You admitted you didn't read my post, so I find it humorous that you would use the word "ignore" when you did just that to my reply.
I'm actually a big fan of facts.
Last edited:
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
You admitted you didn't read my post, so I find it humorous that you would use the word "ignore" when you did just that to my reply.
I'm actually a big fan of facts.
He'll make a play for it, nonetheless. It's part of the progressive legacy he wants to cement in Washington - change the game by outflanking the American people on nearly every issue. Why let the people decide what they want to do when you can simply use executive orders to patronize them with?
Was it greedy for Reagan to have a third justice confirmed during February of his lame duck year?
No. If Reagan did it, it was righteous. Conversely, if obamer does it, it's evil.
RBG beat pancreatic cancer. Death isn't taking her until she allows it.
Also, what makes it that Obama doesn't deserve this right or he shouldn't get to appoint this justice? For a party that loves to quote the constitution and pull it out of their pockets, they sure do like to tramp on it when it behooves them. The constitution grants the president this power.
McConnell is playing games, because if Obama nominates someone, he's in a no win situation. The GOP is in a no win situation anyway. It sucks for them, but those the breaks. If Sri gets nominated and the Senate blocks him for a year, the party will get blasted in November. And Obama and possibly Biden in the tie breaker, will push through whatever Justice they want in January. So the GOP can get pissy and stamp their feet all they want, but the truth is, it may be in their best interest to move on this quickly. The GOP senate members in competitive races can bitch all they want to save face in November and vote NO, but if they collectively tie this up for a long time, they'll suffer for it.
And speaking of McConnell, where does he get off making the statement that he should wait til after the election. Does he not remember voting yay on Kennedy in Reagan's last year? In a democratically controlled Senate? I guess this is different?
The Senate can choose to not confirm as is their constitutional right and Reagan wasn't a troll. Good to see the you back cheerleading for the election season.
They should just say they will seriously consider any nominee as Obama did on the two he voted down.
They should just say they will seriously consider any nominee as Obama did on the two he voted down.
Last edited:
Obama could nominate someone who has a chance at being appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.
As long as someone could make an objective argument why that person deserves to be appointed. Not, "Obama wants him. "
As long as someone could make an objective argument why that person deserves to be appointed. Not, "Obama wants him. "
I absolutely agree. The senate can stall this all they want to. I think the Dems would salivate at the slightest hint of blatant obstructionism. Galvanizing bases for presidential elections helps Dems, who historically have lower voter turnout despite a much larger party identification.
Also, love how it falls back no no legitimate argument for McConell other than "it's different because Reagan wasn't a troll....", like we're a bunch of 6 year olds here.
Your logic is flawed. Please explain how allowing another Obama Supreme prevents this. What, blocking this causes leftist to be more motivated to vote? So not blocking satisfies them? False. All voting for Obama's pick would do is depress rep vote numbers in nov, guaranteeing they lose the Senate. That moronic choice might most the house as well
That opening & nomination occurred in 1987, not Reagan's final year. Final debate and vote took place Feb 3 88.
Obama & Hillary voted to filibuster Sam Alitos vote, they tried to deny a pres his selection well before hi lame duck year. We can at the equivalence fan on Thu all day long, doesn't change th ironclad fact Obama won't fill this slot.
To be honest about RBG, I think her Coup de gras will be swearing in Hillary. Or that's her hope. Then she will step down or allow death to finally take her after beating its ass already. It's typically the job of the Chief Justice, but RBG was so monumental in the women's rights movement, that there's no way anyone but her swears in Hillary should she take the White House.
There's only a handful of seats that Dems have a chance of actually taking from the Republicans. Let's see, probably Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisonsin, Florida, New Hampshire, probably one or two others I'm forgetting. Possibly Arizona, but I can't see it. Dems could Lose Nevada. Even though a lot more GOP seats are up, not many will be competitive. So the senate can allow this vote to go through, the few competitive seats can fight, and the GOP can manage to get through this without cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Behavior and precedence matter. Reagan routinely reached out to Tip and Dems. Your love of Obama and your team limits your reasoning.
Obama also first voted to filibuster Alito., BTW. Were you pissed?
No, and I wouldn't be pissed if any or all the senate vote no to the Obama appointee. I just find it funny that McConnell argues against something he himself has done. You think Dems aren't going to use this to blast the GOP. They'll have to decide if fighting this is worth the risk. Because for them to get a win here should they obstruct this for what would be an unprecedented amount of time in the modern era, they have to control (not tie) the senate and win the White House. Good luck.
This.
The body wasn't even cold yet before GOP leadership was talking about a scorched-earth policy regarding any nominations. Such an approach will do nothing to help them defend those competitive senate seats they currently hold in blue/purple states.
There's 3 justices who look like they could die in the next 5 minutes. Just win the election and even the lineup out.
Dems need four seats to have Biden break a tie. Looking at very very preliminary numbers,
It looks like there's a damn decent chance they take Illinois and Wisconsin from Republicans.
Florida and NH are toss ups.
And Nevada will have to stay blue with Reid leaving. There's four.
PA and Ohio will be tough battles that could flip from red to blue.
The only chance of republicans flipping blue seats to red is Reid's seat, and Colorado.
It looks like there's a damn decent chance they take Illinois and Wisconsin from Republicans.
Florida and NH are toss ups.
And Nevada will have to stay blue with Reid leaving. There's four.
PA and Ohio will be tough battles that could flip from red to blue.
The only chance of republicans flipping blue seats to red is Reid's seat, and Colorado.
What I suspect could happen, and help the GOP in the senate not look terrible, is to allow a recess appointment. Since the 2014 SCOTUS decision of the National Labor Relations Board vs Noel Canning, when and how the senate declares a "recess" and "how long" recess is is makes a bit harder for a president to squeeze in such an appointment (fun fact, senate is currently in recess til the 22nd...maybe, it's up for interpretation of the adjournment resolution...damn you NLRB vs Canning) However, since that appointment would only be temporary, until the end of the next senate session, they could allow the recess and kick the bucket until the November election and allow Obama to get an appointment in without casting a vote or looking like obstructionists. Then, November can ultimately decide what happens.
Obama has used fewer executive actions per year in office than any president since Grover Cleveland (first term!) lol. I absolutely love it when conservatives get all up in arms about Obama's use of them. He has had to deal with one of the least productive and most obstructive congresses in history and still has less than anyone on average in the last 125 years.
But, again, Obama and McConnell can and should use whatever powers they deem appropriate if allowable by the constitution. But they also get to reap what they sow by doing so.
Last edited:
You're approaching this ideologically, not practically.
Again, the GOP was at high, high risk of losing Senate control even before Scalia died. Of the 10-12 competitive Senate races this cycle, only 2 are currently held by Democrats. Furthermore, the majority of those competitive Republican seats are in blue/purple states (Illinois, Wisconsin, etc). You say turnout for the Republicans will be depressed if they allow an Obama appointee; well what happens if you spent 10 months blocking multiple nominees? What do you think that's going to do to Democratic turnout in those blue/purple states where you're trying to defend Senate seats?
McConnell, et al., are in a difficult spot here. Right now, they have some cards to negotiate a moderate/slightly left justice. If they go into this thing guns blazing, they risk losing the Senate and having little or no negotiating power in January when Scalia's seat finally gets filled.
I think the GOP's best bet is to allow Obama to appoint a pseudo-moderate, have the Senators from those blue/purple states be vocal opponents of the confirmation, and have a couple "safe" Republican seats fall on the sword.
Obama negotiated one time in 7 years. People celebrating his petulance and constant trolling are the worst.
and that's why this is such a tough spot for McConnell and Cornyn. Scalia's death puts them in a bind.
Depends on their color or gender. The DNC will push hard for a nominee they can exploit opposition to. All they ever think about.
Yes, game plan and being on the same page is not the strong suit of the GOP. And there are always mouthy ones that the press will give inordinate attention.. They should focus on HRC's and BO's past voting and filibustering.
Which is why we're probably going to see the first Hindu nominated for SCOTUS
i believe the current record for SCOTUS seat vacancy is 128 days. Be prepared to hear that statistic A LOT over the coming months.
No. You're not. You're trying argue Trump isn't a racist, when facts say he is. I'm just not going to indulge in your foolishness.
And honestly, it doesn't matter if Obama is able to successfully appoint a liberal justice...he has so stacked the court of appeals with liberal justices that it no longer matters. All Obama has to do now is simply go back to the appeals courts and have his nominees rule in his favor and then GAME OVER.
So Mitch might say he won't allow Obama a pick, but in the end, allowing Obama's pick to get nominated will be his best best.
I just love it...Happy Valentines Day M-fers! This country is moving exactly where it needs to.
So Mitch might say he won't allow Obama a pick, but in the end, allowing Obama's pick to get nominated will be his best best.
I just love it...Happy Valentines Day M-fers! This country is moving exactly where it needs to.
Last edited:
Similar threads
