Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Black President in Back of the Bus....the only Black President has almost as many nominees filibustered as the rest of the White Presidents COMBINED...Coincidence ....LOL
That is sad. True but sad. Repubs need to man-up and stop being lap poodles to the carbon extraction industries among others.The Koch Brother have said publicly they will be spending almost a billion dollars this year to fight to get their agenda, which includes going to war with those in the GOP who might even consider a hearing.Why are you guessing?
I have talked about both sides, but you might have missed that.
I have said this should not be about ideology before and in several other threads.
Was each one of those nominations in such a contention also or were they compromising and working together and not at each others throats like it is right now?
Guessing what? I provided a list of Justices that died in an election year.
Keep going, you are making it clear that this isn't about an up/down vote on whom the President nominates, it's about who is the President.
The Dem's will ride this into the dirt during the election cycle where 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection vs. only 10 Democrat Senators and with us having only a 4 vote majority in the Senate.
>>>>
The Koch Freedom Works dude said it plainly: It's all about Obama.
Outside Groups Warn GOP: Don’t Even Think About Holding A SCOTUS Hearing
“The strategy that makes the most sense is to say that there should not be any consideration of this nominee,” Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it’s the situation: the fact that it’s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.”
<snip>
“It’s not about any one particular nominee,” Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the conservative legal organization Judicial Crisis Network, told TPM. “We know exactly the kind of person [Obama] is going to appoint. Getting into those details is just a silly distraction.”
For both sides of the political divide, the stakes could not be higher.
“We’ve known this was coming for while. We set aside resources for this fight because everyone knows the next president is likely to have maybe three nominations to make,” Severino said. She wouldn’t go into details about her group’s next moves when it comes to halting the Obama nominee, but said “we’re totally prepared for it,” including financing the effort.
...
Levey also threatened to primary senators who don't toe the line.
“In some cases where there are potential primary opponents, we might consider supporting a primary opponent if the senator did not do the right thing,” Levey said.
As Rory Cooper, a GOP strategist, wrote on Medium, part of the strategy of denying the Obama administration even a hearing is to prevent the media from focusing on the person instead of the process, and in effect, starving the story of oxygen.
“It’s the most honest,” Levey said. ”The very fact that people on our side feel very strongly that there shouldn’t be a hearing before we know the nominee is because it’s not really about the nominee. ... Frankly, the real objection here is to Obama.”
It would be no different than what liberal Democrats had proposed to do towards the end of Reagan's term, when they promised they would stand firm to block any nominee who they believed shared (in their opinion) any "extremist" views. Forcing a more moderate choice for the court that the liberals were willing to concede to. President Obama should be given the same courtesy, call it karma.
The only Supreme Court vacancy at the end of Reagan's term was filled by a Dem Senate voting on Kennedy.
>>>>
the dems confirmed Kennedy for the seat.It would be no different than what liberal Democrats had proposed to do towards the end of Reagan's term, when they promised they would stand firm to block any nominee who they believed shared (in their opinion) any "extremist" views. Forcing a more moderate choice for the court that the liberals were willing to concede to. President Obama should be given the same courtesy, call it karma.
The only Supreme Court vacancy at the end of Reagan's term was filled by a Dem Senate voting on Kennedy.
>>>>
This is how liberal democrats felt about judicial nominees near the end of President Reagan's term.
June 27, 1987
Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist.
Now why shouldn't this current senate follow after those same concerns of those liberal democrats of the past and control the approval of whom the SENATE prefers to see sitting in the Supreme Court?
The situation our nation has found itself in with respect to the need to find a new justice, as well as the impact it will have on the highest court in the land, are identical... only the parties on each side of the judicial process has changed. If this senate decided it wants to ALSO form the same "solid phalanx" as the democrats once had, they have every right to do so.
the dems confirmed Kennedy for the seat.It would be no different than what liberal Democrats had proposed to do towards the end of Reagan's term, when they promised they would stand firm to block any nominee who they believed shared (in their opinion) any "extremist" views. Forcing a more moderate choice for the court that the liberals were willing to concede to. President Obama should be given the same courtesy, call it karma.
The only Supreme Court vacancy at the end of Reagan's term was filled by a Dem Senate voting on Kennedy.
>>>>
This is how liberal democrats felt about judicial nominees near the end of President Reagan's term.
June 27, 1987
Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist.
Now why shouldn't this current senate follow after those same concerns of those liberal democrats of the past and control the approval of whom the SENATE prefers to see sitting in the Supreme Court?
The situation our nation has found itself in with respect to the need to find a new justice, as well as the impact it will have on the highest court in the land, are identical... only the parties on each side of the judicial process has changed. If this senate decided it wants to ALSO form the same "solid phalanx" as the democrats once had, they have every right to do so.
This is how liberal democrats felt about judicial nominees near the end of President Reagan's term.
June 27, 1987
Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist.
Now why shouldn't this current senate follow after those same concerns that the liberal democrats once held in the past, and place control in the approval of whom the SENATE prefers to see sitting in the Supreme Court?
The situation our nation has found itself in with respect to the need to find a new justice, as well as the impact it will have on the highest court in the land, are identical... only the parties on each side of the judicial process has changed. If this senate decided it wants to ALSO form the same "solid phalanx" as the democrats once had, they have every right to do so.
This is how liberal democrats felt about judicial nominees near the end of President Reagan's term.
June 27, 1987
Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist.
Now why shouldn't this current senate follow after those same concerns that the liberal democrats once held in the past, and place control in the approval of whom the SENATE prefers to see sitting in the Supreme Court?
The situation our nation has found itself in with respect to the need to find a new justice, as well as the impact it will have on the highest court in the land, are identical... only the parties on each side of the judicial process has changed. If this senate decided it wants to ALSO form the same "solid phalanx" as the democrats once had, they have every right to do so.
As a right of center Republican, if the individual nominee is a bad one, not a problem rake'em over the coals and hold a vote on the Senate floor and vote him/her down.
Bork got his time in front of the Senate and a vote was taken. Now what my Majority Leader is planning on doing though is blocking any nomination based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee. That is wrong and not the intent of Article 2 Section 2.
>>>>
You call a solid objection 45 minutes into his nomination fair? What about pushing all those television ads in an attempt by the left to label Bork an extremist unfit for the position, an effort to draw public pressure against Reagan to pull his nomination?
The Democrats of that time had one objective - to keep an judicial nominee with an extremist view that could possibly drastically alter the ideological direction of the Supreme Court - right from obtaining any approval by the senate. President Reagan would have to find a moderate to find any chance of getting through the democrat controlled senate of NO!
The majority leader most likely believes any nominee President Obama would put forth would be extreme left. Still this senate has the right to say no to ANY extremist they feel would drastically tilt the court's view, just as the democrats made a pact to stand together.
You call a solid objection 45 minutes into his nomination fair? What about pushing all those television ads in an attempt by the left to label Bork an extremist unfit for the position, an effort to draw public pressure against Reagan to pull his nomination?
The Democrats of that time had one objective - to keep an judicial nominee with an extremist view that could possibly drastically alter the ideological direction of the Supreme Court - right from obtaining any approval by the senate. President Reagan would have to find a moderate to find any chance of getting through the democrat controlled senate of NO!
The majority leader most likely believes any nominee President Obama would put forth would be extreme left. Still this senate has the right to say no to ANY extremist they feel would drastically tilt the court's view, just as the democrats made a pact to stand together.
To Repeat: "As a right of center Republican, if the individual nominee is a bad one, not a problem rake'em over the coals and hold a vote on the Senate floor and vote him/her down."
There is a difference between saying, and I paraphrase, "we will do our job with due diligence as outlined in the Constitution" and "fuck it, we don't like the President so we refuse to do the duties the Constitution calls for".
>>>>
so whatso what
the best hope the president has to get a nominee appointed to the bench
is to pick one that the right likes also
that is just the way it is
That's not what McConnell said, he said they wouldn't accept any nomination by Obama, changing the advise and consent based on the candidate nominated to the President making the nomination. The Senate is supposed to evaluate the nominee, not the President making the nomination.
>>>>
How many recess appointments did President George W Bush had to make because the senate refused to fulfill their obligations? How many judicial vacancies existed that Bush had to find a replacement for? There was no due diligence shown then, yet the republicans are the only ones believed to be guilty of playing politics.
This is how liberal democrats felt about judicial nominees near the end of President Reagan's term.
June 27, 1987
Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to form "a solid phalanx" to oppose whomever President Ronald Reagan nominated to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward. Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist.
Now why shouldn't this current senate follow after those same concerns that the liberal democrats once held in the past, and place control in the approval of whom the SENATE prefers to see sitting in the Supreme Court?
The situation our nation has found itself in with respect to the need to find a new justice, as well as the impact it will have on the highest court in the land, are identical... only the parties on each side of the judicial process has changed. If this senate decided it wants to ALSO form the same "solid phalanx" as the democrats once had, they have every right to do so.
As a right of center Republican, if the individual nominee is a bad one, not a problem rake'em over the coals and hold a vote on the Senate floor and vote him/her down.
Bork got his time in front of the Senate and a vote was taken. Now what my Majority Leader is planning on doing though is blocking any nomination based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the nominee. That is wrong and not the intent of Article 2 Section 2.
>>>>
The president picks the justice so picking the president is tantamount to picking the person America wants picking the justice.Voters already decided which president they want picking the next SC justice.Well, I believe that's what we're proposing: letting the voters themselves decide. Why are you so insistent about denying it? Are you perhaps afraid to find out that the voters don't want Obama appointing a new Justice?
No, they picked a President, and then pretty thoroughly repudiated him.
Under the circumstances, I'm willing to find out what the election tells us about what the voters want, and let the chips fall where they may. How about you?
And while I have no doubt you are willing to wait for the next president since that increases your chances of getting a conservative justice, the Constitution offers no relief in letting the Senate deny the president his Constitutional power of picking a replacement for Scalia.
You clearly failed at Civics.
Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with the Senate having the "advise and consent" power to approve Supreme Court justices. Just because any President nominates someone, the Senate doesn't owe that President a vote on the matter.
The wording in the constitution is pretty clear, "and he {the president} shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint To say the Senate Advice and Consent is a power and not a requirement is to say the Supreme Court is not a requirement.
Very well stated! A tip of the tam to you!The president picks the justice so picking the president is tantamount to picking the person America wants picking the justice.Voters already decided which president they want picking the next SC justice.
No, they picked a President, and then pretty thoroughly repudiated him.
Under the circumstances, I'm willing to find out what the election tells us about what the voters want, and let the chips fall where they may. How about you?
And while I have no doubt you are willing to wait for the next president since that increases your chances of getting a conservative justice, the Constitution offers no relief in letting the Senate deny the president his Constitutional power of picking a replacement for Scalia.
You clearly failed at Civics.
Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with the Senate having the "advise and consent" power to approve Supreme Court justices. Just because any President nominates someone, the Senate doesn't owe that President a vote on the matter.
The wording in the constitution is pretty clear, "and he {the president} shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint To say the Senate Advice and Consent is a power and not a requirement is to say the Supreme Court is not a requirement.
The president picks the justice so picking the president is tantamount to picking the person America wants picking the justice.Voters already decided which president they want picking the next SC justice.
No, they picked a President, and then pretty thoroughly repudiated him.
Under the circumstances, I'm willing to find out what the election tells us about what the voters want, and let the chips fall where they may. How about you?
And while I have no doubt you are willing to wait for the next president since that increases your chances of getting a conservative justice, the Constitution offers no relief in letting the Senate deny the president his Constitutional power of picking a replacement for Scalia.
You clearly failed at Civics.
Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with the Senate having the "advise and consent" power to approve Supreme Court justices. Just because any President nominates someone, the Senate doesn't owe that President a vote on the matter.
The wording in the constitution is pretty clear, "and he {the president} shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint To say the Senate Advice and Consent is a power and not a requirement is to say the Supreme Court is not a requirement.
Uh. WTF do you think CONSENT means? The Senate has the Power To Say No, or just to do nothing. There is nothing in the President's ability to nominate that obligates the Senate to do anything at all.
That is a form of power. You know, like the power a female has when she refuses to engage in carnal relations with you (clearly something you endure on a frequent basis).
The president picks the justice so picking the president is tantamount to picking the person America wants picking the justice.No, they picked a President, and then pretty thoroughly repudiated him.
Under the circumstances, I'm willing to find out what the election tells us about what the voters want, and let the chips fall where they may. How about you?
And while I have no doubt you are willing to wait for the next president since that increases your chances of getting a conservative justice, the Constitution offers no relief in letting the Senate deny the president his Constitutional power of picking a replacement for Scalia.
You clearly failed at Civics.
Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with the Senate having the "advise and consent" power to approve Supreme Court justices. Just because any President nominates someone, the Senate doesn't owe that President a vote on the matter.
The wording in the constitution is pretty clear, "and he {the president} shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint To say the Senate Advice and Consent is a power and not a requirement is to say the Supreme Court is not a requirement.
Uh. WTF do you think CONSENT means? The Senate has the Power To Say No, or just to do nothing. There is nothing in the President's ability to nominate that obligates the Senate to do anything at all.
That is a form of power. You know, like the power a female has when she refuses to engage in carnal relations with you (clearly something you endure on a frequent basis).
You realize saying No requires a vote right?
It's pretty clear the constitution implied the Senate "act" on the President's nominee and not just "do nothing".
The Senate has the Constitutional authority to say no to nominees. The Senate does not have the Constitutional authority to say no to the confirmation process.The president picks the justice so picking the president is tantamount to picking the person America wants picking the justice.Voters already decided which president they want picking the next SC justice.
No, they picked a President, and then pretty thoroughly repudiated him.
Under the circumstances, I'm willing to find out what the election tells us about what the voters want, and let the chips fall where they may. How about you?
And while I have no doubt you are willing to wait for the next president since that increases your chances of getting a conservative justice, the Constitution offers no relief in letting the Senate deny the president his Constitutional power of picking a replacement for Scalia.
You clearly failed at Civics.
Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with the Senate having the "advise and consent" power to approve Supreme Court justices. Just because any President nominates someone, the Senate doesn't owe that President a vote on the matter.
The wording in the constitution is pretty clear, "and he {the president} shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint To say the Senate Advice and Consent is a power and not a requirement is to say the Supreme Court is not a requirement.
Uh. WTF do you think CONSENT means? The Senate has the Power To Say No, or just to do nothing. There is nothing in the President's ability to nominate that obligates the Senate to do anything at all.
That is a form of power. You know, like the power a female has when she refuses to engage in carnal relations with you (clearly something you endure on a frequent basis).
The Senate has the Constitutional authority to say no to nominees. The Senate does not have the Constitutional authority to say no to the confirmation process.The president picks the justice so picking the president is tantamount to picking the person America wants picking the justice.No, they picked a President, and then pretty thoroughly repudiated him.
Under the circumstances, I'm willing to find out what the election tells us about what the voters want, and let the chips fall where they may. How about you?
And while I have no doubt you are willing to wait for the next president since that increases your chances of getting a conservative justice, the Constitution offers no relief in letting the Senate deny the president his Constitutional power of picking a replacement for Scalia.
You clearly failed at Civics.
Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with the Senate having the "advise and consent" power to approve Supreme Court justices. Just because any President nominates someone, the Senate doesn't owe that President a vote on the matter.
The wording in the constitution is pretty clear, "and he {the president} shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint To say the Senate Advice and Consent is a power and not a requirement is to say the Supreme Court is not a requirement.
Uh. WTF do you think CONSENT means? The Senate has the Power To Say No, or just to do nothing. There is nothing in the President's ability to nominate that obligates the Senate to do anything at all.
That is a form of power. You know, like the power a female has when she refuses to engage in carnal relations with you (clearly something you endure on a frequent basis).
