What's wrong with the GOP? Vote on Supreme Court Justice

[Slade3200]

I didn't make anything up. Smelling defeat was opinion, but regardless, They wanted to hedge their bets. The situation was regarding retiring a justice to replace that justice... This is an opening due to death. Why are you defending the hold out and how do you justify it? Why not just vote?

You're making up all this shit that Biden didn't say. He put no conditions on it, he said no Republican should be submitted and if one is the Democrats wouldn't vote on it

Sorry, so what's your rationale for the hold out again? Besides, Biden said so?

I don't want another Marxist on the Supreme court. If we wait until after the election, we'll probably get one, but if we do it now, we definitely will.

Republicans over and over fall for Lucy pulling the ball out from under them. They should do it because they can and the Democrats would and in the future the Democrats will regardless of what they do now

Then vote NO... Not even considering is partisan bullshit and it sounds like you know it

Im sorry, but I almost have to laugh when I hear all the cries from Democrats saying nominees need to have a "fair" up or down vote.

It wasn't that long ago, or did we all forget the liberals take on Constitutional duty?
Democrats were the ones who came up with the filibuster of judicial nominees in 2003, when the previous congress was in session, in order to defeat many of President Bush’s conservative nominees to the federal circuit courts. The filibuster strategy developed out of the Democrats’ concern for the fact that Republicans commanded a majority in the Senate and were in a position to approve all the president’s appellate-level judicial nominees. As a result of the new filibuster tactic employed by the Democrats, President Bush has had the lowest confirmation rate for such appointments.

However, do go on and tell us it's their Constitutional duty simply because we have a president with an D as opposed to an R associated with his name. The truth is, that's why we even have all this concern among liberal democrats.

I don't identify myself as a D or an R... Siting examples of what democrats did in the past does NOTHING to justify inaction and gridlock caused by the GOP in this case. Most people go to WORK everyday and work doesn't involve spouting a bunch of BS rhetoric and excuses justifying what they shouldn't work. Worst of all this attitude is just snowballing the problem that most people are fed up with. At some point our congress needs to learn how to cooperate and work together. that goes for BOTH parties

 

[IsaacNewton]

Another brainless bot OP that ignores history and the law.

One, leading Democrats have called for doing the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

Two, the Constitution does not require the Senate to even hold hearings on the nomination. Its "advice and consent" can be to decide not to even consider the nomination.

Three, no one with two working brain cells would dispute the fact that if this were the second term of President McCain and a vacancy opened up and the Dems controlled the Senate, there is no way on this earth that the Dems would confirm the nominee (unless he were a liberal).

What goes around comes around. You guys smeared and blocked Bork and then blocked numerous highly qualified appellate court nominees (some of whom were black or Hispanic). And now you whine because the Republicans won't confirm the nominee of a guy who has already put two liberal robots on the court?

I say fine, let the Republicans have it their way. The Democrats should never even consider another Republican nominee ever. Done and done. You get your wish.

The Democrats already played that game. Yet you're acting as if we should be at all surprised by their actions to block nominations?

Whine all you want. Its time the Democrats play the Republican game. Any Republican that is elected president the Democrats should immediately say "we want this non-president to be a 4 year loser so we will oppose and not allow him to do anything". "We will not even consider any nominee for any court position put forth by any Republican."

Wish granted. This policy should start immediately. This is how you call a child's bluff. You give them just what they want.

Wake up!!! The Denocrats established a filibuster tactic of judicial nominees back in 2003 when the senate was under a republican majority and nominees were in need of an up or down vote. Where was Senator Harry Reed's constitutional duty? So instead you want to cry fowl simply because we have changed parties in the White House? Even when you compared presidencies Obama was able to get 129 nominees through, compatible to 120 that the Bush Admibstration received by the end of his administration. Republicans aren't the consistent judicial obstructionists that Democrats have showed themselves to be.

So, how many justices were there the last 30 years. 8? No, 9. Because with all the bluster and all the infighting and all the ankle biting by both sides, both sides still believed in the Constitution and they held their nose and voted for someone they didn't like.

The Republicans are ending this. That is what they are doing. I've come to the conclusion, let it end. I'm tired of listening to these children, same as the children here, claim the high road when they know exactly what they are doing. They are keeping a sitting president from fulfilling his Constitutional duties that he was ELECTED to do. It is simply nullifying every vote for president Obama in 2012.

That's it. That's what they are doing. I say fine, now it's time to play this game for real. The Democrats should oppose everything any Republican president wants to do, across the board. And not even interview a judge for appointment.

Republicans, you win. You get your wish. High fives!

 

[Rustic]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

There's no hurry, Barry, does not deserve to nominate anyone - he's a **** up...

 

[chikenwing]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

They are ,its called politics, both sided do that,you know politics, its a hoot ,when the opposition party,just dosnt go along with the others plans,they get labled bad,its what we hire them for.

 

[Slade3200]

Another brainless bot OP that ignores history and the law.

One, leading Democrats have called for doing the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

Two, the Constitution does not require the Senate to even hold hearings on the nomination. Its "advice and consent" can be to decide not to even consider the nomination.

Three, no one with two working brain cells would dispute the fact that if this were the second term of President McCain and a vacancy opened up and the Dems controlled the Senate, there is no way on this earth that the Dems would confirm the nominee (unless he were a liberal).

What goes around comes around. You guys smeared and blocked Bork and then blocked numerous highly qualified appellate court nominees (some of whom were black or Hispanic). And now you whine because the Republicans won't confirm the nominee of a guy who has already put two liberal robots on the court?

Well i guess the constitution doesn't say that the President HAS to appoint a nominee so in theory we could just not nominate anybody and let all the current justices die and then no more Supreme Court. Love the rationale of you nutjobs.

You know there are differences from past situations and this situation... and even if there are no differences, saying that the Dems did it before as justification for you doing it now is not an excuses... Whats wrong with you people?

 

[boilermaker55]

This is all going to come back and bite the teabaggers in the ass.
GOOD!

 

[Slade3200]

Another brainless bot OP that ignores history and the law.

One, leading Democrats have called for doing the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

Two, the Constitution does not require the Senate to even hold hearings on the nomination. Its "advice and consent" can be to decide not to even consider the nomination.

Three, no one with two working brain cells would dispute the fact that if this were the second term of President McCain and a vacancy opened up and the Dems controlled the Senate, there is no way on this earth that the Dems would confirm the nominee (unless he were a liberal).

What goes around comes around. You guys smeared and blocked Bork and then blocked numerous highly qualified appellate court nominees (some of whom were black or Hispanic). And now you whine because the Republicans won't confirm the nominee of a guy who has already put two liberal robots on the court?

I say fine, let the Republicans have it their way. The Democrats should never even consider another Republican nominee ever. Done and done. You get your wish.

The Democrats already played that game. Yet you're acting as if we should be at all surprised by their actions to block nominations?

Whine all you want. Its time the Democrats play the Republican game. Any Republican that is elected president the Democrats should immediately say "we want this non-president to be a 4 year loser so we will oppose and not allow him to do anything". "We will not even consider any nominee for any court position put forth by any Republican."

Wish granted. This policy should start immediately. This is how you call a child's bluff. You give them just what they want.

Wake up!!! The Denocrats established a filibuster tactic of judicial nominees back in 2003 when the senate was under a republican majority and nominees were in need of an up or down vote. Where was Senator Harry Reed's constitutional duty? So instead you want to cry fowl simply because we have changed parties in the White House? Even when you compared presidencies Obama was able to get 129 nominees through, compatible to 120 that the Bush Admibstration received by the end of his administration. Republicans aren't the consistent judicial obstructionists that Democrats have showed themselves to be.

Any downright obstruction is an injustice to the people. We elect our leaders to lead and work together to make decisions to better our country. If both sides have the goal to just block the other no matter what we are going to end up going absolutely nowhere which is where we've been in recent years. Time for a change.

 

[Fang]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

The GOP is following the Biden Rule. Go look it up.

Thats funny, please site this "rule"... is it in the constitution? Supreme court election committee rulebook? Where is this rule and what does it say? After you find nothing but a half story segment of a video maybe you can dig deeper, beyond the BS rhetoric that McConnell and clan are spouting and actually see the situation for what it is... Political partisan games.

Don't even try that. This is not even debatable. The Senate GOP is acting the EXACT same way a Democratic Senate would act if roles were reversed. They're also doing exactly what their voters would want them to do, so they are doing their jobs.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Another brainless bot OP that ignores history and the law.

One, leading Democrats have called for doing the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

Two, the Constitution does not require the Senate to even hold hearings on the nomination. Its "advice and consent" can be to decide not to even consider the nomination.

Three, no one with two working brain cells would dispute the fact that if this were the second term of President McCain and a vacancy opened up and the Dems controlled the Senate, there is no way on this earth that the Dems would confirm the nominee (unless he were a liberal).

What goes around comes around. You guys smeared and blocked Bork and then blocked numerous highly qualified appellate court nominees (some of whom were black or Hispanic). And now you whine because the Republicans won't confirm the nominee of a guy who has already put two liberal robots on the court?

I say fine, let the Republicans have it their way. The Democrats should never even consider another Republican nominee ever. Done and done. You get your wish.

The Democrats already played that game. Yet you're acting as if we should be at all surprised by their actions to block nominations?

Whine all you want. Its time the Democrats play the Republican game. Any Republican that is elected president the Democrats should immediately say "we want this non-president to be a 4 year loser so we will oppose and not allow him to do anything". "We will not even consider any nominee for any court position put forth by any Republican."

Wish granted. This policy should start immediately. This is how you call a child's bluff. You give them just what they want.

Wake up!!! The Denocrats established a filibuster tactic of judicial nominees back in 2003 when the senate was under a republican majority and nominees were in need of an up or down vote. Where was Senator Harry Reed's constitutional duty? So instead you want to cry fowl simply because we have changed parties in the White House? Even when you compared presidencies Obama was able to get 129 nominees through, compatible to 120 that the Bush Admibstration received by the end of his administration. Republicans aren't the consistent judicial obstructionists that Democrats have showed themselves to be.

So, how many justices were there the last 30 years. 8? No, 9. Because with all the bluster and all the infighting and all the ankle biting by both sides, both sides still believed in the Constitution and they held their nose and voted for someone they didn't like.

The Republicans are ending this. That is what they are doing. I've come to the conclusion, let it end. I'm tired of listening to these children, same as the children here, claim the high road when they know exactly what they are doing. They are keeping a sitting president from fulfilling his Constitutional duties that he was ELECTED to do. It is simply nullifying every vote for president Obama in 2012.

That's it. That's what they are doing. I say fine, now it's time to play this game for real. The Democrats should oppose everything any Republican president wants to do, across the board. And not even interview a judge for appointment.

Republicans, you win. You get your wish. High fives!

Your acting as if Obama never got a Supreme Court justice approved during his presidency. Did we forget about Sotomayor and Kagan? This is only one nominee that's told may not be getting a vote, if they hold to what they claim... it's really only day two. Day two and we have liberals all up in an uproar, ... really, give me a break people !!!

There were SEVERAL nominees that were filibustered by a Democrat minority without even a chance for a vote, because Democrats were fearful of what a republican senate majority could accomplish. Don't give me your holier than thou talk over just ONE judicial nominee. Harry Reed did a lot more to disrupt the whole process and keep a sitting president from fulfilling his constitutional duty of filling many vacancies during his term
..... not just one nominee on day two of the process.

 

[Slade3200]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

The GOP is following the Biden Rule. Go look it up.

Thats funny, please site this "rule"... is it in the constitution? Supreme court election committee rulebook? Where is this rule and what does it say? After you find nothing but a half story segment of a video maybe you can dig deeper, beyond the BS rhetoric that McConnell and clan are spouting and actually see the situation for what it is... Political partisan games.

Don't even try that. This is not even debatable. The Senate GOP is acting the EXACT same way a Democratic Senate would act if roles were reversed. They're also doing exactly what their voters would want them to do, so they are doing their jobs.

Again.... If the Dems were doing it it would be just as wrong... That doesn't make it right, please stop using that pointless excuse... At a some point somebody needs to show some character, integrity, and leadership... It's too bad you decide to back them up instead of voicing outrage. We are just spinning in circles here

 

[Slade3200]

I say fine, let the Republicans have it their way. The Democrats should never even consider another Republican nominee ever. Done and done. You get your wish.

The Democrats already played that game. Yet you're acting as if we should be at all surprised by their actions to block nominations?

Whine all you want. Its time the Democrats play the Republican game. Any Republican that is elected president the Democrats should immediately say "we want this non-president to be a 4 year loser so we will oppose and not allow him to do anything". "We will not even consider any nominee for any court position put forth by any Republican."

Wish granted. This policy should start immediately. This is how you call a child's bluff. You give them just what they want.

Wake up!!! The Denocrats established a filibuster tactic of judicial nominees back in 2003 when the senate was under a republican majority and nominees were in need of an up or down vote. Where was Senator Harry Reed's constitutional duty? So instead you want to cry fowl simply because we have changed parties in the White House? Even when you compared presidencies Obama was able to get 129 nominees through, compatible to 120 that the Bush Admibstration received by the end of his administration. Republicans aren't the consistent judicial obstructionists that Democrats have showed themselves to be.

So, how many justices were there the last 30 years. 8? No, 9. Because with all the bluster and all the infighting and all the ankle biting by both sides, both sides still believed in the Constitution and they held their nose and voted for someone they didn't like.

The Republicans are ending this. That is what they are doing. I've come to the conclusion, let it end. I'm tired of listening to these children, same as the children here, claim the high road when they know exactly what they are doing. They are keeping a sitting president from fulfilling his Constitutional duties that he was ELECTED to do. It is simply nullifying every vote for president Obama in 2012.

That's it. That's what they are doing. I say fine, now it's time to play this game for real. The Democrats should oppose everything any Republican president wants to do, across the board. And not even interview a judge for appointment.

Republicans, you win. You get your wish. High fives!

Your acting as if Obama never got a Supreme Court justice approved during his presidency. Did we forget about Sotomayor and Kagan? This is only one nominee that's told may not be getting a vote, if they hold to what they claim... it's really only day two. Day two and we have liberals all up in an uproar, ... really, give me a break people !!!

There were SEVERAL nominees that were filibustered by a Democrat minority without even a chance for a vote, because Democrats were fearful of what a republican senate majority could accomplish. Don't give me your holier than thou talk over just ONE judicial nominee. Harry Reed did a lot more to disrupt the whole process and keep a sitting president from fulfilling his constitutional duty of filling many vacancies during his term
..... not just one nominee on day two of the process.

Again you site example from the past to justify actions for the future... Actions in the past have lead to gridlock and have frustrated a majority of Americans. The attitude needs to change in Washington and it won't unless enough people voice outrage at these types of actions... It's more so up to members of that party to speak out against it. I'd be yelling just as loud if the Dems were doing the same thing.

 

[Fang]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

The GOP is following the Biden Rule. Go look it up.

Thats funny, please site this "rule"... is it in the constitution? Supreme court election committee rulebook? Where is this rule and what does it say? After you find nothing but a half story segment of a video maybe you can dig deeper, beyond the BS rhetoric that McConnell and clan are spouting and actually see the situation for what it is... Political partisan games.

Don't even try that. This is not even debatable. The Senate GOP is acting the EXACT same way a Democratic Senate would act if roles were reversed. They're also doing exactly what their voters would want them to do, so they are doing their jobs.

Again.... If the Dems were doing it it would be just as wrong... That doesn't make it right, please stop using that pointless excuse... At a some point somebody needs to show some character, integrity, and leadership... It's too bad you decide to back them up instead of voicing outrage. We are just spinning in circles here

But that's politics is it not? I find it funny that you think "somebody needs to show some character, integrity, and leadership" when Liberals would be able to make the pick. If Hillary wins, they'll still be able to make the pick and the senate will review this in November/December or in early 2017. The Constitution does not require them to hold hearings on a specific time table.

 

[Slade3200]

I have yet to hear a non-political non-BS reason for the GOP's hold out from meeting and voting on a Supreme Court Nominee. If there was a president Trump and the same situation presented itself in 4 years is there any doubt that they would flip a 180 and support a vote for the nominee??

If the GOP doesn't like the nominated justice then they can simply vote NO. The gridlock is ridiculous and the source for much frustration from Americans... Why can't they just do their jobs?

The GOP is following the Biden Rule. Go look it up.

Thats funny, please site this "rule"... is it in the constitution? Supreme court election committee rulebook? Where is this rule and what does it say? After you find nothing but a half story segment of a video maybe you can dig deeper, beyond the BS rhetoric that McConnell and clan are spouting and actually see the situation for what it is... Political partisan games.

Don't even try that. This is not even debatable. The Senate GOP is acting the EXACT same way a Democratic Senate would act if roles were reversed. They're also doing exactly what their voters would want them to do, so they are doing their jobs.

Again.... If the Dems were doing it it would be just as wrong... That doesn't make it right, please stop using that pointless excuse... At a some point somebody needs to show some character, integrity, and leadership... It's too bad you decide to back them up instead of voicing outrage. We are just spinning in circles here

But that's politics is it not? I find it funny that you think "somebody needs to show some character, integrity, and leadership" when Liberals would be able to make the pick. If Hillary wins, they'll still be able to make the pick and the senate will review this in November/December or in early 2017. The Constitution does not require them to hold hearings on a specific time table.

All weak arguments and you know it. I don't play for the left or the right and really wish a new team would take over.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The Democrats already played that game. Yet you're acting as if we should be at all surprised by their actions to block nominations?

Whine all you want. Its time the Democrats play the Republican game. Any Republican that is elected president the Democrats should immediately say "we want this non-president to be a 4 year loser so we will oppose and not allow him to do anything". "We will not even consider any nominee for any court position put forth by any Republican."

Wish granted. This policy should start immediately. This is how you call a child's bluff. You give them just what they want.

Wake up!!! The Denocrats established a filibuster tactic of judicial nominees back in 2003 when the senate was under a republican majority and nominees were in need of an up or down vote. Where was Senator Harry Reed's constitutional duty? So instead you want to cry fowl simply because we have changed parties in the White House? Even when you compared presidencies Obama was able to get 129 nominees through, compatible to 120 that the Bush Admibstration received by the end of his administration. Republicans aren't the consistent judicial obstructionists that Democrats have showed themselves to be.

So, how many justices were there the last 30 years. 8? No, 9. Because with all the bluster and all the infighting and all the ankle biting by both sides, both sides still believed in the Constitution and they held their nose and voted for someone they didn't like.

The Republicans are ending this. That is what they are doing. I've come to the conclusion, let it end. I'm tired of listening to these children, same as the children here, claim the high road when they know exactly what they are doing. They are keeping a sitting president from fulfilling his Constitutional duties that he was ELECTED to do. It is simply nullifying every vote for president Obama in 2012.

That's it. That's what they are doing. I say fine, now it's time to play this game for real. The Democrats should oppose everything any Republican president wants to do, across the board. And not even interview a judge for appointment.

Republicans, you win. You get your wish. High fives!

Your acting as if Obama never got a Supreme Court justice approved during his presidency. Did we forget about Sotomayor and Kagan? This is only one nominee that's told may not be getting a vote, if they hold to what they claim... it's really only day two. Day two and we have liberals all up in an uproar, ... really, give me a break people !!!

There were SEVERAL nominees that were filibustered by a Democrat minority without even a chance for a vote, because Democrats were fearful of what a republican senate majority could accomplish. Don't give me your holier than thou talk over just ONE judicial nominee. Harry Reed did a lot more to disrupt the whole process and keep a sitting president from fulfilling his constitutional duty of filling many vacancies during his term
..... not just one nominee on day two of the process.

Again you site example from the past to justify actions for the future... Actions in the past have lead to gridlock and have frustrated a majority of Americans. The attitude needs to change in Washington and it won't unless enough people voice outrage at these types of actions... It's more so up to members of that party to speak out against it. I'd be yelling just as loud if the Dems were doing the same thing.

Again, this is day two. Let's just see what happens and what the party does before we start calling them obstructionists. I have not known republicans to not support a moderate, and otherwise stand in a solid wall to prevent nominees from receiving a fair vote like liberal democrats are known for. Regardless what happens I seriously doubt, if Obama gets the nominee nod he wants, it will result in a change in the mindset of liberal democrats with a conservative president unless the party cleans their political house.

 

[kaz]

No, he said in an "election year" What is wrong with you people? Listen to the speech

As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.​

The campaign season ends when the election in November occurs.

Biden In '92: Senate Should Block Bush Court Nominees


>>>>

So you're arguing that if HW had named a nominee and the Democrats won the election, they'd hold hearings in November?



Yeah ...

I'm just pointing out that what you said he said, isn't what he said. You were wrong.

Since there were no vacancies, we'll never know.

But I do agree with the Current Senate Majority Leader when he said:

"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."​

>>>>

We'll never know, that's just comic. Yeah, if you parse his words, then you could say he meant they'd take up an HW nominee in NOVEMBER after the Democrats won the Presidency and the Senate. And you say he could have meant that. Democrats are so gullible. You have to be ...

 

[kaz]

I don't identify myself as a D or an R...

LOL, yeah, you do, you're completely clear. When Democrats do it, you're fine with anything. With Republican, you're fine with nothing. As I said, I agree with Biden, I agree with McConnell. Two people I almost never agree with. But Presidential Election years are not times to take up political appointments as big as the Supreme Court. A nine member politburo

 

[Zander]

Elections have consequences.
Barack Obama
Nov 5, 2008.

 

[Rustic]

The dip shit does not deserve to nominate anyone…

 

[Slade3200]

Whine all you want. Its time the Democrats play the Republican game. Any Republican that is elected president the Democrats should immediately say "we want this non-president to be a 4 year loser so we will oppose and not allow him to do anything". "We will not even consider any nominee for any court position put forth by any Republican."

Wish granted. This policy should start immediately. This is how you call a child's bluff. You give them just what they want.

Wake up!!! The Denocrats established a filibuster tactic of judicial nominees back in 2003 when the senate was under a republican majority and nominees were in need of an up or down vote. Where was Senator Harry Reed's constitutional duty? So instead you want to cry fowl simply because we have changed parties in the White House? Even when you compared presidencies Obama was able to get 129 nominees through, compatible to 120 that the Bush Admibstration received by the end of his administration. Republicans aren't the consistent judicial obstructionists that Democrats have showed themselves to be.

So, how many justices were there the last 30 years. 8? No, 9. Because with all the bluster and all the infighting and all the ankle biting by both sides, both sides still believed in the Constitution and they held their nose and voted for someone they didn't like.

The Republicans are ending this. That is what they are doing. I've come to the conclusion, let it end. I'm tired of listening to these children, same as the children here, claim the high road when they know exactly what they are doing. They are keeping a sitting president from fulfilling his Constitutional duties that he was ELECTED to do. It is simply nullifying every vote for president Obama in 2012.

That's it. That's what they are doing. I say fine, now it's time to play this game for real. The Democrats should oppose everything any Republican president wants to do, across the board. And not even interview a judge for appointment.

Republicans, you win. You get your wish. High fives!

Your acting as if Obama never got a Supreme Court justice approved during his presidency. Did we forget about Sotomayor and Kagan? This is only one nominee that's told may not be getting a vote, if they hold to what they claim... it's really only day two. Day two and we have liberals all up in an uproar, ... really, give me a break people !!!

There were SEVERAL nominees that were filibustered by a Democrat minority without even a chance for a vote, because Democrats were fearful of what a republican senate majority could accomplish. Don't give me your holier than thou talk over just ONE judicial nominee. Harry Reed did a lot more to disrupt the whole process and keep a sitting president from fulfilling his constitutional duty of filling many vacancies during his term
..... not just one nominee on day two of the process.

Again you site example from the past to justify actions for the future... Actions in the past have lead to gridlock and have frustrated a majority of Americans. The attitude needs to change in Washington and it won't unless enough people voice outrage at these types of actions... It's more so up to members of that party to speak out against it. I'd be yelling just as loud if the Dems were doing the same thing.

Again, this is day two. Let's just see what happens and what the party does before we start calling them obstructionists. I have not known republicans to not support a moderate, and otherwise stand in a solid wall to prevent nominees from receiving a fair vote like liberal democrats are known for. Regardless what happens I seriously doubt, if Obama gets the nominee nod he wants, it will result in a change in the mindset of liberal democrats with a conservative president unless the party cleans their political house.

Agreed, I think there will end up being a hearing but we shall see...

 

[Fang]

The GOP is following the Biden Rule. Go look it up.

Thats funny, please site this "rule"... is it in the constitution? Supreme court election committee rulebook? Where is this rule and what does it say? After you find nothing but a half story segment of a video maybe you can dig deeper, beyond the BS rhetoric that McConnell and clan are spouting and actually see the situation for what it is... Political partisan games.

Don't even try that. This is not even debatable. The Senate GOP is acting the EXACT same way a Democratic Senate would act if roles were reversed. They're also doing exactly what their voters would want them to do, so they are doing their jobs.

Again.... If the Dems were doing it it would be just as wrong... That doesn't make it right, please stop using that pointless excuse... At a some point somebody needs to show some character, integrity, and leadership... It's too bad you decide to back them up instead of voicing outrage. We are just spinning in circles here

But that's politics is it not? I find it funny that you think "somebody needs to show some character, integrity, and leadership" when Liberals would be able to make the pick. If Hillary wins, they'll still be able to make the pick and the senate will review this in November/December or in early 2017. The Constitution does not require them to hold hearings on a specific time table.

All weak arguments and you know it. I don't play for the left or the right and really wish a new team would take over.

No, they are very strong arguments. You're playing in what you want the world to be, I'm playing in what the world is. Sure, it would be great if every President picked Justices who would simply follow the Constitution and the laws of this country. But we both know that's not reality.