Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Republicans are far too stupid to understand that. They get a kick when they think they have the upper hand over Democrats and can't resist parading it rather than playing their hand in the smart manner you suggested.If the Senate does the work to review the nominee, I don't think they should be penalized for saying no. If McConnell had kept his fat mouth shut, they could have effectively shut down a liberal appointment without any fuss, bother or hard feelings. Just by doing their jobs.The executive could nominate and the senate could ignore (advise and consent NOT advise and capitulate)
Obama WILL nominate and the lack of "consent" is the albatross that senate republicans will have on their backs with those 24 seats they must defend this Nov.
But Republicans have totally painted themselves into a corner. The only way they win this is if they win the presidency AND the Senate in November. Anything short of that and a diehard Liberal will be replacing Scalia.
I don't know about that. But there was something to what Warren said, but she shouldn't have dropped the race word. The gop is largely made up of people who are so viscerally opposed to Obama they don't even thing he's American, let alone a Christian. He's a liberal. Probably the most liberal since LBJ, but he's no where near that. He bailed out banks.Republicans are far too stupid to understand that. They get a kick when they think they have the upper hand over Democrats and can't resist parading it rather than playing their hand in the smart manner you suggested.If the Senate does the work to review the nominee, I don't think they should be penalized for saying no. If McConnell had kept his fat mouth shut, they could have effectively shut down a liberal appointment without any fuss, bother or hard feelings. Just by doing their jobs.The executive could nominate and the senate could ignore (advise and consent NOT advise and capitulate)
Obama WILL nominate and the lack of "consent" is the albatross that senate republicans will have on their backs with those 24 seats they must defend this Nov.
Argument from ignorance.As I said when I made the statement... Kennedy was appointed in 1987 and confirmed in Feb 1988. Kennedy was the third nominee in a process which began in June 1987 when Powell stepped down. Is this June 2015? Has Obama already appointed two justices who were rejected and/or took their name out of contention before a third was nominated in 2015 and his confirmation hearing concluded last week? That's what you need to have an equivalent scenario.
I realize you libtards are like little puppies with a bone and you think this is the "gotchya" example but it's just fucking not. The Senate adopted a rule after Ike appointed a justice right before the 1960 election of JFK. But liberals are always this way... they want republicans to follow the rules and they get to break the rules.
As for the constitution, if you think "advise and consent" means they are obligated to approve whatever the president presents, you're an idiot. That's not what it means and everyone with half a brain knows that.... Including Obama who twice rejected Bush's appointments to the court on that very basis.
Please point out this supposed rule that the Senate put into place in 1960. Thanks.
Point is, there's no reason to drag this out 300+ days. And you guys will look pretty foolish if you do it.
Not to mention the risk you are taking. What if Hillary wins and Dems take control of the Senate. Then you guys are kind of screwed, because you'll have lost any leverage you have to get a more moderate pick now.
You're a big boy, you're capable of looking it up for yourself.
There is no such rule. All you have is a tradition. Not law.For the curious, Boss is confused. There was a 1960 Senate resolution which said the President should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court.
See for yourselves: S.RES. 334. ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION. -- Senate Vote #416 -- Aug 29, 1960
This is not a RULE that says the Senate cannot confirm SC judges in the last year of a President's administration.
In fact, it isn't a RULE the President can't make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, either. And how do we know this?
Because of the Constitution, which I linked earlier. You should read it.
Again, Justice Kennedy was confirmed in an election year. No one is saying that can't happen or that there is any rule against it. The long-standing rule is against appointments made during an election year... specifically, during recess. Not confirmation of appointments made before... as was the case with Kennedy.
Yep Obama loves the process when he gets to make the rules...
There's not even that. When LBJ nominated Fortas for chief justice in the summer of his last year, the senate did hold hearings. But the opponents successfully prevented an up or down vote with a filibuster. But there was no outright refusal to consider the nomination.There is no such rule. All you have is a tradition. Not law.For the curious, Boss is confused. There was a 1960 Senate resolution which said the President should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court.
See for yourselves: S.RES. 334. ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION. -- Senate Vote #416 -- Aug 29, 1960
This is not a RULE that says the Senate cannot confirm SC judges in the last year of a President's administration.
In fact, it isn't a RULE the President can't make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, either. And how do we know this?
Because of the Constitution, which I linked earlier. You should read it.
Again, Justice Kennedy was confirmed in an election year. No one is saying that can't happen or that there is any rule against it. The long-standing rule is against appointments made during an election year... specifically, during recess. Not confirmation of appointments made before... as was the case with Kennedy.
And there isn't even a tradition for the Majority Leader to prevent an up or down vote on a nomination. If McConnell prevents an up or down vote, he is not following tradition, or precedent, or any rule. He will be making shit up as he goes.
Yep Obama loves the process when he gets to make the rules...
Silly attempt to get some attention, right Kosh?......
NO ONE is stating that the senate's republicans are forbidden from filibustering, stomping their feet or running around the senate floor wailing.......
The ISSUE here is that your party does not even want for a nominee to be brought forth by Obama....so they can avoid the embarrassment of being the ultra partisan ideologues, due-nothing party.
(BTW, Alito is a total dud as justice.)
First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.
But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.
Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.
As a fellow Sicilian Italian American, I differ with your assessment of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. There are many precedents that have been set by the Democratic Party
Of course. It's part of his job.First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.
But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.
Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.
First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.
But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.
Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.
Nahhhhh... just stuff that matters to Liberals...Why bother?
The Senate does not seem in a mood to ratify anything that His Imperial Majesty is likely to offer up as a nominee...
Does that mean that we can save some money on the salaries of the entire senate since (especially Rubio) this "illustrious" chamber has NO intention of doing any work for this entire year?
Of course. It's part of his job.First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.
But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.
Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.
