Well That Didnt Take Long as GOP Backs Off Denying Obama SCOTUS Pick

[Indeependent]

Lol, I called this days ago.

If the GOP leadership had a spine they would pull it out and play choochoo with it.

GOP showing signs of backing down from vow to block Obama’s Supreme Court nominee automatically

Yeah, but you pussies will STILL vote for any candidate the GOP shoves down your throats, so STFU.

You are correct.
We REPs now control the Senate and Congress and next January we will have a REP President who will in eight years put 5-6 radical REPS on the SC bench.
Maybe you ought to leave the US 'in protest'?
I'd vote for Charlie Manson before I'd vote for Clinton. Seriously.

You're what's wrong with America.

As a hint, there's little to ZERO middle ground around these parts.

As in, it goes straight from retard to genius here?

Lemme guess where danny lies...

It takes a few days to adjust.

 

[GaryDog]

Lets just wait and see.
America voted for a GOP controlled House in 2012, and then a GOP controlled Senate in 2014, so the GOP can assume America does not want Obama to nominate a far left loon for the court.
They should tie this nomination up until after the November election.

Actually, as a nation, the U.S. voted for a plurality of Democrats in Congress. Gerrymandering took care of the GOP wins. The president picks the Justice. Always has. Not Congress. Assuming the people didn't forget this, Obama was the guy America picked to select judges.

 

[Indeependent]

Lets just wait and see.
America voted for a GOP controlled House in 2012, and then a GOP controlled Senate in 2014, so the GOP can assume America does not want Obama to nominate a far left loon for the court.
They should tie this nomination up until after the November election.

Actually, as a nation, the U.S. voted for a plurality of Democrats in Congress. Gerrymandering took care of the GOP wins. The president picks the Justice. Always has. Not Congress. Assuming the people didn't forget this, Obama was the guy America picked to select judges.

True, but either party will Gerrymander in their favor given the opportunity.

 

[Skylar]

An argument that might have some merit if Mitch and his fellow senators were partisan robots incapable of conscious thought. Alas, they're thinking people with free will. And they've made a choice to embrace partisan obstructionism with both arms.

And cemented their party's legacy in the process.

No, they're elected reps who were elected by the people to, among other things, prevent moves by obama that the people oppose. That is how the system works. Just like obama supporting the prevention of approving Alito when obama was a senator.

They were 'elected' to refuse to confirm any Supreme Court justice that Obama nominates?

Can you factually establish that?

Sure. Just do a search on 2014 election results by state and you'll see.

And where in those election results does it say anything about refusing to confirm any Supreme Court justice that Obama nominates?

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

Stop whining. This is how the system works. If dems had control and the president was a repub the same would be going on just as it always has.

If its how the system works, why is this the first example of a Senate insisting they will reject ANY nominee the president offers in our nation's history?

Seems to me its something new and unprecedented. Mitch and his ilk are making a choice to be obstructionist. Its neither inevitable nor foreordained. Nor, likely, sustainable. Its the product of their personal priorities: party above nation. Partisanship above the nation's business.

 

[guno]

Lets just wait and see.
America voted for a GOP controlled House in 2012, and then a GOP controlled Senate in 2014, so the GOP can assume America does not want Obama to nominate a far left loon for the court.
They should tie this nomination up until after the November election.

more repukealoids up for reelection this time around and we saw what happened in Louisiana, plus the demographics have moved even more. this is were women minorities and progressives come out

 

[dannyboys]

Lets just wait and see.
America voted for a GOP controlled House in 2012, and then a GOP controlled Senate in 2014, so the GOP can assume America does not want Obama to nominate a far left loon for the court.
They should tie this nomination up until after the November election.

more repukealoids up for reelection this time around and we saw what happened in Louisiana, plus the demographics have moved even more. this is were women minorities and progressives come out

So where were the negro women and progressives in 2012-2014 asshole?
Too fucking busy? Didn't give a shit?
What's changed for them now?
Sweet fuck all. BONOBO lied about all the "free shit" he promised to give the negroes. THAT's why they stayed home in 2014.

 

[Indeependent]

Lets just wait and see.
America voted for a GOP controlled House in 2012, and then a GOP controlled Senate in 2014, so the GOP can assume America does not want Obama to nominate a far left loon for the court.
They should tie this nomination up until after the November election.

more repukealoids up for reelection this time around and we saw what happened in Louisiana, plus the demographics have moved even more. this is were women minorities and progressives come out

So where were the negro women and progressives in 2012-2014 asshole?
Too fucking busy? Didn't give a shit?
What's changed for them now?
Sweet fuck all. BONOBO lied about all the "free shit" he promised to give the negroes. THAT's why they stayed home in 2014.

The truth of the matter is that if no major Black candidate is running, Blacks don't vote.
And that's a SAD fact.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only appropriate response for the GOP leadership is to tell Obama frankly that they will reject ANYONE he puts forward.

And with only a 4 seat majority in the Senate and 24 Republican Senators up for reelection this year (vs 10 Democratic Senators) - they will beat us over the head with that for the next 10 months.

Result?

Hillary or Sanders in the White House with a Dem Senate. Then they get to confirm a nominee to replace Scalia and Ginsburg will see her chance to retire with a D President & D Senate, that makes 2. Kennedy is also entering his 80's, that's possibly 3.

Sometimes my leadership should look down the road at results and not just what will appeal to the hardcore base, a base that will vote Republican anyway.



>>>>

The next president will likely make five appointments to the Supreme Court if reelected to a second term, assuming republicans block Obama's nominee this year.

 

[HenryBHough]

Obama is a political whore.

That is SO offensive to Nevada's licensed prostitutes! It'll cost the Democrats in The Silver State.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Asked whether he thought the controversy over filling the court vacancy might endanger his re-election chances this fall, Mr. Grassley said, “I think I have a responsibility to perform, and I can’t worry about the election. I’ve got to do my job as a senator, whatever it is. And there will be a lot of tough votes between now and the next election.”"

Translation: “Yes, I'm worried that refusing to even hold hearings would jeopardize not only control of the Senate for republicans but winning the WH as well.”

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You said "If dems had control and the president was a repub the same would be going on just as it always has."

Was Reagan a Republican? Yes.

Was the Senate Democrat controled? Yes

Was Kennedy confirmed in an election year? Yes



>>>>

After the Bork incident. You're being disingenuously selective.

Psst...

............ Bork got a vote on the Senate floor. McConnell said he was going to prevent that from happening to any hominee.


As a member of the GOP, we should to better than the Dems. Not stoop to their level.


>>>>

Just hope that the rejection of the hack's inevitably politically charged lefty nominee happens in a way that doesn't shoot itself in the foot.
But don't even suggest that if the shoe was on the other foot the same thing wouldn't happen with the D and R reversed.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No, they're elected reps who were elected by the people to, among other things, prevent moves by obama that the people oppose. That is how the system works. Just like obama supporting the prevention of approving Alito when obama was a senator.

They were 'elected' to refuse to confirm any Supreme Court justice that Obama nominates?

Can you factually establish that?

Sure. Just do a search on 2014 election results by state and you'll see.

And where in those election results does it say anything about refusing to confirm any Supreme Court justice that Obama nominates?

Because I'm pretty sure you're just making that up.

Stop whining. This is how the system works. If dems had control and the president was a repub the same would be going on just as it always has.

If its how the system works, why is this the first example of a Senate insisting they will reject ANY nominee the president offers in our nation's history?

Seems to me its something new and unprecedented. Mitch and his ilk are making a choice to be obstructionist. Its neither inevitable nor foreordained. Nor, likely, sustainable. Its the product of their personal priorities: party above nation. Partisanship above the nation's business.

I doubt this is the first anything. Same ol', same ol'.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just hope that the rejection of the hack's inevitably politically charged lefty nominee happens in a way that doesn't shoot itself in the foot.
But don't even suggest that if the shoe was on the other foot the same thing wouldn't happen with the D and R reversed.

The shoe was on the other foot, a D Senate approved the nominee of an R President during an election year.

That was Kennedy.

>>>>

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Just hope that the rejection of the hack's inevitably politically charged lefty nominee happens in a way that doesn't shoot itself in the foot.
But don't even suggest that if the shoe was on the other foot the same thing wouldn't happen with the D and R reversed.

The shoe was on the other foot, a D Senate approved the nominee of an R President during an election year.

That was Kennedy.

>>>>

After they rejected Bork.
Don't forget about the Thomas debacle.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just hope that the rejection of the hack's inevitably politically charged lefty nominee happens in a way that doesn't shoot itself in the foot.
But don't even suggest that if the shoe was on the other foot the same thing wouldn't happen with the D and R reversed.

The shoe was on the other foot, a D Senate approved the nominee of an R President during an election year.

That was Kennedy.

>>>>

After they rejected Bork.
Don't forget about the Thomas debacle.

Bork got a vote on the Senate floor and was rejected as an individual. The D majority leader did not claim they would deny ALL nominations until after the next election like Majority Leader McConnell did. They delft with the individual nominations.

Thomas also got a vote on the Senate floor. Correct me if I'm wrong but he was confirmed.


>>>>

 

[Anathema]

They will roll over and capitulate in short order. The only thing holding the GOP leadership (sic) clowns upright is the starch on their shirts.

Very likely. At which point I can guarantee you that I will never vote for another Republican for ANY office.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Lets just wait and see.
America voted for a GOP controlled House in 2012, and then a GOP controlled Senate in 2014, so the GOP can assume America does not want Obama to nominate a far left loon for the court.
They should tie this nomination up until after the November election.

Actually, as a nation, the U.S. voted for a plurality of Democrats in Congress. Gerrymandering took care of the GOP wins. The president picks the Justice. Always has. Not Congress. Assuming the people didn't forget this, Obama was the guy America picked to select judges.

The GOP has swept the landscape last few elections, Senate, House, governors, state legislatures.
Of course the president nominates the replacements for the SCOTUS, but this is an election year and considering the shift as of late, Obama would be wise to allow the next president to make this choice.
If Obama does go forward with a nominee, the Senate is by no means forced to vote.

 

[whitehall]

Sen Grassley says "I would wait for the nominee before I make a decision" and the Washington Times interprets it as "signs of backing down" while low information posters claim "The GOP backs off". Much ado about nothing?

 

[BlueGin]

They will roll over and capitulate in short order. The only thing holding the GOP leadership (sic) clowns upright is the starch on their shirts.

Very likely. At which point I can guarantee you that I will never vote for another Republican for ANY office.

Same here.

 

[rightwinger]

The only appropriate response for the GOP leadership is to tell Obama frankly that they will reject ANYONE he puts forward.

And with only a 4 seat majority in the Senate and 24 Republican Senators up for reelection this year (vs 10 Democratic Senators) - they will beat us over the head with that for the next 10 months.

Result?

Hillary or Sanders in the White House with a Dem Senate. Then they get to confirm a nominee to replace Scalia and Ginsburg will see her chance to retire with a D President & D Senate, that makes 2. Kennedy is also entering his 80's, that's possibly 3.

Sometimes my leadership should look down the road at results and not just what will appeal to the hardcore base, a base that will vote Republican anyway.



>>>>

The next president will likely make five appointments to the Supreme Court if reelected to a second term, assuming republicans block Obama's nominee this year.

Trump will ensure a Liberal court for the next generation

Goodbye Heller, Citizens United and the Death Penalty