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 09-04-2018, 09:15 PM
 
Location: Houston
3,163 posts, read 1,716,761 times
Reputation: 2645

Advertisements

Has Pres Obama ever given an answer to this question? It would be foolish to believe that the Republicans would have agreed on anyone that Obama suggested, so why bother? You could argue that everyone thought that HRC would ultimately win and would get to appoint the next SCOTUS seat, but that would have been HIS pick and lasting mark on the Judiciary. Why didn’t he just put a stick in McConnell’s eye and install Merrick Garland?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-04-2018, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Stasis
15,823 posts, read 12,436,448 times
Reputation: 8599
Because recess appointments are temporary: "Should there be a Senate recess of sufficient length, the president has constitutional authority to make a recess appointment of a new Supreme Court justice.[21] Any justice so appointed would be eligible to remain on the Court until either the end of the subsequent Congress's first session, or until the Senate consents to a permanent replacement. "
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 10:03 PM
 
21,428 posts, read 10,512,328 times
Reputation: 14081
And because Obama didn’t actually want Merrick Garland to be nominated. If he really thought he had a chance to get a nominee confirmed, he would have picked someone much more liberal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 10:05 PM
 
Location: In The Thin Air
12,566 posts, read 10,589,666 times
Reputation: 9247
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
And because Obama didn’t actually want Merrick Garland to be nominated. If he really thought he had a chance to get a nominee confirmed, he would have picked someone much more liberal.
Did he personally tell you this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 10:11 PM
 
34,301 posts, read 15,599,055 times
Reputation: 13053
Obama could talk for hours answering that question.
That's what he does when he doesn't know chit and wants to lecture people for his mistakes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 10:18 PM
 
21,428 posts, read 10,512,328 times
Reputation: 14081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyy View Post
Did he personally tell you this?
He didn’t have to. It’s common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Lost in Montana *recalculating*...
19,619 posts, read 22,502,117 times
Reputation: 24627
It was a farce of our Democracy to have the GOP hold it.

Personally I feel they will pay for this stupidity in the long game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 10:34 PM
 
12,772 posts, read 7,957,380 times
Reputation: 4332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun View Post
It was a farce of our Democracy to have the GOP hold it.

Personally I feel they will pay for this stupidity in the long game.
Actually the Democrats "paid for" this because it was originally Joe Biden's idea in 1992, so yeah its just more he did it first non-sense and hypocrisy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 10:37 PM
 
45,676 posts, read 23,932,524 times
Reputation: 15559
It isn't the Democrats who pay.

It isn't the Republicans who pay

It is all Americans.

Stupid games. I hate the word stupid but I don't know what else to call it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2018, 10:32 AM
 
5,938 posts, read 4,686,857 times
Reputation: 4630
So Obama could have simply put Merrick Garland on the bench. And Congress likely would not have confirmed him and them he'd leave the bench at the end of the session (essentially Jan 2017). And Garland could possibly have ruled on a few cases - maybe.

It was well within Obama's power to do a recess appointment. He could have wielded that power. He didn't. Why? Maybe because you don't just do something because you can. You know, how you don't just start confirming Supreme Court justices with 52-48 votes in the Senate just because you can. Oh wait, you do that if you choose to break tradition. Yeah yeah, I know. Harry Reid and some lower court justices. Sure sure. Small potatoes.

McConnell was unscrupulous in his usage of power.

Last edited by dspguy; 09-05-2018 at 11:38 AM.. Reason: fixed grammar
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:22 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