Jump to content

Politics 2016 (election edition)


Recommended Posts

17 times a Supreme Court justice was confirmed during a presidents final year. 

And in all but one case it was because they controlled the senate and therefore confirmation process. If a Republican lame duck president were in office right now and the Democrats controlled the senate they would block any confirmation of the Republican nominee. That's how politics works.

 

President Obama has the distinction of being the only president to ever vote to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee (Alito, I think?) and Senator Schumer, who has been vocal about the need for President Obama to choose the next justice said this near the end of George W. Bush's presidency:

 

Given the track record of this president and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings—with respect to the Supreme Court, at least—I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Quick question: Was Schumer a petty bullshit artist in 2007? If so, would you be as angry about it?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I am not sure why you are dwelling on they past  I am sure that regardless of how they actually felt in 2007 they would say he was wrong, now.

 

Both parties have been caught on both side of this issue.  Schumer as you presented and McConnell on the other.  They are all hypocrites.  Sure we can continually finger point and say the Right did this 20 years ago, the left did this 15, blah, blah, blah.  But it means nothing.  It does not inform or guide the actions in our current situation.  It actually obfuscates and confuses the matter.     

 

There is one right course and has been a right course for the last 220 odd years.  When there is a judicial appointment the sitting president gets to nominate someone and the senate advises (by holding a hearing) and then consents (by voting.)  It is clearly spelled out in the constitution.  There should be no debate.  It is the way it should be, anyone who thinks differently is wrong and is purely doing it for political reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And in all but one case it was because they controlled the senate and therefore confirmation process. If a Republican lame duck president were in office right now and the Democrats controlled the senate they would block any confirmation of the Republican nominee. That's how politics works.

 

President Obama has the distinction of being the only president to ever vote to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee (Alito, I think?) and Senator Schumer, who has been vocal about the need for President Obama to choose the next justice said this near the end of George W. Bush's presidency:

And, did Alito make it to the senate for a vote? Or did the whole Democrat party say no way no how never ever will a Bush nominee get confirmed?  Pointing out little things like this is a purely partisan exercise.  The point is that Bush's nominees got their vote and were confirmed.  Any actual nominees were not shot down by the democrats before they ever got nominated.  Though in the long run the senate may do their job but i doubt it.  BTW Obama was not president when Alito was nominated.  I don't think Obama would nominate Alito, then veto him, which is not something a president does.  Actually once the president Nominates a candidate it is up to the Senate or the candidate.  IN the case of Harriet Meirs (sp?) is was the republican machine that shot her down.  SO cant blame that one on the dems. But keep coming up with examples of hypocrisy or perceived hypocrisy if it makes you feel better, it definitely does not make things right. Its just partisanship

 

Reagan was a lame duck president in 1988, the democrats controlled the senate and he presented a qualified candidate who was voted to the bench.  that's the way it is supposed to be regardless of who controls the senate or white house...the president presents a qualified candidate who is voted in regardless of politics. 

 

Ive said what I want to say on this topic and am done.  Nothing I can say or do will have any bearing on the outcome.  Nw lets talk about something important like how was Obama able to kill Scalia and hide all evidence of his being there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure why you are dwelling on they past  I am sure that regardless of how they actually felt in 2007 they would say he was wrong, now.

 

There is one right course and has been a right course for the last 220 odd years. 

Because I am skeptical that the mostly left-leaning membership of this forum would be devoting so much time and energy to condemning a Democratic Senate for taking a similar course of action, which they most certainly would if the shoe was on the other foot. I find it simply implausible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't implausible. The sitting president is duty bound to nominate when a vacancy arises and the Senate is duty bound to give advise and consent. The parties in power aren't relevant to the clear Constitutional provisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't implausible. The sitting president is duty bound to nominate when a vacancy arises and the Senate is duty bound to give advise and consent. The parties in power aren't relevant to the clear Constitutional provisions.

I honestly don't dispute that you honestly feel that way. I just doubt that this forum would be as replete with condemnations if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if RBG had died in February 2008 and Schumer and other Democrats said they didn't want Bush to tip the balance of the court with yet another conservative nominee. Maybe you can imagine outrage being expressed on by the same people on this board currently condemning the Republicans. But I will say it again. I find it implausible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a comment on the argument, just cutting and pasting the pertinent part of the constitution... Article II, Section 2

 

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW Obama was not president when Alito was nominated. 

I know that. He was a senator who voted to filibuster a Republican president's late-term nomination to the court. It doesn't take a genius to imagine his stance if Republicans try to filibuster his nominee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't dispute that you honestly feel that way. I just doubt that this forum would be as replete with condemnations if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if RBG had died in February 2008 and Schumer and other Democrats said they didn't want Bush to tip the balance of the court with yet another conservative nominee. Maybe you can imagine outrage being expressed on by the same people on this board currently condemning the Republicans. But I will say it again. I find it implausible.

Broadcasting the truth when it is argumentatively convenient doesn't change the fact that it's true. This is a basic principle in rhetoric.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't dispute that you honestly feel that way. I just doubt that this forum would be as replete with condemnations if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if RBG had died in February 2008 and Schumer and other Democrats said they didn't want Bush to tip the balance of the court with yet another conservative nominee. Maybe you can imagine outrage being expressed on by the same people on this board currently condemning the Republicans. But I will say it again. I find it implausible.

 

Here is the thing.  No matter what would have happen or what hypotheticals you can present, no person will answer honestly.  Of course democrats would try to block this (and if they say they wouldn't they are lying).  They are all hypocrites, we get it.  Every person is a hypocrite.  That is pointed out.  Everyone here understands that.  

 

There is hypocrisy and there is doing the right thing.  The right thing to do is to allow a nominee to be presented to the Senate and the Senate will vote.  Pointing out what happened before or what people said before should not enter into the equation.  There is a clear rule it should be followed.  Still waiting on some logic that will explain why people think we should wait.  

 

Now, I am not saying that Senate has to confirm whatever gay, transgender, Black Lives Matter leader, abortion doctor, Obama nominates, but the Senate needs to follow the constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The right thing to do is to allow a nominee to be presented to the Senate and the Senate will vote.  

 

I don't want to spontaneously send unwitting pigs into the air, but you and I absolutely agree on something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a headache too......this election can't be over soon enough.  If Obama is smart (which I believe he is), he is going to pick a moderate to fill this slot and let it ride.  There will be plenty of shenanigans with this appointment which will in fact impact the election.  Let them argue, nothing is getting done anyhow.  Its a good thing this country has no problems that need fixing.

 

And by the way - the president appoints (not nominates) members of the Supreme Court, so while the Senate gets to advise and consent on this stuff it is up to the president to make the decision. Of course nothing is simple any more.

 

LouieB

Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way - the president appoints (not nominates) members of the Supreme Court, so while the Senate gets to advise and consent on this stuff it is up to the president to make the decision. Of course nothing is simple any more.

 

LouieB

 

Actually, the whole appointment process involves the president's nomination of an individual and the Senate's confirmation of that nominee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
He shall have Power...; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States....

 

In other words, he is given the power to nominate someone, and then--only with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (confirmation)--he is able to appoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other non Supreme court related news, we had our spring primary election today.  It was the first where WI residents were required to show ID.  So glad the integrity of this election is upheld.  Not like the previous 40 times I have voted.  All of those are suspect.

 

In Wisconsin it is easier to buy a gun then it is to vote.  Both are rights guaranteed by the constitution.

 

Yeah Democracy!  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, Scalia was found with a pillow over his head? That's not sketchy at all...

 

https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones/videos/10153919891063459/

 

Dude, he was totally murdered.  This way Barrack Hussein Obama can install a Muslim caliphate to force everyone to gay marry and have abortions, while taking away our guns.  That is the most logical explanation.  Cause, I am sure he thought it would be super easy to do and not cause a constitutional crisis of any kind.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, Scalia was found with a pillow over his head? That's not sketchy at all...

If the hotel guy is telling the truth, and Scalia was lying in bed with a pillow over his head, in other words he saw Scalia's body up to the shoulders/neck, but then he saw a pillow instead of Scalia's head, I agree that it is pretty damned odd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones/videos/10153919891063459/

 

Dude, he was totally murdered.  This way Barrack Hussein Obama can install a Muslim caliphate to force everyone to gay marry and have abortions, while taking away our guns.  That is the most logical explanation.  Cause, I am sure he thought it would be super easy to do and not cause a constitutional crisis of any kind.    

Do you sleep with a pillow over your head?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do sometimes.  I guess that means Obama is trying to murder me.

 

LouieB

No offense, Lou, but as I said above, that's pretty damned odd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...