Good ol Chucky
- Thread starter RNHawk
- Start date
In support of a plan that would give judicial nominees a committee hearing within 30 days of being nominated by the president, a full committee vote within an additional 30 days, and a vote by the full Senate 30 days after that, Sen. Mitch McConnell said:
"These timetables would apply whether Democrats or Republicans were in charge of the Senate, whether the same party controlled the White House and the Senate, or whether the two parties split the control. I bet to the vast majority of people listening, that sounds like an extremely fair, bipartisan solution. I agree with them,"
He also said:
"The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate's traditions and precedents to ensure that regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. It is time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent."
He voiced support for the "Frist Fairness Rule", saying:
"The Frist fairness rule guarantees up-or-down votes for every circuit court or Supreme Court nomination, regardless of which party controls the Senate or the White House...It guarantees every president that their judicial nominees will get through committee and get a vote on the Senate floor."
-Sen. Mitch McConnell 2005
Whatcha think Herky? Did he mean it?
"These timetables would apply whether Democrats or Republicans were in charge of the Senate, whether the same party controlled the White House and the Senate, or whether the two parties split the control. I bet to the vast majority of people listening, that sounds like an extremely fair, bipartisan solution. I agree with them,"
He also said:
"The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate's traditions and precedents to ensure that regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. It is time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent."
He voiced support for the "Frist Fairness Rule", saying:
"The Frist fairness rule guarantees up-or-down votes for every circuit court or Supreme Court nomination, regardless of which party controls the Senate or the White House...It guarantees every president that their judicial nominees will get through committee and get a vote on the Senate floor."
-Sen. Mitch McConnell 2005
Whatcha think Herky? Did he mean it?
Couple this with the Schumer video and you get exactly why our government is where it is.
So it seems that in this thread we have established that both Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell are hypocritical partisan hacks. That, and Schumer is probably the most dynamic public speaker I've seen since Kige Ramsey.
Last edited:
There were no further vacancies during the Bush administration, so Schumer did not need to follow through with his obstructionism plans. Does that change the fact that he said it?
So there was blustering but no obstruction by the dems. The ball is in the repubs court, correct?
How has the current situation ended? What's your point? Both sides have threatened, and blocked nominees in the past. It's what Washington D.C. does. Not just the GOP. The sooner you real;ize it, the sooner you don't look like a fool.
"There were no further vacancies during the Bush administration, so Schumer did not need to follow through with his obstructionism plans. Does that change the fact that he said it?"
Don't ignore this statement.
As long as Obama's nominee actually gets a hearing and a vote, the two situations could be considered analogous
Plus, 10 of 12 lower Judicial positions nominated by Bush were blocked by the Dems. But by all means, lets pin everything that's wrong with Washington on the GOP. In other words, take the idiot position.
You're glossing over the fact that Dems didn't even get the opportunity. Do you honestly believe they wouldn't have followed through with it?
And, for the record, I strongly oppose Republicans threats to block any nominee. I think it's petty partisan politics. At least wait until someone is nominated and then decide on their merits instead of announcing before the fact that you're going to oppose anyone no matter what.
Here's the deal. I hate Obama. But he's the POTUS, and he will be the POTUS for damn near another full year. It is his job to nominate somebody to be (probably) appointed to the Supreme Court. End of story. The worst thing in politics these days is to constantly say "But your side did the bad stuff too!" ... leave that childish crap to the democrats and let's follow the rules like adults.
You are correct, however, it's also the job of the Senate to confirm or kick to the curb as often as they want. He's doing his job, and they are doing theirs.
I don't know that I agree. I saw somebody ask Ted Cruz a simple question - "will you block the nominee no matter who it is?" Cruz answers, "ABSOLUTELY".
That's a stupid answer. And it should be obvious why it is a stupid answer.
So they can "kick to the curb" with no hearings...no consideration at all of the qualifications of the nominee? that's good to know should the GOP EVER reclaim the presidency. I would propose that every single nominee of such an administration be "kicked to the curb" with no consideration at all. Just doing their job, you know.
I'm tired of petty politics by both parties. The President is the President until he is no longer the President. Schumer was an idiot to vow he would block any further Bush nominees with 18 months left in his term, regardless of whether he ultimately had the chance to follow through on his threats. And McConnell and Cruz and anyone else who vows to block any remaining Obama appointees without a hearing is also an idiot. Obama is the POTUS for another 11 months. He doesn't just have a right to nominate Scalia's successor, he has a duty to do so. And if that nominee is qualified for the position then he or she deserves a legitimate hearing. Any candidate who says otherwise is less likely to get my vote.
If you don't think this is going to happen, they you're not keeping abreast of what's going on. The Dems will most likely take back the Senate, and there will most likely be a Republican president. This WILL happen. I know it, why don't you?
I think Ted has a pretty good grasp as to how things are working in D.C. He says "no" because he knows the Repubs and Dems are sleeping together and will let Obama do anything he wants. Why do you think both sides hate him as much as they do?
Given that the GOP's chances of winning the WH right now are likely <than 50% and that there is a real good chance they lose the Senate, I would think it would be in their best interests to negotiate with Obama right now on a SCOTUS.
It's that or deal with a Dem in the WH and a minority in the Senate next year. If they want to take that gamble and lose... the cons will have even less influence than they have now.
This is yet another Lose/Lose proposition for Repubbers. Maybe they should swallow their pride(unlikely), and accept the probability that they have less leverage than they might think.
