So glad that my jubilant and celebratory thread has finally turned so serious.

Good stuff, ladies and gentlemen. There, however, is a glaring lack of exclamation points in the byplay.

 

Good stuff, ladies and gentlemen. There, however, is a glaring lack of exclamation points in the byplay.

It's so disappointing!!!!

 

What ... does that sound celebratory? Dang ...

Interesting. Are there other Senators, who are up against a tough re-election bid, breaking with McConnell's 'directive?' 

 

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1343916/sweet-mark-kirk-says-obama-nominate-deserves-senate-hearing

 

I've been saying all along that this is going to put a lot of Senators in a tough spot, and here's one election in Illinois that is going to be very interesting.

 

I suppose it is common place to solicit like that.  But its oddly suggestive that the seat is for sale, and that they know they don't have good Constitutional argument. 

They aren't trying to make a Constitutional argument that Obama can't nominate someone, but that they are making an argument that they have the right to block someone.

 

If the confirmation period takes as long as Bork-Ginsburg-Kennedy it will carry out until after the election, and if Hillary or Bernie wins they will quickly confirm who Obama has as the current nominee, yet if a Republican wins they will hold out.

 

They aren't trying to make a Constitutional argument that Obama can't nominate someone, but that they are making an argument that they have the right to block someone.

 

If the confirmation period takes as long as Bork-Ginsburg-Kennedy it will carry out until after the election, and if Hillary or Bernie wins they will quickly confirm who Obama has as the current nominee, yet if a Republican wins they will hold out.

Actually, they are making an argument that Obama shouldn't nominate anyone. They can do what they want once he has, but they are trying to hold up any nominations being made at all. They don't want the ball in their court, so to speak. Once it is, it is more difficult for them to obstruct the process. Yes, they will have hearings and whatnot, but once the ball is in their court, the longer it takes, it could mean losing seats. So their only strategy is trying to stop the nomination from happening at all. At least that's what I think.

They aren't trying to make a Constitutional argument that Obama can't nominate someone, but that they are making an argument that they have the right to block someone.

 

If the confirmation period takes as long as Bork-Ginsburg-Kennedy it will carry out until after the election, and if Hillary or Bernie wins they will quickly confirm who Obama has as the current nominee, yet if a Republican wins they will hold out.

Cruz had repeatedly argued he can't/shouldn't.

 

They aren't trying to make a Constitutional argument that Obama can't nominate someone, but that they are making an argument that they have the right to block someone.

 

If the confirmation period takes as long as Bork-Ginsburg-Kennedy it will carry out until after the election, and if Hillary or Bernie wins they will quickly confirm who Obama has as the current nominee, yet if a Republican wins they will hold out.

From nomination to conclusion has never taken more than 135 days IIRC. There certainly is enough time. The argument for the GOP has been some "80 year tradition" which is pretty much ridiculous on it's face and that Democrats (Schumer and Biden) have said publicly that a Republican president shouldn't make a nomination in an election year so Obama should forgo making a selection so late in his term.

 

"Bork-Ginsburg-Kennedy" was three separate nominations. Obama likely would get one chance, but there is plenty of time to act on who he nominates. Certainly, most Republicans don't want another Obama appointee on the bench, but it is going to be hard for many of them to say no if the person is truly qualified.

Senate Republicans:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/22/senate-republicans-signal-no-vote-supreme-court-nominee/80768642/

Scalia would be so proud of their utter disregard for the constitutional process. Everyone knows how anti-constitution he was.

 

I'd like to hear what the other eight justices think of congress not hearing a legit nomination process.

 

I wonder how people would react if a justice died in the first year of Obama's presidency. Who would be OK with him dragging HIS feet and not nominating anyone for a year?

 

Cruz had repeatedly argued he can't/shouldn't.

As have Democrats about Republicans.

 

As have Democrats about Republicans.

 

Republican's can't/shouldn't what?

 

Republican's can't/shouldn't what?

Nominate someone when they are a "lame duck." Stringer Bell also pointed this out.

Did that make it right?

 

do you really think that in the 2 elections where people elected Obama, that they didn't think maybe he'd have to replace another justice?

 

What is RIGHT for the country? 

 

He's not a lame duck, he's the elected PoTUS. He has almost a full year left. If only Congress would pass a budget, and do their jobs.........but they are too busy trying to make Obama look bad, at the expense of the country.

As have Democrats about Republicans.

So you are saying Republicans should do what Democrats tell them to do.

 

Finally! That makes me so happy!!!

 

 

 

*also I think the language Biden used was a little more nuanced than the Republicans are claiming. Not that that nuance or shades of grey ever stopped a Republican congressman from opening his mouth before.

 

Did that make it right?

 

do you really think that in the 2 elections where people elected Obama, that they didn't think maybe he'd have to replace another justice?

 

What is RIGHT for the country? 

 

He's not a lame duck, he's the elected PoTUS. He has almost a full year left. If only Congress would pass a budget, and do their jobs.........but they are too busy trying to make Obama look bad, at the expense of the country.

 

This is such a lame complaint, it would be the same way if the roles were reversed.

 

The best way for Obama to get a Justice through that he wants is for the Democrats to prove that they are likely to win the Presidential election and to show the swing Senators that they are in trouble if they obstruct.

 

But seriously, stop appealing to some greater principle they would drop in a second if it was politically expedient for them to do so.

Calling Obama a lame duck at this stage is insulting on a whole lot of levels.

 

Nominate someone when they are a "lame duck." Stringer Bell also pointed this out.

 

So Republican's are listening to Joe Biden now?

 

The "rule" is unwritten and it was called the Thurmond Rule where a lame duck president shouldn't nominate anyone after July. It's not even close to July.

 

And when Democrats pointed out that Bush was appointing lower district court judges within this time frame, the Republicans said there was no such rule and they could do what they wanted.

 

This is such a lame complaint, it would be the same way if the roles were reversed.

 

The best way for Obama to get a Justice through that he wants is for the Democrats to prove that they are likely to win the Presidential election and to show the swing Senators that they are in trouble if they obstruct.

 

But seriously, stop appealing to some greater principle they would drop in a second if it was politically expedient for them to do so.

Because who actually gives a sh*t about what's best for the country.

 

This is such a lame complaint, it would be the same way if the roles were reversed.

 

The best way for Obama to get a Justice through that he wants is for the Democrats to prove that they are likely to win the Presidential election and to show the swing Senators that they are in trouble if they obstruct.

 

But seriously, stop appealing to some greater principle they would drop in a second if it was politically expedient for them to do so.

 

What are you talking about?

 

I don't give a crap what the parties would or would not do (even though we know that democrats have approved justices in the last year of a presidency).

 

Congress should do their job, not leave the Court w/o 9 justices for 2 years.

 

This is such a lame complaint, it would be the same way if the roles were reversed.

 

The best way for Obama to get a Justice through that he wants is for the Democrats to prove that they are likely to win the Presidential election and to show the swing Senators that they are in trouble if they obstruct.

 

But seriously, stop appealing to some greater principle they would drop in a second if it was politically expedient for them to do so.

 

I agree that Democrats shouldn't generally use the, "principle" aspect of this issue unless the Republicans do in which case it should be fair game for them to also be able to use the same card.

 

Conservative posters here don't seem to be saying this is a matter of principle, but the candidates/Senators certainly are.

I think I'm free to use principle here all day.....I'd say the same things to the Democratic Senators if needed.

 

Is anyone under the delusion, that if Hilary wins the election, and Reps control the Senate, they'll say "the people have spoken, we'll approve Hillary's nominee"?

I read all this stuff about politics, and all I can think of is this.

 

Today, Republicans agreed that the Judiciary Committee will not allow any hearings, much less a confirmation.  I just don't see how this plays out well for them.  Just vote the nominee down, there's no need for obstructionism, which will just work against them in the general election.

I want to add a couple things:

 

1) Lame-duck president occurs only after the election, when a successor has been chosen; the president is considered a lame-duck because the symbolic-heft of the presidency resides with the electee.   Six months before that successor is chosen means that Obama cannot be a lame-duck.  There is no other leader to look to as of now.

 

2) Biden's comments were premised on the notion that a Justice would resign in the election year.  I.e. that a conservative Justice would resign to allow Bush to make nominee rather than his successor, somewhat gaming the nomination process to keep the court conservative.   In such a scenario, there would be no vacancy as there is now, which is a big, big deal.    

 

The equivalence would be Ginsburg resigning this year and staying on the Court until Obama picked her replacement, the Republicans would have legitimate complaint about such an obvious political strategy.

 

Here's Biden's statement: "It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or in the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed"

 

Today, Republicans agreed that the Judiciary Committee will not allow any hearings, much less a confirmation.  I just don't see how this plays out well for them.  Just vote the nominee down, there's no need for obstructionism, which will just work against them in the general election.

 

At this point, I hope Mcconnell and company get their way and Hilary appoints a homosexual, Hispanic, Muslim who lives below the poverty line, was born in Russia and went to public school.

If Obama is a lame duck, what is every single house member right now? should they all stop voting on everything? What about the Senators up for re-election, should they stop right now?*

 

*putting aside that that might be good if they all just quit.....that's not the point at all.

 

If by a miracle, the House passed a budget, should Obama just look at the paper, and do nothing?

Edited February 23, 201610 yr by Mike Sixel

 

Today, Republicans agreed that the Judiciary Committee will not allow any hearings, much less a confirmation.  I just don't see how this plays out well for them.  Just vote the nominee down, there's no need for obstructionism, which will just work against them in the general election.

 

I'm naive enough to think this isn't the last word.

 

I don't believe the first paragraph.

 

And if the second paragraph is true, that is the end of the Supreme Court.

 

Based on what, do you think I am lying? You just called me a liar, right?

 

and, what does the second line mean? Like, if there is a liberal appointed, the SC will somehow be ruined? 

Edited February 23, 201610 yr by Mike Sixel

 

I don't believe the first paragraph.

 

And if the second paragraph is true, that is the end of the Supreme Court.

 

Why, it's what the Republican's are saying needs to happen. They are saying that the next president should choose. Or do they only mean the next Republican president should choose?

 

There is no reason for them to block the nomination process itself unless they are trying to say that the President gets to choose, no questions asked. The nomination process is their chance to make their case, they are choosing not to use it.