Just like the Democrats did when Bush had 15 months left.
He can nominate all he wants, it'll go no where and president Clinton will get to place the deciding (liberal) vote on the bench.
2016 Presidential Race
- Thread starter Theirb123
- Start date
- Status
He can nominate all he wants, it'll go no where and president Clinton will get to place the deciding (liberal) vote on the bench.
RetPara
SOF Support
If a moderate is nominated; that person may go through. In the past, except for the last three 'true believers/useful idiots' that have been place, there has no been assurance that they will vote in the manner that they were nominated to.
The Republicans in the Senate can talk big medicine now about a nomination going no where.... but if they are realistically facing a Presidents Clinton nomination.... a moderate could look pretty good before she sends them to re-education camps...
The Republicans in the Senate can talk big medicine now about a nomination going no where.... but if they are realistically facing a Presidents Clinton nomination.... a moderate could look pretty good before she sends them to re-education camps...
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
If your kids misbehave, do you take "well Johnny did it" as an excuse? No. Same shit here. Just because BS happened before doesn't make it right.
Make the nomination and take a moderate if available. Stalling it does what? Give you the hope that your guy will win and can appoint the next Justice? I'd rather have an Obama-nominated one than one nominated by Clinton.
We could really use less partisan politics in this country.
We could really use less partisan politics in this country.
I can't imagine Obama nominating a moderate, Hillary is just as much a Socialist as he is, but Bill can explain the value of nominating a moderate and waiting a few years to get more Liberal Justices in (Ginsberg isn't getting younger).
Brill
SOF Support
All part of our checks and balances. When the people want change, it is manifested in change of power. Clearly the electorate WANTED a Republican majority in Congress and therefore the Senate should do what it was elected to do (confirm, deny, delay, or whatever the Constitution authorizes them to do).
If delaying is opposed by the people, Bernie wins in Nov and pardons Hillary and her staff.
I'm with TLDR20 on this one. As much as I hate to see an Obama administration appointee, Obama has every right to nominate a candidate and have him evaluated fairly by the Senate. For the Senate to mothball Obama's nomination without fair evaluation purely for the purpose to wait and see if their guy gets in office to appoint a new Justice is an insult to the Constitution.
I disagree with this, as only one Senator is elected at a time from any given state, and frequently, voters in any state must wait 4 years to elect a Senator, so the Senate does not necessarily accurately reflect the public's exact political views at any given point in time. It is just as bad in the House due to gerrymandering of districts. I don't have the exact numbers, but we spoke of this issue in class. 50 years ago, the parties had roughly a 35% turnover rate of controlling party of a district while today the number is roughly 7%. You can just look at Louisiana's only blue district to see that the districts weren't just thrown together.
I disagree with this, as only one Senator is elected at a time from any given state, and frequently, voters in any state must wait 4 years to elect a Senator, so the Senate does not necessarily accurately reflect the public's exact political views at any given point in time. It is just as bad in the House due to gerrymandering of districts. I don't have the exact numbers, but we spoke of this issue in class. 50 years ago, the parties had roughly a 35% turnover rate of controlling party of a district while today the number is roughly 7%. You can just look at Louisiana's only blue district to see that the districts weren't just thrown together.
"Well, Johnny did it" is as good an excuse as any when it's a legal precedent, based on consideration of facts in evidence at the time, to include Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States. Known as the Appointments Clause, that allows the Senate to "advise and consent" as a check and balance to the president's ability to nominate a body to the court. That means the burden is on POTUS to convince the Senate to go ahead and confirm his nominee to the Court. And considering Johnny is now warming the chair in the Oval Office and OEOB (Obama voted in favor of a filibuster of the non-terminal appointment of Samuel Alito, and Biden led the charge in making sure Robert Bork never got confirmed), that's a fairly tangled web that has been woven, especially considering that only 11 of the 36 failed appointments (160 total nominations - 124 approved = 36 failed) to the Court were actually rejected by a down-vote as opposed to receiving no vote. "Because I said so" is no better an excuse than "But he did it."
There's only been three times where a president has made a nomination to the Supreme Court during his terminal year, and the Senate has granted it. Those appointments were Eisenhower(R) in 1956 (Democratic nominee, Democrat controlled Senate), Roosevelt(D) in 1940 (Democratic nominee, Democrat controlled Senate), and Hoover(R) in 1932 (Democratic nominee, Democrat controlled Senate). If you want to take these three as establishment of a new precedent, then feel free.
Brill
SOF Support
Where does the Constitution elaborate this "right" for the President's nominee to fairly evaluated by the Senate? How is a potential Senate delay on confirmation hearings an "insult"? Perhaps you should read more about the Executive branch and what exactly the head of that branch has sworn to do (prosecution of the law vs enforcement the law) and reconsider said insults.
Please elaborate how a Democrat-controlled Congress could lose it's majority if the electorate is happy/pleased with their performance as a Party?
Someone discovered Google today.
Actually, I got gang-raped by Wikipedia when it came down to looking for some names.
Was it on a pinball table per chance?
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
Well the people clearly wanted President Obama too, so he should still put forward an appointee.
Mmmmmm, pinball.
An obscure Jodie Foster in The Accused reference.
Brill
SOF Support
TLDR20
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,199
No, that's different.
I know you are kidding, but a lot of people aren't and they truly believe he shouldn't even nominate someone. I just can't understand that.
No, that's different.
I think that's one of the most difficult things about politics in this day and age (media tailored to your own opinions creating an echo-chamber of views, facebook memes with zero fact-checks as a prime source of information). If you care about a particular stance it gets more and more difficult to see those with differing opinions (or the opinions themselves) in any light but abject hatred.
I don't think we have a 'favorite podcast' thread but one I really enjoy is called 'Intelligence Squared US Debates.' They do Oxford-style debates (two pro, two con a proposition with opening remarks, questions from moderator, then questions to each other and audience, then closing remarks). I've found it to be very educational and a great way to get facts-based argument (something rarely found on the news). The reason I bring it up in this context is I've found myself not agreeing with a side - but feeling like they won the argument within the context of the debate in some circumstances.
It's worth checking out if that sort of thing interests you.
......
.....and the people clearly wanted a Republican controlled Senate who has a Constitutional right to slow roll, ignore or vote no.
Checks and balances is more than an accounting class.
Brill
SOF Support
LOVE all the Constitutional debates on there! Definitely queuing up for the AM commute!
- Status
Similar threads
