Surprise, surprise: Senate Democrats are the adults in the room
- Thread starter Menace Sockeyes
- Start date
Yep, by refusing to succumb to being obstructionist jerkwads. Good move by the Dems politically, and more importantly, for our Democracy.
His quote was with 6 months left until GHWB's re-election, which is about the length of a typical confirmation fight and re-nomination. Obama has nearly a full year left. Not exacly a "gotcha", bud.
With a month removed because of "summer vacation" time.....and restarting the session as campaign season moves into full gear......The current Congress has 4 months (actually 5) to vet and investigate any SC nominee. Apples and oranges.
Creative rounding to get to both figures. Math works one way for Republicans, and another for Democrats I guess.
You're missing the point. There's a hotly contested presidential nomination underway, and the GOP is saying that the people should be able to weigh in on the next justice through the election process.
This is actually a huge gamble, because if Hillary or Bernie is elected, I would expect them to go all out for a far-left justice.
Jeeeebus Trad, gimme a break. Using your logic then, this has been a "hotly contested" campaign since March of 2015. Perhaps then Congress should just disband and allow the POTUS to rule by "executive action" ????? This is just another far reaching BS excuse being used by the majority to avoid making a decision that will go on the record.
What SCOTUS seat was even open in June of 1992? Thomas was confirmed in 1991 and Byron White didn't retire until 1993. Was crazy uncle Joe just making up hypotheticals?
"Wednesday, February 24, 2016
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove."
The people already spoke when they re-elected Obama. Even the Republicans know this. It's why they say we should wait until the next President instead of the next Senate. They know it's the President who makes the call.
"Wednesday, February 24, 2016
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove."
You must think we have a Monarchy, or Dictatorship. You're so eager to be ruled by one person.
Now show me the Senate and House results.
Mid-terms have consequences.
Another poster eager to be ruled by a single person.
What is the composition of Congress?
How have the mid-terms gone?
I quoted Obama's most recent approval ratings. Recent as in released THIS MORNING. Elections have consequences, and apparently obstructionism does too. Reap it.
Poll ratings?
You want to throw out the bicameral legislature and checks/balances?
You moonbats truly do hate the Constitution.
As do gerrymandered House districts. The Senate majority.....please count or weigh the number of "Senators" by population. I would venture a guess that even though the Dems are the minority party in the Senate, they represent a majority of the nation's citizenry.
22, I could be wrong on this...but I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut, I am correct.
Interesting theory.
Even if that were true somehow, it would change the checks and balances in play today.
Yes it would. And politics is all about manipulating the Constitution's "checks and balances" by political parties. Damn near from day #1.
It's manipulating when you stomp your feet and don't get your way.
I think it's democracy when this happens.
I am sure situations reverse depending upon the topic.
Good grief people. Just stop.
This is purely political. The GOP doesn't want to approve an Obama appointee because they hope to get a GOP nominee after Obama vacates the White House.
Everything else is just bullshit to pretend there's a more noble reason for delaying when there isn't.
It's political calculation, pure and simple.
Admit it and move on.
This is purely political. The GOP doesn't want to approve an Obama appointee because they hope to get a GOP nominee after Obama vacates the White House.
Everything else is just bullshit to pretend there's a more noble reason for delaying when there isn't.
It's political calculation, pure and simple.
Admit it and move on.
Why let your water get hot on this? BHO's gonna send a nominee. The the Senate will do what the Senate is will do.
We have laws for this. Let the dumb asses we elect on both sides of the aisle pound their chests as they pretend to do what's best for the greater good.
And yes, I understand the importance here. But without life support, that little shriveled up raisin of a justice Ginsburg is not gonna last much longer.
We have laws for this. Let the dumb asses we elect on both sides of the aisle pound their chests as they pretend to do what's best for the greater good.
And yes, I understand the importance here. But without life support, that little shriveled up raisin of a justice Ginsburg is not gonna last much longer.
Sorryy 22, I just don'e see it as "democracy in action" when elected officials refuse to perform their duties as officers they are elected to be. I'm not saying McConnell and Grassley can't do as they want...they have the power to do so. I'm saying they are derelict in their duty when they publicly make the comments as they did. And dereliction of duty is a reason to throw the bums out of office.
They didn't have to publicly state their point of view...it is just red meat for their followers/opposition and accomplishes nothing.......which, when you think about it, is exactly what this and the past couple of Congresses have been about.
"Their Duties" does not mean that they bow to whomever the POTUS wants.
If that was how it worked there would be not need for any "confirmation" at all.
It seems they're willing to not let it impact other things because all the bills in question are wanted by both parties. That's pretty simple.
So there is a timeline for when a President should or shouldn't nominate a SC justice.
The don't have to "bow" 22.....I am not saying that....all they have to do is to perform their assigned duties! That is what they are elect to do. They don't have to affirm a candidate they don't want to...as the Dems did w/ Bork back in the day....They just need to put their collective testicles on the line and make a decision, "yes" or "no" and live with the record they create! I am NOT saying they have to appoint anyone....I am saying they need to perform their assigned duties. McConnell and Grassley have just publicly stated they are not going to do so. These two guys are chicken sh^t by taking such a position........"Profile in Courage" they are not.
Now we're arguing length of time (about 4 months)? Just stop. Both sides have threatened it, and if/when the GOP follows through, then you can be outraged.
I still wonder who Obama will appoint. Who would be willing to be pre-Borked like this?
Who can he pick who's so obviously wonderful that the GOP will be asses if they don't confirm him? Is there such a saint?
Who can he pick who's so obviously wonderful that the GOP will be asses if they don't confirm him? Is there such a saint?
Last edited:
I understand you're point and it's not without merit.
However, if they know that they are not going to appoint, then there is something to be said for not wasting the nominees time and tax payer dollars by go through the motions.
Cspan will just have to continue filming empty seats on the house floor.
Why can't we address this point? There is a drastic difference between having an actual court with a very dead judge a full year away from a new President and having a hypothetical court with no dead judges in half that amount of time.
Hey, I agree with you that they should fill the position, if the nominee is qualified. And I have no doubt, Obama's nominee will be qualified. I've never argued that point. I've just argued the the Dems have threatened to do the same in the past. So until the GOP actually acts on their threat, it's a tie.
