare that they must wait until the next election to abide by the will of the American people, and so will not consider any nominee put up by Mr. Trump.
Just a fun thought.
Personally I don't think whether or not it is "election season" should have much bearing on whether or not a new justice is considered but
Quote:
Why is this considered 'election' season by some?
Primaries have started.
That is a little different than someone immediately declaring for president 4 years in the future.
You were always going to find a reason to vote for the Democrat nominee. If it wasn't this, it would have been some other perceived slight.
The fact that the GOP makes people like you angry is one good reason for vote straight ticket GOP. Think I'll do it again.
I'm sorry, my post must have been too long. Your attention span must have run out by the time you got to this part -
Quote:
I'm a liberal who votes in about 1 out of 3, maybe 1 out of 2 elections, and only when I'm really mad about something or when there's a liberal candidate I like, trust, and respect enough that I feel I can vote for them in good conscience. And the latter is very, very rare. I voted twice for Bill Clinton, once for Obama (fool me once shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me), and didn't vote at all in 00 or 04. Prior to that, Mondale and Carter were the only two Presidential ballots I ever cast, and all I can say is when Carter ran I was only 18 and didn't know any better.
But the point it, I despise Hillary Clinton, and never in a million years would have expected to actually vote for that loathsome, repulsive felon. In my opinion, she is the Democrats' Nixon. Up until a week ago, I was planning to sit this one out - but now, I absolutely am going to vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, even if it's her. You're right - I never would have voted Republican, but at least I wasn't planning to vote against you. And now, I most certainly, absolutely, unequivocally am going to do exactly that. And I guarantee you I am not the only one.
Cry like little girls as some Pinko ultra left winger is rapidly confirmed. Everyone else will laugh, and laugh and laugh...
Honestly the smartest thing the Republicans could do is come up with a best option list and negotiate a decent compromise.
They aren't going to get another ultra conservative member in, as with the dumpster fire that is the Republican primary, the D's are feeling confident that they will hold the White House at the very least. If the Senate makes this ugly, there's a very real chance that they could lose the Senate, and at that point, all discussions are moot.
If you negotiate a decently neutral candidate, you can prove to the electorate that you're there doing the will of the people, and see, there's still compromise, and depending on who it is, you may get to claim you made Obama blink.
This is way too sensible for McConnell et al to consider.
This is a gamble for the GOP. If the Democrats retake the Senate in November, as they have a good chance of doing, the new Senate will be seated in early January. Obama will have a window of a few weeks where he can send a nice, liberal/progressive nominee to the new body and they can confirm that nominee before the new president is sworn in. Whereas if they go through the normal process the way the Constitution outlines it, the president will nominate someone much more moderate in an attempt to get him confirmed.
The Party of NO!--as shortsighted as ever.
That's what we elected them to be since you gave us Obama, Harry, & Nancy to give Trillions to the Wall Street bankers borrowed from the Chinese. By saying no to Obama's cockamany ideas for the last 6 years, the economy and country has been put back on track.
What will the Republicans do if a Democrat wins the presidency and re-takes the Senate??
That isn't likely to happen. I don't think the voting public is that fickle. They just recently gave control of both the House and the Senate to the Republicans. It's going to be a long time before that reverses. But, dream on, if it makes you feel good.
I can't fathom how they think this is a good strategy in an election year.
I also saw where old turkey neck said he would rather lose the Senate than lose the SCOTUS appointment.
Well, apparently the Democrats thought it was good strategy. And I stand with McConnell and the Judiciary Committee on this.
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.
