Wonder WHY GOP senators are against a justice's nomination??

[nat4900]

Actually, GOP senators are not so much against a nomination of a justice by Obama, their problem is the expected spectacle of their nitpicking even a moderate nomination during the subsequent hearings. Bear in mind that many of these GOP senators (if the nomination ever made it out of the judicial committee) are up for re-election, and their stalling tactics may not go over well among those independent voters that they so much need.

Realizing that the portion of a Daily Kos article below will be met with sneers by right wingers, for those who still have an open mind, the influence that big donors play on GOP senators (and representatives) is both informative and scary for any democracy turning into a plutocracy.....

So, if the McConnell and company "warning" to Obama to not even nominate someone, the author of the article offers the following:

What really matters is why they're doing it, and who it serves. The answer to that question leads straight to their donor base. Although it scarcely bears repeating, the Republican Senate and (to an even greater extent) the Republican House of Representatives now exists to serve the economic interests of a tiny group of very, very wealthy people, people who now stand to either gain or lose hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars spent complying with environmental, finance and labor laws and regulations, depending on who replaces Scalia. That is what this fight is all about. For the GOP and the billionaires who pull their strings, much ballyhooed rhetoric about abortion, affirmative action, union rights and voting rights are all subsidiary to this main event.
The two most prominent members of this tiny group of people are Charles and David Koch:

In this election cycle... the Kochs have publicly stated that they and their compatriots will spend $889 million, more than either the Republican or Democratic parties spent last time around. According to a recent analysis in Politico, their privatized political network is backed by a group of several hundred extremely rich fellow donors who often meet at off-the-record conclaves organized by the Kochs at desert resorts. It has at least 1,200 full-time staffers in 107 offices nationwide, or three and a half times as many as the Republican National Committee. They may be the most important un-elected political figures in American history.​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Senate is invoking the Schumer Rule.

A wise man once said, "Elections have consequences, you lost - so suck this" You lost the Senate so payback is a barack

 

[BluesLegend]

The Senate is invoking the Schumer Rule.

A wise man once said, "Elections have consequences, you lost - so suck this" You lost the Senate so payback is a barack

^^^ nothing more needs to be said

 

[Kosh]

Actually, GOP senators are not so much against a nomination of a justice by Obama, their problem is the expected spectacle of their nitpicking even a moderate nomination during the subsequent hearings. Bear in mind that many of these GOP senators (if the nomination ever made it out of the judicial committee) are up for re-election, and their stalling tactics may not go over well among those independent voters that they so much need.

Realizing that the portion of a Daily Kos article below will be met with sneers by right wingers, for those who still have an open mind, the influence that big donors play on GOP senators (and representatives) is both informative and scary for any democracy turning into a plutocracy.....

So, if the McConnell and company "warning" to Obama to not even nominate someone, the author of the article offers the following:

What really matters is why they're doing it, and who it serves. The answer to that question leads straight to their donor base. Although it scarcely bears repeating, the Republican Senate and (to an even greater extent) the Republican House of Representatives now exists to serve the economic interests of a tiny group of very, very wealthy people, people who now stand to either gain or lose hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars spent complying with environmental, finance and labor laws and regulations, depending on who replaces Scalia. That is what this fight is all about. For the GOP and the billionaires who pull their strings, much ballyhooed rhetoric about abortion, affirmative action, union rights and voting rights are all subsidiary to this main event.
The two most prominent members of this tiny group of people are Charles and David Koch:

In this election cycle... the Kochs have publicly stated that they and their compatriots will spend $889 million, more than either the Republican or Democratic parties spent last time around. According to a recent analysis in Politico, their privatized political network is backed by a group of several hundred extremely rich fellow donors who often meet at off-the-record conclaves organized by the Kochs at desert resorts. It has at least 1,200 full-time staffers in 107 offices nationwide, or three and a half times as many as the Republican National Committee. They may be the most important un-elected political figures in American history.​

Yes the Daily Kos a far left drone blog site, tells you this!

It is amazing how the far left drones forget that Reid invoked the nuclear option and now they hate the idea.

 

[The VOR]

Actually, GOP senators are not so much against a nomination of a justice by Obama

That is exactly what they are against. No need to read any farther than that.

 

[Correll]

Actually, GOP senators are not so much against a nomination of a justice by Obama, their problem is the expected spectacle of their nitpicking even a moderate nomination during the subsequent hearings. Bear in mind that many of these GOP senators (if the nomination ever made it out of the judicial committee) are up for re-election, and their stalling tactics may not go over well among those independent voters that they so much need.

Realizing that the portion of a Daily Kos article below will be met with sneers by right wingers, for those who still have an open mind, the influence that big donors play on GOP senators (and representatives) is both informative and scary for any democracy turning into a plutocracy.....

So, if the McConnell and company "warning" to Obama to not even nominate someone, the author of the article offers the following:

What really matters is why they're doing it, and who it serves. The answer to that question leads straight to their donor base. Although it scarcely bears repeating, the Republican Senate and (to an even greater extent) the Republican House of Representatives now exists to serve the economic interests of a tiny group of very, very wealthy people, people who now stand to either gain or lose hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars spent complying with environmental, finance and labor laws and regulations, depending on who replaces Scalia. That is what this fight is all about. For the GOP and the billionaires who pull their strings, much ballyhooed rhetoric about abortion, affirmative action, union rights and voting rights are all subsidiary to this main event.
The two most prominent members of this tiny group of people are Charles and David Koch:

In this election cycle... the Kochs have publicly stated that they and their compatriots will spend $889 million, more than either the Republican or Democratic parties spent last time around. According to a recent analysis in Politico, their privatized political network is backed by a group of several hundred extremely rich fellow donors who often meet at off-the-record conclaves organized by the Kochs at desert resorts. It has at least 1,200 full-time staffers in 107 offices nationwide, or three and a half times as many as the Republican National Committee. They may be the most important un-elected political figures in American history.​

Sooooo, your claim is that if not for the Koch Brothers, that the GOP Senators would have no problem with putting an Obama appointee in the seat?

a. that seems unlikely.

and

B. if so, God Bless the Koch Brothers and lets get some Senators who take their jobs seriously.

 

[g5000]

The Senate is invoking the Schumer Rule.

A wise man once said, "Elections have consequences, you lost - so suck this" You lost the Senate so payback is a barack

There is no rule which forbids the Senate from voting up or down on a nominee in the fourth year of a Presidency, idiot.

 

[easyt65]

'Wonder WHY GOP senators are against a justice's nomination??'

Obama....period.

The man has spent his career displaying his disdain and disregard for the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Sotomayor is anything BUT a 'neutral' Justice, and with his growing obvious plan to dismantle the country, destroying even more our adherence to the Constitution and Rule of Law - thus keeping his promise to 'Fundamentally Change the US (which he has already done), he has proved that providing anything but a nominee that will serve to further his vision / agenda is highly unlikely.

This is, after all, the petulant child who declared to the GOP after he won the Presidency, "I won...You lost" ... as if to declare he was supposed to get ANYTHING he wanted because he had won.

This is a man who, as soon as he won, declared because he had done so he suddenly refused to enforce the Rule of Law, specifically the DOM, because HE did not agree with it.

This is the man who has refused to enforce the existing immigration laws, has created 'rights specifically illegals ONLY, has released tens of thousands of violent criminal convicted illegals back into the US population - not deporting them, is protecting Federal Law-violating Sanctuary Cities, and is working with the DOJ as we speak to help make it easier for illegals to vote in the up-coming 2016 election.

Someone who continues to not only disregard the law but also VIOLATES the law has no business nominating a USSC justice.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The GOP is trying to float their new idea that a Presidents term is only 3 years now

 

[RandallFlagg]

You're right. There is no "rule" . They are CHOOSING not to vote. Indeed, election have consequences. Looks as though the shoe is on the other hand, now doesn't it?

It makes me smile.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Senate is invoking the Schumer Rule.

A wise man once said, "Elections have consequences, you lost - so suck this" You lost the Senate so payback is a barack

There is no rule which forbids the Senate from voting up or down on a nominee in the fourth year of a Presidency, idiot.

Let Obama send through a Scalia clone and he'll get confirmed

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The GOP is trying to float their new idea that a Presidents term is only 3 years now

translation: wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I don't like when Republicans act like Democrats!!

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Senate is invoking the Schumer Rule.

A wise man once said, "Elections have consequences, you lost - so suck this" You lost the Senate so payback is a barack

There is no rule which forbids the Senate from voting up or down on a nominee in the fourth year of a Presidency, idiot.

Neither is there a rule that says they have to.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The GOP is trying to float their new idea that a Presidents term is only 3 years now

translation: wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I don't like when Republicans act like Democrats!!

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

So nothing, just rabble. Nice

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Senate is invoking the Schumer Rule.

A wise man once said, "Elections have consequences, you lost - so suck this" You lost the Senate so payback is a barack

There is no rule which forbids the Senate from voting up or down on a nominee in the fourth year of a Presidency, idiot.

So you're defending how Democrats treated Robert Bork.

Interesting

 

[bendog]

There's no precedent for not considering a nominee it the last year of an admin, but what's really in play is the GOP lost on gay marriage. Remember Roberts's admonition that he was privately supportive or happy for gay people, but they shouldn't be celebrating too much because Justice Kennedy reached a decision that didn't have any constitutional foundation. Most legal watchers figured Obamacare was constitutional, but seriously if Roberts had a sixth nay vote, he probably would have been the fifth. Calmer heads might be able to persuade gop senators that Justices have to follow the law, but when the gay marriage case didn't .... all bets are off.

 

[Dale Smith]

Actually, GOP senators are not so much against a nomination of a justice by Obama, their problem is the expected spectacle of their nitpicking even a moderate nomination during the subsequent hearings. Bear in mind that many of these GOP senators (if the nomination ever made it out of the judicial committee) are up for re-election, and their stalling tactics may not go over well among those independent voters that they so much need.

Realizing that the portion of a Daily Kos article below will be met with sneers by right wingers, for those who still have an open mind, the influence that big donors play on GOP senators (and representatives) is both informative and scary for any democracy turning into a plutocracy.....

So, if the McConnell and company "warning" to Obama to not even nominate someone, the author of the article offers the following:

What really matters is why they're doing it, and who it serves. The answer to that question leads straight to their donor base. Although it scarcely bears repeating, the Republican Senate and (to an even greater extent) the Republican House of Representatives now exists to serve the economic interests of a tiny group of very, very wealthy people, people who now stand to either gain or lose hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars spent complying with environmental, finance and labor laws and regulations, depending on who replaces Scalia. That is what this fight is all about. For the GOP and the billionaires who pull their strings, much ballyhooed rhetoric about abortion, affirmative action, union rights and voting rights are all subsidiary to this main event.
The two most prominent members of this tiny group of people are Charles and David Koch:

In this election cycle... the Kochs have publicly stated that they and their compatriots will spend $889 million, more than either the Republican or Democratic parties spent last time around. According to a recent analysis in Politico, their privatized political network is backed by a group of several hundred extremely rich fellow donors who often meet at off-the-record conclaves organized by the Kochs at desert resorts. It has at least 1,200 full-time staffers in 107 offices nationwide, or three and a half times as many as the Republican National Committee. They may be the most important un-elected political figures in American history.​

While I have no use for the Koch brothers that also use to fund "demcrat" candidates, I have no use for George Soros and his using his billions of dollars to fund NGOs and leftwing candidates that embrace his globalist agenda of no borders and an end to our Constitution. He is very much against the 2nd amendment and is of the opinion that America's sovereignty is overrated....do you feel that way as well?

 

[The VOR]

The Senate is invoking the Schumer Rule.

A wise man once said, "Elections have consequences, you lost - so suck this" You lost the Senate so payback is a barack

There is no rule which forbids the Senate from voting up or down on a nominee in the fourth year of a Presidency, idiot.

Let Obama send through a Scalia clone and he'll get confirmed

Confirmed? How is a Scalia clone confirmation even possible when they refuse to do their job and even take a vote?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Senate is invoking the Schumer Rule.

A wise man once said, "Elections have consequences, you lost - so suck this" You lost the Senate so payback is a barack

There is no rule which forbids the Senate from voting up or down on a nominee in the fourth year of a Presidency, idiot.

Let Obama send through a Scalia clone and he'll get confirmed

Confirmed? How is a Scalia clone confirmation even possible when they refuse to do their job and even take a vote?

Agreed. McConnell is a moron

 

[The VOR]

You're right. There is no "rule" . They are CHOOSING not to vote. Indeed, election have consequences. Looks as though the shoe is on the other hand, now doesn't it?

It makes me smile.

Yeah, the SHOE is on the other HAND.