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 10-28-2016, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,749,968 times
Reputation: 15482

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Losing party?

Didn't Republicans take control of the Senate in 2015?
Yes, they did. But Clinton is likely to win, and the Senate is likely to flip.

If so, the current Congress still has a nomination in front of it, and will have the time to act. Merrick Garland received high praise from both Rs and Ds before Obama nominated him - in fact, some Rs urged Obama to nominate Garland - GOP leaders praised SCOTUS pick Merrick Garland -- a lot - CNNPolitics.com.

If Clinton is elected and the Senate flips, Garland will be confirmed so fast you'll get motion sickness. They'll just drop their pretense about waiting for the next president's choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2016, 12:33 PM
 
28,671 posts, read 18,788,917 times
Reputation: 30979
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Yes, they did. But Clinton is likely to win, and the Senate is likely to flip.

If so, the current Congress still has a nomination in front of it, and has the time to act. Merrick Garland received high praise from both Rs and Ds before Obama nominated him - in fact, some Rs urged Obama to nominate Garland - GOP leaders praised SCOTUS pick Merrick Garland -- a lot - CNNPolitics.com.

If Clinton is elected and the Senate flips, Garland will be confirmed so fast you'll get motion sickness. They'll just drop their pretense about waiting for the next president's choice.

They ought to--that would be most logical. But they won't. They're dug in too hard to dig out fast enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2016, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Missouri
4,272 posts, read 3,788,485 times
Reputation: 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle View Post
The congressional Republicans weren't elected to "work with" Obama and the Executive branch. They were elected by their constituents to throw up every roadblock they could think of to oppose Obama.

The congressional Republicans that were elected in 2014 didn't do this and Trump is the result.
They were not elected to create a constitutional crisis, which the Republicans in the Senate have done. What is the solution to a Senate that won't do it's mandated duty?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2016, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,889,092 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
If Clinton is elected and the Senate flips, Garland will be confirmed so fast you'll get motion sickness. They'll just drop their pretense about waiting for the next president's choice.
Providing Obama does not withdraw the nomination and nominate a younger and more liberal judge. I think control of the Senate will come down to the New Hampshire race. Amazing how a small plurality of a small state may shape our nation for a couple generations.

If not for the USSC I would prefer Hitlery over Trump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2016, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,749,968 times
Reputation: 15482
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Providing Obama does not withdraw the nomination and nominate a younger and more liberal judge. I think control of the Senate will come down to the New Hampshire race. Amazing how a small plurality of a small state may shape our nation for a couple generations.

If not for the USSC I would prefer Hitlery over Trump.
I doubt he'd do that.

Because, in spite of what many people think, Obama is not much of a leftist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2016, 01:44 PM
 
20,462 posts, read 12,384,859 times
Reputation: 10258
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
The check is the ability to vote him down. No vote at all is simply not doing your job.
nope.
not according to the constitution.


Advise and consent is the wording of the Constitution....THAT and that along is the Charge of the Constitution to the Senate.




Voting is part of that. but it is not the only part and the history of this relationship going all the way back to the early 1800s is clear. many times the senate has refused to grant hearing, or vote on a nominee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2016, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,889,092 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
I doubt he'd do that.

Because, in spite of what many people think, Obama is not much of a leftist.
I'd say it is less than 50/50 but if I was Obama I would let them know it is a possibility.

The Republicans cannot act now without hurting themselves on election day but I would be ready to move quickly after the election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2016, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,771 posts, read 104,756,288 times
Reputation: 49248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510 View Post
Justice Clarence Thomas calls DC 'broken in some ways' | TheHill

He says it's a terrible idea to not allow a confirmation hearing before the end of the year, and believes obstructionism is ruining Washington.
I saw him interviewed on TV yesterday. What you are saying is being taken out of context a bit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2016, 02:15 PM
 
59,053 posts, read 27,318,346 times
Reputation: 14285
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
The check is the ability to vote him down. No vote at all is simply not doing your job.
And what according to the Constitution IS their "job"?
Be specific.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2016, 02:17 PM
 
59,053 posts, read 27,318,346 times
Reputation: 14285
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
Actually YOU may want to do some more research on the Biden Rule. Biden did not suggest a sitting POTUS not get to nominate a justice at all and let the next POTUS do so, but simply that the nomination be done after the election , so that the nomination did not itself become a part of the political campaign . That still left 2 1/2 months or so after the election to nominate and vote on the current POTUS nominee .
"Biden did not suggest a sitting POTUS not get to nominate a justice at all"

NO ONE said the POTUS could NOT nominate.
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 01:45 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