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

[aris2chat]

advise and consent.....
not just consent to what POTUS nominates.
It should be a give and take.

Find a moderate that both side can accept.
It is not about stacking the deck but what is best for the country and protect the constitutionality of laws.

I think everyone should be sick to death of the fight between the parties and how they forget the people they are there to serve, all the people.

 

[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.

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.


>>>>

Yeah, they just shuffled Thomas right through, eh?
You are rationalizing.

 

[JQPublic1]

Obama can nominate, senate can have hearing............... but approving is unlikely.
Perhaps the senate could give a list of who they would approve and let Obama pick from that list.

A compromise to fill the empty chair

Perhaps Obama can nominate a thoroughly qualified candidate.....and let Republicans swing in the wind on why they would rather leave the USSC without a justice when a qualified candidate can fill the role.

With Obama doing his job as president. And republicans reinforcing their role as party that puts partisanship above the business of the country.

Good luck with that.

Keep dreaming.

Normal people don't give a fuck about DC political games. Most people have no idea how many people are on the SCOTUS and couldn't name even one justice.

Most people know two for sure...Scalia and Thomas! Oh, let me add Roberts.... Obamacare made HIM famous!

 

[JQPublic1]

They all need to fucking grow up. There has to be someone out there BOTH parties can fucking agree on.

Of course, but Obama wont nominate a good jurist, he wants a fucking leftwing ideologue.

Well, that IS fair...You RW nuts want a fucking Right Wing ideologue!

 

[JQPublic1]

What if Obama offers governor Christie the job? Wouldn't that be a blast...

 

[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.


>>>>

Yeah, they just shuffled Thomas right through, eh?
You are rationalizing.

No, I"m saying that the Senate should do their job. Having hearings and an up/down vote. If Obama submits a liberal nut job. Then vote no. I'm saying leaving the bench with a vacancy to be filled by the next President (their hoping its a GOP president, which considering the who the GOP front runners in the primary season are isn't a good bet) isn't the intent of the founding fathers concerning Article 2 Section 2.


>>>>

 

[JimBowie1958]

They all need to fucking grow up. There has to be someone out there BOTH parties can fucking agree on.

Of course, but Obama wont nominate a good jurist, he wants a fucking leftwing ideologue.

Well, that IS fair...You RW nuts want a fucking Right Wing ideologue!

Yes, to take the place of a past RW ideologue.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, I"m saying that the Senate should do their job. Having hearings and an up/down vote. If Obama submits a liberal nut job. Then vote no. I'm saying leaving the bench with a vacancy to be filled by the next President (their hoping its a GOP president, which considering the who the GOP front runners in the primary season are isn't a good bet) isn't the intent of the founding fathers concerning Article 2 Section 2.

You do realize that shelving or ignoring a proposal by the President is a completely Constitutional option in the legislative process, just as much as having a vote, right?

In no way shape or form does the Senate have to have a vote, at all.

The Dems did it to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan quite enough to set precedence if you're wondering.

 

[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.

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

That doesn't change the fact that a plurality voted for Dems for both the legislative AND executive branches in the last 2 elections. The original claim was a national mandate for a conservative justice. Categorically untrue.

 

[GaryDog]

No, I"m saying that the Senate should do their job. Having hearings and an up/down vote. If Obama submits a liberal nut job. Then vote no. I'm saying leaving the bench with a vacancy to be filled by the next President (their hoping its a GOP president, which considering the who the GOP front runners in the primary season are isn't a good bet) isn't the intent of the founding fathers concerning Article 2 Section 2.

You do realize that shelving or ignoring a proposal by the President is a completely Constitutional option in the legislative process, just as much as having a vote, right?

In no way shape or form does the Senate have to have a vote, at all.

The Dems did it to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan quite enough to set precedence if you're wondering.

Please cite a time where the Dems filibustered a nominee before even knowing who the nominee is.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That doesn't change the fact that a plurality voted for Dems for both the legislative AND executive branches in the last 2 elections. The original claim was a national mandate for a conservative justice. Categorically untrue.

Another bullshit partisan hack lie.

United States House of Representatives elections, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Republicans got 40 million votes and Dems got 35 million in the 2014 US congressional elections.

Republicans got an even larger vote int he 2010 elections around 45 million votes

United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, I"m saying that the Senate should do their job. Having hearings and an up/down vote. If Obama submits a liberal nut job. Then vote no. I'm saying leaving the bench with a vacancy to be filled by the next President (their hoping its a GOP president, which considering the who the GOP front runners in the primary season are isn't a good bet) isn't the intent of the founding fathers concerning Article 2 Section 2.

You do realize that shelving or ignoring a proposal by the President is a completely Constitutional option in the legislative process, just as much as having a vote, right?

In no way shape or form does the Senate have to have a vote, at all.

The Dems did it to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan quite enough to set precedence if you're wondering.

Please cite a time where the Dems filibustered a nominee before even knowing who the nominee is.

There hasnt been a filibuster yet, dude.

 

[Meathead]

It is simple. Given the time frame, the Republicans' litmus test and bar on the pressing issues is going to be so high that it makes no sense for Obama to nominate. His only reason to do so is to get whatever political mileage he thinks he can.

Politics 101

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Dems did it to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan quite enough to set precedence if you're wondering.

Please identify what justices were nominated by Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan that did not receive hearings and a floor vote and Senate Leadership (without a vote of the Senate) said they would not process or vote on ANY candidate by that president?

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

 

[Zander]

No, I"m saying that the Senate should do their job. Having hearings and an up/down vote. If Obama submits a liberal nut job. Then vote no. I'm saying leaving the bench with a vacancy to be filled by the next President (their hoping its a GOP president, which considering the who the GOP front runners in the primary season are isn't a good bet) isn't the intent of the founding fathers concerning Article 2 Section 2.

You do realize that shelving or ignoring a proposal by the President is a completely Constitutional option in the legislative process, just as much as having a vote, right?

In no way shape or form does the Senate have to have a vote, at all.

The Dems did it to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan quite enough to set precedence if you're wondering.

Please cite a time where the Dems filibustered a nominee before even knowing who the nominee is.

Please site a time where the Reps filibustered a nominee before even knowing who the nominee is. Keep in mind, the "threat" of a filibuster is not an actual filibuster.

 

[dannyboys]

No, I"m saying that the Senate should do their job. Having hearings and an up/down vote. If Obama submits a liberal nut job. Then vote no. I'm saying leaving the bench with a vacancy to be filled by the next President (their hoping its a GOP president, which considering the who the GOP front runners in the primary season are isn't a good bet) isn't the intent of the founding fathers concerning Article 2 Section 2.

You do realize that shelving or ignoring a proposal by the President is a completely Constitutional option in the legislative process, just as much as having a vote, right?

In no way shape or form does the Senate have to have a vote, at all.

The Dems did it to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan quite enough to set precedence if you're wondering.

Please cite a time where the Dems filibustered a nominee before even knowing who the nominee is.

Please site a time where the Reps filibustered a nominee before even knowing who the nominee is. Keep in mind, the "threat" of a filibuster is not an actual filibuster.

Obama behaved like a fucking 'I'm the smartest person on the planet and I don't give a shit about what the REP Senate or the REP Congress does. I'll find a way to commit crimes and get away with it".
It's fucking payback time Obama. YOUR legacy just became a fucking joke.

 

[JQPublic1]

They all need to fucking grow up. There has to be someone out there BOTH parties can fucking agree on.

Of course, but Obama wont nominate a good jurist, he wants a fucking leftwing ideologue.

Well, that IS fair...You RW nuts want a fucking Right Wing ideologue!

Yes, to take the place of a past RW ideologue.

I think he will go with Christie. He even looks like a younger version of Scalia.He could certainly fill Scalia's shoes, underwear and the wide chair he sat in with ease.

 

[JQPublic1]

It is simple. Given the time frame, the Republicans' litmus test and bar on the pressing issues is going to be so high that it makes no sense for Obama to nominate. His only reason to do so is to get whatever political mileage he thinks he can.

Politics 101

No, I"m saying that the Senate should do their job. Having hearings and an up/down vote. If Obama submits a liberal nut job. Then vote no. I'm saying leaving the bench with a vacancy to be filled by the next President (their hoping its a GOP president, which considering the who the GOP front runners in the primary season are isn't a good bet) isn't the intent of the founding fathers concerning Article 2 Section 2.

You do realize that shelving or ignoring a proposal by the President is a completely Constitutional option in the legislative process, just as much as having a vote, right?

In no way shape or form does the Senate have to have a vote, at all.

The Dems did it to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan quite enough to set precedence if you're wondering.

Please cite a time where the Dems filibustered a nominee before even knowing who the nominee is.

Please site a time where the Reps filibustered a nominee before even knowing who the nominee is. Keep in mind, the "threat" of a filibuster is not an actual filibuster.

Obama behaved like a fucking 'I'm the smartest person on the planet and I don't give a shit about what the REP Senate or the REP Congress does. I'll find a way to commit crimes and get away with it".
It's fucking payback time Obama. YOUR legacy just became a fucking joke.

Stop trying to rewrite history. We all saw what happened on national TV. Obama wasted his first two years in office trying to reach out to republicans. The obstructionist bahs=turds snubbed him at every turn. FORCING him to use what ever means necessary to get SOME things done.

 

[Meathead]

It is simple. Given the time frame, the Republicans' litmus test and bar on the pressing issues is going to be so high that it makes no sense for Obama to nominate. His only reason to do so is to get whatever political mileage he thinks he can.

Politics 101

No, I"m saying that the Senate should do their job. Having hearings and an up/down vote. If Obama submits a liberal nut job. Then vote no. I'm saying leaving the bench with a vacancy to be filled by the next President (their hoping its a GOP president, which considering the who the GOP front runners in the primary season are isn't a good bet) isn't the intent of the founding fathers concerning Article 2 Section 2.

You do realize that shelving or ignoring a proposal by the President is a completely Constitutional option in the legislative process, just as much as having a vote, right?

In no way shape or form does the Senate have to have a vote, at all.

The Dems did it to Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan quite enough to set precedence if you're wondering.

Please cite a time where the Dems filibustered a nominee before even knowing who the nominee is.

Please site a time where the Reps filibustered a nominee before even knowing who the nominee is. Keep in mind, the "threat" of a filibuster is not an actual filibuster.

Obama behaved like a fucking 'I'm the smartest person on the planet and I don't give a shit about what the REP Senate or the REP Congress does. I'll find a way to commit crimes and get away with it".
It's fucking payback time Obama. YOUR legacy just became a fucking joke.

Stop trying to rewrite history. We all saw what happened on national TV. Obama wasted his first two years in office trying to reach out to republicans. The obstructionist bahs=turds snubbed him at every turn. FORCING him to use what ever means necessary to get SOME things done.

Obviously, you're grasp of US history is tenuous at best. The first two years Obama had a supermajority or near supermajority. He did not consult with GOP leadership meaningfully. Then, last year he announced he had a pen and would not even consult congress. With the nomination, he has no choice. Elections and actions have consequences.

Payback time. Politics 101.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

This is not the big deal you are all making it out to be

Obama can nominate a justice the senate can vote the fact is in order for Obama's pick to be confirmed at least 14 republicans will have to vote to confirm

I doubt that will happen,

The republicans really have nothing to lose here and much more to gain
If they fail to confirm Obama's pick and a republican wins the general election then they get a chance to nominate a justice that will maintain the court make up if they lose they still have to confirm a democrat's choice which if the current make up of the senate holds they will still have a say in who gets confirmed

I don't see why any of this is a big deal since in all honesty if the Dems were in the same situation they would do the exact same thing