Boss
Take a Memo:
And if you are faced with the prospect of hiring the village idiot, you wait for a suitable candidate to come along....
Failure to follow that simple rule has consequences, too....
The discussion was about STALLING ...
Obama said he was going to nominate a person to fill the vacant seat on the court.
The senate must take a vote ... to give consent or withhold consent to the nominee ... but, republicans are advocating obstruction, i.e., delay, delay, delay ... withholding any action on the nominee (whoever that nominee may be) until after the new president (whoever that may be) takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017.
If Obama's nominee is "the village idiot", why not just vote him/her down? Why delay?
Well they may very well vote his nominee down. We don't yet know what kind of wacko he is going to nominate. Supreme Court justices have to get a supermajority vote and Congress is majority Republican right now... so how do you figure anything not pretty damn close to a Scalia has ANY chance?
Look... if it had been Ruth Bater Nutbag who croaked, it's a totally different situation... people might kind of be put off by Republicans stalling.. but it's the most conservative Constitutional originalist on the court... that makes it different. Yes... radical left wing idiots like YOU are going to be upset that you don't get to put another of your kind on the court to replace the conservative... tough shit! You'll get over it... or not... don't really care, to be honest.
A supermajority is not necessary ... only 50 votes are required to approve a nominee, unless there is a filibuster ... and I would love to see Cruz, et al., get off the campaign trail and read "green eggs and ham" to their children on national television for months to stall a vote while America grows angrier and angrier with the obstructionists ... consequences, sometimes they're not beneficial ...
Nope, you need to go look it up.. for Supreme Court Justices a supermajority is required. They changed the requirement for appellate court judges but that's a different story altogether.
I tell you what do... send a memo to Hillary and tell her that you want her to press heavy and hard on republicans 'obstructing' an opportunistic liberal appointment to the SCOTUS to replace the constitutional conservative and we'll see how it plays out! Otherwise, all you are doing is blustering your idiotic opinion which doesn't count for diddly-squat.
It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster (i.e., end debate and bring the matter to a vote) in this matter. Cruz has promised to filibuster. Why would Cruz threaten to filibuster if a filibuster wasn't necessary to prevent an up or down vote and block the President's eventual nominee?
Cruz Plans to Filibuster Any Obama Supreme Court Nominee
Edited to remove reference to two-thirds vote, which applies to other matters.
Furthermore, you're assuming the American people want another "conservative" justice like Scalia ... and I believe your assumption is wrong. I believe most people are repulsed by Senator Cruz ... he's very creepy.
Well let's allow the people to make that decision in November. That's the standard, that's the precedent since Eisenhower. Cruz won't need to filibuster, the confirmation committee can take as long as they please and then simply reject the nominee. Should the idiot GOPERs try to suck Obama's cock one last time, I'm sure people like Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions can handle a filibuster without Cruz needing to leave the campaign trail.
Don't care what you think of Ted Cruz... he's not "creepy" to me and millions of other Conservatives and you're not going to pick our candidate... so fuck the hell off, hack! Go figure out how you're going to keep your hag out of prison before the election and leave our candidates the hell alone.