Dems have a plan to punish the Repubs for blocking USSC nominee hearings

[Missourian]

Remember when Obama filibustered Alito?

/thread

 

[JimH52]

Remember when Obama filibustered Alito?

/thread

You mean Alito that now sits on the Supreme Court?

 

[Uncensored2008]

1. Kennedy was confirmed on February 2, 1988.

2. The other two nominees got hearings and a floor vote, not the Majority Leader saying he would block ANY nomination and that they would wait for the next President.



>>>>

You mean the way Reid vowed to block any nomination made by Bush? The dims were openly obstructionist in '87 - but you hold different rules for them.

 

[Missourian]

Remember when Obama filibustered Alito?

/thread

You mean Alito that now sits on the Supreme Court?

Obama is a failure, what else is new?

Point is, when he was in the Senate, filibuster a candidate...sure, no problem. Now that he is the one making the picks, well...now it is shameful to obstruct a nominee. Sorry...too late.

But feel free to try to sell that the public, it should be deliciously hypocritical.

 

[JimH52]

Remember when Obama filibustered Alito?

/thread

You mean Alito that now sits on the Supreme Court?

Obama is a failure, what else is new?

Point is, when he was in the Senate, filibuster a candidate...sure, no problem. Now that he is the one making the picks, well...now it is shameful to obstruct a nominee. Sorry...too late.

But feel free to try to sell that the public, it should be deliciously hypocritical.

You ain't so sharp are you? The Chess game has only begun.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Dems Plan To Make Republicans Pay For Blockading The Supreme Court

The GOP is playing a very dangerous game of Judicial Chicken. Better have you seatbelt on Mister McConnell. Oh, and strap down your three chins....THIS IS WAR!

Democrats make it very clear they like to punish. In this case, they are going to punish Republicans for taking the same path as Democrats?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats make it very clear they like to punish. In this case, they are going to punish Republicans for taking the same path as Democrats?[/QUOTE]

"Folks, Democrats have two sets of rules: one set for them, and another set for the rest of us."
Rush Limbaugh

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Kennedy was confirmed on February 2, 1988.

2. The other two nominees got hearings and a floor vote, not the Majority Leader saying he would block ANY nomination and that they would wait for the next President.



>>>>

You mean the way Reid vowed to block any nomination made by Bush? The dims were openly obstructionist in '87 - but you hold different rules for them.

No I don't.

The President's role is to nominate Judges/Justices. The Senates role (whether Dem or Rep) is to evaluate the candidate and then give them an up/down vote. I don't care who the President is or who controls the Senate. I expect both to do their jobs.

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

• “Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.” (States News Service, May 19, 2005)

• "Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.' [...]Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]
  
  
• "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." [Los Angeles Times, "The Nation; Clock Ticks on Effort to Defuse Senate Battle," 5/23/05]

>>>>

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. Kennedy was confirmed on February 2, 1988.

2. The other two nominees got hearings and a floor vote, not the Majority Leader saying he would block ANY nomination and that they would wait for the next President.



>>>>

You mean the way Reid vowed to block any nomination made by Bush? The dims were openly obstructionist in '87 - but you hold different rules for them.

No I don't.

The President's role is to nominate Judges/Justices. The Senates role (whether Dem or Rep) is to evaluate the candidate and then give them an up/down vote. I don't care who the President is or who controls the Senate. I expect both to do their jobs.

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

• “Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.” (States News Service, May 19, 2005)
  
• "Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.' [...]Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]
  
  
• "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." [Los Angeles Times, "The Nation; Clock Ticks on Effort to Defuse Senate Battle," 5/23/05]

>>>>

And how much do you want to bet that if they do hear it and turn down DumBama's appointment, we won't hear the end of that from the left either?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You ain't so sharp are you? The Chess game has only begun.

You should push Obama over.

Standard Disclaimer: Tip your queen.

 

[JimH52]

Democrats make it very clear they like to punish. In this case, they are going to punish Republicans for taking the same path as Democrats?

"Folks, Democrats have two sets of rules: one set for them, and another set for the rest of us."
Rush Limbaugh[/QUOTE]

Is fatboy the best you can do. Denying a hearing for Obama's nominee will be the beginning of the end for the GOP.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats make it very clear they like to punish. In this case, they are going to punish Republicans for taking the same path as Democrats?

"Folks, Democrats have two sets of rules: one set for them, and another set for the rest of us."
Rush Limbaugh

Is fatboy the best you can do. Denying a hearing for Obama's nominee will be the beginning of the end for the GOP.[/QUOTE]

Right. Do you know how many people actually care about the nomination?

Besides, it's the Senate Democrats that held up Kate's Law from making it to law. Kate's Law would have imprisoned foreign felons for five years if they returned to this country once kicked out. But we all know how Democrats love foreign criminals getting into this country.

 

[Obiwan]

Democrats make it very clear they like to punish. In this case, they are going to punish Republicans for taking the same path as Democrats?

"Folks, Democrats have two sets of rules: one set for them, and another set for the rest of us."
Rush Limbaugh

Is fatboy the best you can do. Denying a hearing for Obama's nominee will be the beginning of the end for the GOP.[/QUOTE]
Recent polls show that the opinion of what the GOP should do is too close to call.... There are as many Americans wanting to wait and let the next President pick Scalia's replacement as there are wanting to give Obungles a shot at it...

So let's let the Idiot-in-Chief make a bad nomination and fuck this up like he does everything else, and watch those poll numbers shift in favor of the Republicans' tactics....

 

[JimH52]

Democrats make it very clear they like to punish. In this case, they are going to punish Republicans for taking the same path as Democrats?

"Folks, Democrats have two sets of rules: one set for them, and another set for the rest of us."
Rush Limbaugh

Is fatboy the best you can do. Denying a hearing for Obama's nominee will be the beginning of the end for the GOP.

Right. Do you know how many people actually care about the nomination?

Besides, it's the Senate Democrats that held up Kate's Law from making it to law. Kate's Law would have imprisoned foreign felons for five years if they returned to this country once kicked out. But we all know how Democrats love foreign criminals getting into this country.[/QUOTE]

Oh they will! This is going to be a huge DNC campaign ad. Every voter will know what sleeze the GOP Senators are. The GOP just keeps shrinking that tent they used to talk about. Not even mentioned anymore.

 

[Obiwan]

Democrats make it very clear they like to punish. In this case, they are going to punish Republicans for taking the same path as Democrats?

"Folks, Democrats have two sets of rules: one set for them, and another set for the rest of us."
Rush Limbaugh

Is fatboy the best you can do. Denying a hearing for Obama's nominee will be the beginning of the end for the GOP.

Right. Do you know how many people actually care about the nomination?

Besides, it's the Senate Democrats that held up Kate's Law from making it to law. Kate's Law would have imprisoned foreign felons for five years if they returned to this country once kicked out. But we all know how Democrats love foreign criminals getting into this country.

Oh they will! This is going to be a huge DNC campaign ad. Every voter will know what sleeze the GOP Senators are. The GOP just keeps shrinking that tent they used to talk about. Not even mentioned anymore.[/QUOTE]
So explain this poll by CBS (a LIBERAL news outlet), and enlighten us on how telling half the country to go to hell will help the Democrats....

 

[Obiwan]

CBS News poll: The next Supreme Court justice, Obama, and the economy

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Democrats make it very clear they like to punish. In this case, they are going to punish Republicans for taking the same path as Democrats?

"Folks, Democrats have two sets of rules: one set for them, and another set for the rest of us."
Rush Limbaugh

Is fatboy the best you can do. Denying a hearing for Obama's nominee will be the beginning of the end for the GOP.

Right. Do you know how many people actually care about the nomination?

Besides, it's the Senate Democrats that held up Kate's Law from making it to law. Kate's Law would have imprisoned foreign felons for five years if they returned to this country once kicked out. But we all know how Democrats love foreign criminals getting into this country.

Oh they will! This is going to be a huge DNC campaign ad. Every voter will know what sleeze the GOP Senators are. The GOP just keeps shrinking that tent they used to talk about. Not even mentioned anymore.[/QUOTE]

I can't wait to see the ads. After all, people put Republicans in leadership of both houses for a reason, and that reason is to stop Obama.

DumBama put his entire bet on Commie Care. He did it against the will of the people. He knew in advance it might cost him the houses, and now he has to pay the price; he got what he wanted.

Now that he has his precious ACA at the expense of losing Congress, liberals want to cry foul.

Too bad.

 

[HenryBHough]

There WILL be hearings.

How could O'Bozo's anointed be properly borked without them?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There WILL be hearings.

How could O'Bozo's anointed be properly borked without them?

Agreed. You have to do something just to shut em up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dems Plan To Make Republicans Pay For Blockading The Supreme Court

The GOP is playing a very dangerous game of Judicial Chicken. Better have you seatbelt on Mister McConnell. Oh, and strap down your three chins....THIS IS WAR!

If you weren't so liberal, or blind, you would know that Senator Obama tried to filibuster Bush's Supreme Court nominee. Samuel Alito.

Karma's a bitch. If you don't like it when it's done to you, don't set the precedent.

White House: Obama 'regrets' decision to filibuster Supreme Court Justice Alito | Fox News