Could the American people voting on line do a worse job than our dysfunctional Congress?
I don't think so.
I'm not sure Republicans get this, but the people already had a say in the Supreme Court
- Thread starter Huey Grey
- Start date
I don't think so.
I love this post. Especially on the heels of you getting destroyed in this thread. Should we be sending your ballot out in Garfield or Far Side form this November?
Why stop at 50 years? Dems used to believe in slavery. According to the logic of this thread, that should mean that it's ok to own black people again.
LOL. Hilarious that you actually think there is a difference between telling the President not to waste his time nominating someone and having him go through the motions and nominate someone that is dead on arrival. Even funnier that you think the American public think that. First off, 95% don't even understand the process.
As far as no Democrat ever suggested that a sitting President should ignore his duty to nominate, see Chuck Schumer speech from 2007.
Destroyed? I'm sure that's how you see it. Got the name wrong, but the party was correct. You shit your pants because of what some in the GOP are threatening to do, but when it's brought to your attention that "your" team did or threatened basically the same thing in the past, you explain it away as a rogue party member and tout, "nothing to see here".
Until you come to grips with the fact that both parties do sneaky underhanded crap, you're destined for failure in all threads. You just don't realize it. Probably never will.
Nothing wrong with what you said. I just wish Red would listen to you and learn.
Actually, you're missing the point. Telling the president not to nominate anyone is more honest -- and in the interests of more people -- than pretending any nominee would have a chance at confirmation. It's more than just a waste of time and energy, although it certainly is that. It also is an unfair thing to do to the nominee -- assuming he or she is qualified for the job. A person who is not nominated now might get on the court in the next Democratic administration. A person who is nominated and rejected almost certainly will not.
Yeah, there's a huge difference and not seeing it is truly remarkable. If you or anyone else thinks President Obama is going to prop up another Harriet Miers, you haven't been paying attention for the past seven years. Your thoughts above are absolutely moot, the issue is telling a sitting president that he shouldn't nominate anyone to replace Scalia and that the new president should do it. That's insanity, McConnell is dreaming - including the fact he actually thinks a Republican has a chance to win the presidency. McConnell knows that Citizens United will be overrurned and that cases involving immigration and abortion would be rejected - and rightfully so.
SCOTUS, with a 5-4 liberal majority, could very well be the end of the right wing extremism that's arose out of the Bush administration and went postal after Americans elected a black man to two terms in office.
As for Schumer, go fetch a link - if you want to make a point, provide facts to back it up - not doing so is weak and lazy.
Did you hear all of the applause at the end of Schumer's speech? I guess they applauded just to be polite rather than applauding because they agreed with what he said.
Honest??? Lmao, that's got absolutely no relevance whatsoever. I can't believe the gall of you rightists, your agreement's are benign and out of line constitutionally. President Obama will nominate a most qualified nominee, hopefully a minority woman - then we'll see how much sweat the Republicans have in them. If you think he's going to nominate another Harriet Miers, you should seek help.
The people spoke when President Obama was elected to his second term, ignoring that fact is asinine and if a Republican was sitting in the Oval Office you'd be saying exactly what I'm saying now.
Is there a practical limit? Could a Senate majority leader refuse to accept nominations with 2 years to go in. Presidency? Three years to go?
Holy $h!t, Hannity, that's what you'd call worthy of being similar to what McConnell said??? The headline alone is misleading, not ONCE did Schumer say anything about a lame duck president and not once did he say that Bush shouldn't nominate someone.
Do not bring idiotic links to my table and you'd damn well better be prepared to back it up with your own words. What, do you think liberals will believe right wing garbage just because you do??
SMH
I hate Hannity. I'm not comparing what Schumer said to what McConnel said. But it closely aligns with what the GOP is muttering these days. They don't want the court to sway to the left. Schumer didn't want the court to sway anymore conservative, so he was saying we aren't going to confirm anymore Bush nominees.
Hey Red, you want to talk about someone getting all worked up, take a look at this self-proclaimed know-it-all. I think he actually has shit himself.
No, it doesn't closely align with what the GOP is saying. I'm not even sure why you post that link, the header clearly said lame duck and Schumer never said those words. The point of this thread is about President Obama being able to nominate an individual to SCOTUS, McConnell thinks he should wait - and that's insane.
Exactly. You take this shit waaaaaaaay too serious. Maybe you should step away before your heart explodes. Or not, don't really care.
I agree that's insane. I'm just pointing out the Dems are far from innocent when it comes to playing political footsies with the American people.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it instruct congress to vote on a particular nominee.
Yes to all three questions. There is a practical limit; that is, a limit beyond which a majority leader would have the necessary support to carry out his refusal. And a majority leader could refuse to accept nominations two or three years before the end of a term.
However, I would imagine the practical limit would preclude that refusal working. On the other hand, if you had Harry Reid and the sheeplike Senate he controlled, the practical limit would be pretty high, IMHO. They did, after all, unilaterally shit-can the filibuster for lower level nominations.
I happen to think that's a good thing, by the way. But it was an extremely dictatorial move by Dirty Harry.
No, I'm talking about the arguments on an anonymous forum. You take them way too serious. Of course what's been happening in D.C. and this country is serious. And I think it's so cute that you think people don't know this.
What's the matter, you don't like it when someone agrees with you? You only thrive on disagreement and being able to, in your mind, claim superiority?
Simple. Let him nominate away.....doesn't mean his nominee will be approved. Considering his track record of nominating liberals/his demeaning attitude/negative relationship with Republicans, it might be a hard sell, especially if they are left leaning.
We have 3 branches of government......not one......a dictatorial form/executive branch.
Dude, the comments I replied to came from a right winger who got them sonewhere. That means one of two things - either you were guessing or you got that information from a right wing news source. That, to me is serious because its just a fraction of the misinformation coming from the right and it's that information thats causing the political divide in America today. It's not President Obama's fault - the political divide, its the right wings fault because they lost the last two presidential elections and they have to push misinformation in a sorry ass effort to win the presidency in '16. The right wing is full of punks, you included - you have no idea whats going on in this country because Fox news, Rush Limbaugh and dead as a doornail Breitbart fill your narrow brain with bullshit and youre too freaking lazy to do any research to verify the facts you swallow. Youre a disgrace - you have no ****ing idea of what shit in in your minute brain FO
You have no idea who I am. I don't listen to Fox News, Breitbart, or Rush. They're full of crud. I watch CNN mostly, and CBS nightly news. And, reputable online sources.
My history of voting goes as follows;
Reagan
Dukakis
Bush Sr,
Perot
Bush
Bush
Obama
Romney
See, I don't walk lock-step with any party. I'm fiscally conservative and socially moderate (left leaning).
I'm a registered independent, and I vote for the "person" I think will do the best job. Although, it doesn't matter who gets in the WH because Congress will just block them one way or another, and everyone there is beholden to big money.
And I will not vote for Trump, Cruz, or Clinton.
Now you can keep calling people retards, punks, and any other childish name you can come up with. It speaks to your mental instability.
