If Republicans block nominee bid...
- Thread starter theiacowtipper
- Start date
because they are both communists, one is a third world commie and one is old school Russian commie, or Hungarian jew commie
There is a lot more than just that to the story, but I trust we agree there is not an 80 year tradition of waiting until after the election and zero constitutional support for that move.
That's what I said. Unless you think the Catholic laws are from the creators.
But we know better, right? Which is why we put them on the court, Catholics believe in temporal authority.
You realize there's no such thing as "best" qualified, right? There is no way to point to one person and say THAT person is qualified over every other person in the US.
Yep....let's not pretend the Dems ever just rubber stamped anyone.
Really disappointed the R's didn't do more to stop Obama's last 2 picks.
this. the only thing these clowns block is our ability to be a free republic
But you don't believe we are or ever were a free republic. Pick a world view. You think we are a nation owned by the queen and conceived in a union between the illuminati and space aliens.
But there is a way to point to a handful that are more qualified than the ones he nominated. Even more than a handful. You know as well as I do that appointments to the bench have become political by both sides. It's all about getting the majority either liberal or conservative.
Never said they weren't qualified. Compo 101 much? I'm just pointing out that he chose them because they leaned left in their thinking. Just as a GOPer would choose one that leans right. It shouldn't be that way, but that's what it's become.
Reasonable enough for you? No?
So it's your argument that the Dems have never delayed or voted down a GOP nominee because of that nominee's political leanings..... Gotcha.
Already said in this thread that it's not right. I'm sure you read that but chose to ignore it.
He nominated the best qualified left leaning judges. I'll give you that. If you disagree, well my friend (not) are just too partisan to see it. And yes, the GOP nominates judges that tend to lean right. It's all become political, which is wrong. But we're way beyond reason when it comes to Washington doing what's right for the country.
No. They (Dems) did vote down Bork. And the GOP did vote down Fortas in 1968 (another election year) but that was a GOP/Dixiecrat rebellion towards LBJ caused by his passage of several "civil rights" bills. . But they did vote on them. The GOP right now says it will REFUSE to consider and debate any nominee sent forth to them by Obama. There is a difference.
Senator Grassley will play a key role in this charade. Yesterday Grassley stated it is an "80 year old" custom NOT to confirm a SC Justice in an election year. Fact is, in 1988...an election year....Justice Anthony Kennedy WAS confirmed (in February)....that was 38 years ago. In 1988 Ronald Reagan was POTUS...he had an "R" by his name and the US Senate in 1988 was controlled by Democrats, run by Sen. Byrd of WVa.
Candidate Marco Rubio stated that since Obama is a "lame duck POTUS" the process should wait until a new POTUS is elected. Rubio does not know what "lame duck" means....Obama will become a "lame duck POTUS" after the November elections when a new POTUS will be elected...lame duck refers to the period of time between the election and the day the new POTUS is sworn into office.
Speaker McConnell said Obama shouldn't appoint the next Justice because "he doesn't represent the people." Does he know that Obama won TWO general elections both by the popular and electoral college vote? Something a GOPer hasn't done sine 1984? If a candidate wins two elections in eight years doesn't represent the people, what the hell does, Mitch?
Last edited:
That depends on what you define as "qualified", of course. Which is...like beauty...in the eye of the beholder.
"sent forth to them by Obama. There is a difference."
yes, they are racist-right? they don't wanna let the black dude have his way.... right?
yes, they are racist-right? they don't wanna let the black dude have his way.... right?
This will up the importance o both the presidential and Senate elections this year on both sides
This is simply a lie. Please stop repeating it.
There haven't even been 80 years when there were no nominations acted upon in the final year of a lame duck's term. Do the math - we haven't been a nation long enough for that to be true.
But even if there were 80 years when that could have happened and it didn't, the more likely reason is bound to be that there weren't nominations to be acted upon in those year because, duh, vacancies don't occur all that often, and how many happen when there is a lame duck in his last year?
Besides, it's already been established that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed when Reagan was a lame duck, so the 80 year thing isn't just a stupid miscount on top of a brain fart, it's it's an outright lie.
Good grief can't you liars even get the easy-to-check stuff right?
Powell stepped down in June, 1987. Reagan nominated Bork, who was rejected for being an asshole. Then he nominated Ginsberg, who withdrew because of pot. In November he nominated Kennedy, who was confirmed and took office in February of Reagan's final year as a lame duck president.
All reasonably paced for government work. No sign of waiting for the next president.
This is as good a time as any for us to agree that hypocrisy is a dead issue in this case. Otherwise both sides can spend all their time finding examples like this one. I'll go next: Look at Chuck Schumer at a point where Dubya had almost a year longer to serve than Obama does now: Schumer is passionately declaring that Bush should not be allowed any more nominees.....and, of course, the Republicans are saying that the president deserves an up-or-down vote.
Both sides have been on both sides of this issue many times. It's just pointless to get into that.
Yeah, but that BS isn't it. The act wasn't thought to be illegal. Not even the two AGs who resigned claimed it was illegal. That's why they resigned -- they did so rather than carry out a legal act that they considered unethical. At least, that's what Elliot Richardson said when I heard him talk about it. So maybe he didn't understand the whole story.
Kidding aside....Richardson and Ruckleshaus had been involved in Cox's appointment and had given their personal assurances he would be allowed to do his job. So when Nixon ordered him fired, they refused to do it. They did, however, strongly urge Bork to do it. Their position was that the president had the right to have his orders carried out, and Bork had not been involved in the appointment process. After all this went down, a district judge ruled the firing was illegal. That forced Nixon to allow Bork to appoint a successor to Cox, which he did.
Last edited:
Fortas wasn't denied a seat on SCOTUS. He was nominated for Chief Justice, and that was blocked in a bipartisan manner that had more to do with ethics than politics.
Kennedy was Reagan's third choice. The nomination(s) were held up by the Democrats longer than would be the case of Republicans hold up this one.
The key is not so much who's doing the nominations as it is the nature of the vacancy. Obama's two nominees skated through because they weren't seen as changing the balance of the court. Neither of them would have been confirmed, IMHO, if they had been put forward as successors to Scalia.
Kagan was suggested by Scalia. Both Sotamayor and Kagan were eminently qualified.
To the victor goes the spoils. If the GOP wants to nominate judges they need to win the White House. As it stands right now who is our current president?
You really don't see the difference when Reagan had to go to the well THREE TIMES before the Senate would confirm someone?
And Kennedy was only confirmed because he is as moderate as the day is long.
The Republicans were victorious in winning control of the Senate. If the President wants to get a judge confirmed, he needs to nominate someone that the Senate will approve of. He's not King.
republicans put in a call to iowa d-co-ordinator to see how they stopped McCaffrey, trying to use same gameplan here to stop obama
So an opening in in June of 1987 is the same as an opening in Feb of 2016?
Your the liar!
The Dems even passed a resolution in 1960 again SC Nominations. They didn't want IKE getting another judge
Your the liar!
The Dems even passed a resolution in 1960 again SC Nominations. They didn't want IKE getting another judge
