ADVERTISEMENT

Grassley: No hearings for anyone Obama nominates for Supreme Court

So then withhold consent...meaning take a vote and go on record. But to deny a nominee by telling the POTUS we aren't going to vet candidate for 6 months because this is an election year is total bullcrap. It is pure partisan politics at its highest level. And remember IMCC.....these things come back at you in spades. Don't thing there is a Dem or two who is not taking notes.
And you are righjt..their is no Constitution provision as to the number of justices on the SC....I remember FDR tried to determine that once.........

Just like Biden did. And you're correct, it came back to bite him in the ass. And let's not forget about Schumer. He said the same thing. You guys started it, so we're going to finish it. Don't get mad at McConnell and the Republicans. Get mad at Biden and Schumer for starting this argument in the first place. Your anger is misguided.
 
Obamacare. BOTH the House and Senate locked out Republicans from the discussions and the formation of the law. Rules were changed by Reid in order to get it through under cover of darkness.

Lol. You mean the bill that was negotiated by a gang of six which produced compromise after compromise, including removal of the public option in an attempt to get one Republican note. Including accepting over 100 Republican amendments in an attempt to gain a Republican vote. That was certainly a partisan process, but not on the part of dems.

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/hcr_amendments/
 
Just like Biden did. And you're correct, it came back to bite him in the ass. And let's not forget about Schumer. He said the same thing. You guys started it, so we're going to finish it. Don't get mad at McConnell and the Republicans. Get mad at Biden and Schumer for starting this argument in the first place. Your anger is misguided.

Those two didn't actually do it. Filibusters have been threatened thousands of times and not carried out. The most partisan act in the history of the Senate.
 
OK. Let's try this again. Read sloooooowwwwwllllly:

If during a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR a Supreme Court justice needs to be appointed, then the NEXT PRESIDENT elected (whether the same guy or different guy takes office) THAT PRESIDENT will nominate a candidate and THAT SENATE will confirm or deny.

Simple.

Ok, so you are saying that if Romney had been elected McConnell and Grassley would refuse to hold hearings? Right......The most partisan act in the history of the Senate.
 
Ok, so you are saying that if Romney had been elected McConnell and Grassley would refuse to hold hearings? Right......The most partisan act in the history of the Senate.

Didn't say that. I'm sure that if Romney were elected, Biden, like he did before (see video) would've held up a nomination IN AN ELECTION YEAR if he were in power like he was in 1992. Again, you guys started it, so own it.
 
Those two didn't actually do it. Filibusters have been threatened thousands of times and not carried out. The most partisan act in the history of the Senate.

Jeebus cow. Come on! He stood on the floor of the Senate and gave a speech about holding up a judiciary nomination from a president that was 18 months out from election. AND it was Bush's FIRST TERM. It's not like he was a lame duck like Obama.

And if you think that due diligence can be done to selecting a nominee during an election year, you're crazy. It won't happen.
 
Jeebus cow. Come on! He stood on the floor of the Senate and gave a speech about holding up a judiciary nomination from a president that was 18 months out from election. AND it was Bush's FIRST TERM. It's not like he was a lame duck like Obama.

And if you think that due diligence can be done to selecting a nominee during an election year, you're crazy. It won't happen.
The due diligence is done. Obama will appoint a nominee already confirmed recently I am sure. And you didn't answer my question. Roles reversed. Romney is president and running in November. Let's say he is trailing in the polls. He nominates a candidate for the court. Does Grassley block the nominee? You can say it, of course he wouldn't. Most partisan act in Senate history.
 
If the Dems control the Senate during a presidential election year, then yes, it is their right to not have a hearing. Just like they did when Biden held it up during Bush's time.

What's the problem?

This attitude is what is wrong with politics today, this is not a game to be played, its our country at stake here. The Dems controlled the Senate for the first two years of Obama's first term, did that stop the GOP? They stonewalled everything, how is that good for the USA? Its not, but in todays world it fires up the base, and gets you reelected. That is all these people care about, not governing, just getting power and keeping it.

Obama should send up a middle of the road to slightly left leaning candidate and demand of vote. If the senate refuses to vote, then send another, if for no other reason than to use this against the GOP in November. Grassley knows they have a poor hand to play here, and they hope that by telling the president it's DOA that he will give up and not nominate anyone. The last thing the GOP wants is a candidate that they have to vote on. That is why Obama will call their bluff and send up a candidate. The American people will decide which side is right on this issue in Novemeber, not the GOP.
 
The due diligence is done. Obama will appoint a nominee already confirmed recently I am sure. And you didn't answer my question. Roles reversed. Romney is president and running in November. Let's say he is trailing in the polls. He nominates a candidate for the court. Does Grassley block the nominee? You can say it, of course he wouldn't. Most partisan act in Senate history.

How about you be honest. Would a Democrat block a Democrat? Answer: No. They would rush through a nominee and laugh in the faces of the Republicans and not even try and hide it. Remember what Obama said in his first year: Elections have consequences.

I find it humorous that this stuff is coming back on the progressives and they're having a hissy fit about it. After all, we're doing EXACTLY what you guys did. EXACTLY.
 
This attitude is what is wrong with politics today, this is not a game to be played, its our country at stake here. The Dems controlled the Senate for the first two years of Obama's first term, did that stop the GOP? They stonewalled everything, how is that good for the USA? Its not, but in todays world it fires up the base, and gets you reelected. That is all these people care about, not governing, just getting power and keeping it.

Obama should send up a middle of the road to slightly left leaning candidate and demand of vote. If the senate refuses to vote, then send another, if for no other reason than to use this against the GOP in November. Grassley knows they have a poor hand to play here, and they hope that by telling the president it's DOA that he will give up and not nominate anyone. The last thing the GOP wants is a candidate that they have to vote on. That is why Obama will call their bluff and send up a candidate. The American people will decide which side is right on this issue in Novemeber, not the GOP.

So let me get this straight. You complain that "This attitude is what is wrong with politics today, this is not a game to be played, its our country at stake here…" and then you go on to say "Obama should send up a middle of the road to slightly left leaning candidate and demand of vote. If the senate refuses to vote, then send another, if for no other reason than to use this against the GOP in November."

You just did EXACTLY what you complained about. Go to bed and get some sleep.

Wow.
 
So let me get this straight. You complain that "This attitude is what is wrong with politics today, this is not a game to be played, its our country at stake here…" and then you go on to say "Obama should send up a middle of the road to slightly left leaning candidate and demand of vote. If the senate refuses to vote, then send another, if for no other reason than to use this against the GOP in November."

You just did EXACTLY what you complained about. Go to bed and get some sleep.

Wow.

The GOP has been playing games for 7 years, I get it, they hate Obama, but how has that been good for the country? It has not, the one thing the GOP backs on is they can pull this crap and Dems, do a lot less of it. Obama has the right, to send the nomination to the Senate, they have a right to turn that nomination down. Its a game of chicken, and the country will be the loser here. Its time for Obama to call the GOP bluff and send the candidate to the Senate.

Look at all the crap Reagan pulled. the man should and would have been impeached today if he was a Dem, but the Senate went along with him, and gave him pretty much what he wanted. Not because they agreed with Reagan, but because he was the elected president, and they followed his lead. When has the GOP done anything remotely like that with Obama?
 
IMCC, do you really not see the differences between your beloved Biden video and what's being done now? Is it that you just won't acknowledge it, but do comprehend it?
 
The GOP has been playing games for 7 years, I get it, they hate Obama, but how has that been good for the country? It has not, the one thing the GOP backs on is they can pull this crap and Dems, do a lot less of it. Obama has the right, to send the nomination to the Senate, they have a right to turn that nomination down. Its a game of chicken, and the country will be the loser here. Its time for Obama to call the GOP bluff and send the candidate to the Senate.

Look at all the crap Reagan pulled. the man should and would have been impeached today if he was a Dem, but the Senate went along with him, and gave him pretty much what he wanted. Not because they agreed with Reagan, but because he was the elected president, and they followed his lead. When has the GOP done anything remotely like that with Obama?

I'm starting to believe you're a troll with posts like this. Look at Harry Reid and what he's done over the last seven years. He's changed the rules (read, played games) consistently to get what he and Obama have wanted. Look at Nancy Pelosi and what she's done. What exactly has Obama NOT received the past seven years. He's gotten everything that HE'S wanted. The Dems are the biggest game players out there, and if you believe otherwise, you're the epitome of partisanship that you so vehemently complain about.
 
I'm starting to believe you're a troll with posts like this. Look at Harry Reid and what he's done over the last seven years. He's changed the rules (read, played games) consistently to get what he and Obama have wanted. Look at Nancy Pelosi and what she's done. What exactly has Obama NOT received the past seven years. He's gotten everything that HE'S wanted. The Dems are the biggest game players out there, and if you believe otherwise, you're the epitome of partisanship that you so vehemently complain about.

You need a head CT. You are absolutely delusional. Let's start with Senator (Mr. Obstruction) McConnell who pledged early in Obama's first term to do everything in his power to make Obama a one term president. The filibuster rules were changed because the Republicans were playing games, refusing to confirm nominees at an unprecedented rate. I misspeak, they refused to allow votes on even uncontroversial nominees.

How in the world can you call Democrats game players? This year, Republicans have shown their hyperpartisanship. They refused to even allow the Obama budget to be presented to Congress. Something that is nearly unprecedented.

For the past 7 years, Republicans have done nothing but obstruct and hinder progress. For the most part, they have become the party of no. No healthcare, no women's health, no equal treatment for minority groups, no to voting rights. What exactly do they support?
 

If you're a Republican under pressure — or concerned about vulnerable blue-state GOP incumbents being under pressure — for considering holding up Obama's to-be-determined pick, what Biden said would seem to be pretty damning stuff.

But in the end, the vice president's past words probably don't fundamentally shift the high-stakes debate.

Here's how Biden defends it: He says he was speaking about a hypothetical (there was no court vacancy at the time). He was also speaking in June of an election year — not February — which is around the time something called the Thurmond Rule has traditionally kicked in. (Though congressional experts say the Thurmond Rule is less an actual rule and more of a guideline that both parties call on when politically expedient on when the Senate can shut down the judicial confirmation process.)

[The 5 ways Senate Republicans are talking about the Supreme Court vacancy]

But the real reason Biden's comments probably won't give Republicans the edge is that there was likely never going to be a consensus among the American people on this anyway. And there's too much gray area in his comments for this to be seen as a game-changer.

A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that Americans are split evenly on whether the Senate should vote on Obama's pick or wait until next year. Dig deeper into the results and you'll see there's little room for that number to change. A full 81 percent of Democrats polled say the Senate should consider Obama's pick — the same percentage of Republicans polled who say the Senate should wait to consider the next president's pick.

In other words, Americans view this Supreme Court battle through the same lens they view most events in Washington these days — through their politics.

What Biden's 1992 comments show more than anything is that politicians do the same, especially when it comes to the forever that is approving a president's Supreme Court nomination.

There are a handful of examples of major players in the Senate appearing to flip-flop — depending on the president doing the nominating — on whether the Senate can and should block Supreme Court nominations in an election year, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). As we noted, though, not all of the examples are so clearly self-contradictory. As in Biden's case, questions are raised of when this no-nominees period should begin and whether the Senate shouldn't confirm any justices or simply should be extra-selective in doing so.

Still, what today's players said yesterday doesn't seem to have changed a significant number of people's minds, if any at all.

"You can have all the competing quotes you want," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning. "They amount to nothing."

Schumer was making the case, according to polls from Pew Research Center and Fox News, that a majority of Americans (between 56 and 62 percent) think the Senate should vote on Obama's pick. But Schumer's broader point about Biden stands: When there's so much discrepancy on both sides, it's difficult for one in particular to stand out.

That's why Biden's 1992 comments are less of a watershed moment in today's Supreme Court drama and just one more example of politicians saying things that make political sense at the time.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT