What's wrong with the GOP? Vote on Supreme Court Justice

[Publius1787]

A perfect justice for a republican: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent when judging a statute to be constitutional.

A perfect justice for a democrat: Someone who takes text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences. Notice the last two categories are nothing other than simply rewriting a law from the bench. Not to mention their infatuation with substantive due process.

These are two means of which judges generally differ. For most of our history "text, history, tradition, and precedent" have been the primary means of judging a statute. It wasn't until the New Deal Era when purpose and consequence became a major factor, granting rise to liberal judges who legislate from the bench and transform the U.S. Constitution into an object James Madison certainly wouldn't recognize without so much as a vote of the people, congress, and states who have the sole authority of amending the text.

This judge is big on "purpose" and "consequence." He is therefore a legislator not a judge. Republicans ought not to give him the time of day.

They can more effectively make that point by vetting, holding a hearing, voting, and then justifying that vote. By doing nothing they just look like obstructing assholes

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.

No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.

That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Well, YOU WERE wrong when you said the Dems did it to the Pubs. I am not interested in anecdotal reasons as to why the Dems didn't do it. BTW the Pubs have a chance to break Reid's record on this singe appointment if only they would do their jobs.

The Senates job, within their constitutional realm, is whatever they vote it to be within the rules. They have the right to do nothing. Sorry if this offends you.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Papageorgio]

What progress is being crippled? When Harry Reid would table bills, was progress being crippled?

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the 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 Councils, 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

That's one opinion. So the Senate needs to start hearings with in 48 hours of a President nominating a judge?

 

[Papageorgio]

What progress is being crippled? When Harry Reid would table bills, was progress being crippled?

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

How am I being stupid? You make no sense. If these were executives in a business they would be fired so fast for pulling this crap

It's not a business, it is a government institution. Can you show us the timeline the Senate has to follow when a judge is nominated?

 

[IsaacNewton]

No problem, the Democrats should never interview or approve anyone put forth by a Republican ever again.

Nice, problem solved and Republicans got what they wanted.

 

[JQPublic1]

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the 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 Councils, 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

Obama's already got his winky slammed in the door (9-0 vote) for assuming that he, not congress, has the authority to declare when the senate is in recess. (See National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning). You now purport that he has the right to decide when congress chooses to advise and consent?

No,I am purporting that the Senate has already publicly announced there will be no advising OR consenting at all as long as Obama is in office. There is no smokescreen behind which those political miscreants can hide since they were foolhardy enough to broadcast their intentions.

 

[Publius1787]

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the 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 Councils, 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

Obama's already got his winky slammed in the door (9-0 vote) for assuming that he, not congress, has the authority to declare when the senate is in recess. (See National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning). You now purport that he has the right to decide when congress chooses to advise and consent?

No,I am purporting that the Senate has already publicly announced there will be no advising OR consenting at all as long as Obama is in office. There is no smokescreen behind which those political miscreants can hide since they were foolhardy enough to broadcast their intentions.

I think their intentions are clear. Anyone with half a brain knows that they're doing. Why are you so shocked? Are you saying that their actions, or lack thereof, are unconstitutional? Or are you just venting?

 

[JQPublic1]

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

How am I being stupid? You make no sense. If these were executives in a business they would be fired so fast for pulling this crap

It's not a business, it is a government institution. Can you show us the timeline the Senate has to follow when a judge is nominated?

They can more effectively make that point by vetting, holding a hearing, voting, and then justifying that vote. By doing nothing they just look like obstructing assholes

It's a Machiavellian world isn't it? Obama nominated him for no other reason than he knows how he will rule in court. Dems did it to Pubs and now the shoe is on the other foot. Lets not pretend that the man that gave us Keagan and Sotomayor gives a crap about the constitution shall we? And who cares about how what looks? Its all politics. There are those who believes the Constitution means what it says and those who think it means whatever society, in their opinion, thinks it should mean. We call the latter liberals. This is why I miss Scalia: He never cared what anyone thought about him nor did he care about his own desires. The law was first and foremost in his mind. That's the way Republicans should act on this nomination: without a care in the world toward how they look.

Obama's nomination was one that he thought the Senate would have to do some soul searching to refuse. He should have nominated a Black male Democrat since Thomas is just Scalia in Blackface. The president chose a White male with outstanding credentials showing that once again he was trying to meet the Senate more than half way...much to the chagrin of his Black constituency. Still, this unprecedented refusal to vet by the Senate continues with impunity.

No, the Dems have NEVER done the same to the Pubs. You cannot show me where the Democrats have ever refused to vet a nominee. They might have voted against confirmation or filibustered,but they engaged in the process as ordained by the Constitution. They have never refused to vet or conduct a hearing on USSC nominees.
Nice try but go back to square one and try again.

That's because when the Democrats tried to do so they didn't have the votes to sustain. Nevertheless I think Reid holds the record on blocked judicial nominees. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Well, YOU WERE wrong when you said the Dems did it to the Pubs. I am not interested in anecdotal reasons as to why the Dems didn't do it. BTW the Pubs have a chance to break Reid's record on this singe appointment if only they would do their jobs.

The Senates job, within their constitutional realm, is whatever they vote it to be within the rules. They have the right to do nothing. Sorry if this offends you.

The Senate's spheres of responsibilities in this case turn on the Constitutional stipulation " to advise and consent." That the republican majority would abrogate the Constitutional requirement in that way is offensive not only to me but to to all who elected Obama to do his job. Do the Republicans Senators really have the right to ignore the "advise and consent" stipulation? I don't think they do but we don't know for sure. After all, no precedent has been set. This hasn't happened in our entire history until now. Personally, I think Obama ought to bring this before the evenly divided court and hope that Roberts will come through again.

 

[JQPublic1]

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

Congress isn't gridlocked. The Republican controlled Senate is just not doing what the Constitution provides they should do. Let's take a look at the Constitutional requirement for the Senate in the nomination and vetting process:

He (the President) shall have the 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 Councils, 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The claims made by these senators that they can fulfill their “advice and consent” responsibilities under the Constitution by doing nothing cannot be squared with the Constitution’s text and history. The Constitution requires the president and Senate to work together to ensure a fully functioning Supreme Court.


Ultimately, the Constitutional Convention gave both the president and the Senate responsibilities to play, requiring the president to select nominees for the nation’s highest court and the Senate to accept or reject the nomination, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the president’s chosen pick. To some, the advice and consent responsibility was “too much fettering the Senate,” but their views did not carry the day. No one took the view that the Senate could simply refuse to perform its job, undermining the administration of justice.
Republicans Who Block Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Are Violating the Constitution

Obama's already got his winky slammed in the door (9-0 vote) for assuming that he, not congress, has the authority to declare when the senate is in recess. (See National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning). You now purport that he has the right to decide when congress chooses to advise and consent?

No,I am purporting that the Senate has already publicly announced there will be no advising OR consenting at all as long as Obama is in office. There is no smokescreen behind which those political miscreants can hide since they were foolhardy enough to broadcast their intentions.

I think their intentions are clear. Anyone with half a brain knows that they're doing. Why are you so shocked? Are you saying that their actions, or lack thereof, are unconstitutional? Or are you just venting?

See post #228.

 

[BluesLegend]

Good i guess we can all just be children then and respond in kind... There was a time when good strong people showed character and leadership by holding themselves to a higher standard then their competition. I guess thats not a game the GOP wants or is capable of playing. Question though, how do they think this is going to help repair this partisan divide that is crippling the progress of our government?

What progress is being crippled? When Harry Reid would table bills, was progress being crippled?

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

When libs don't get their way they get their period.

 

[Stephanie]

omg, all of a sudden we are all going TO DIE if Obozo doesn't get his pick in the SS.

You talk about cult members FOR someone who is just a MAN

 

[Stephanie]

What progress is being crippled? When Harry Reid would table bills, was progress being crippled?

No, that is also part of the problem

So what progress is being crippled?

Vetting, interviewing, discussions, cooperation, collaboration voting, analyzing, explanation... Are you high?

Are you stupid? Are lives aren't any better or worse when Congress is gridlocked. Again, what progress is crippled?

When libs don't get their way they get their period.

Don't they though, they all must have split personalities. they say liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[Never3ndr]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

 

[Stephanie]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

 

[Never3ndr]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

You hit it on the head. It doesn't matter if Hillary or Trump wins. They won't have any choice but to approve of at least 2 SCOTUS in the next cycle regardless if they do nothing or do something. This is about "I Hate Obama.....spit on floor". It should have ended shortly after he was elected the first time but it's become a habit. That habit may be the end of the Whig.....er.......Republican unless it's turned around. They are too busy hating to actual govern. BTW, I am now supporting Trump. Trump may be the savior of the GOP yet or he may be the end of the GOP. If he doesn't save it then it's not worth saving.

 

[Stephanie]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

You hit it on the head. It doesn't matter if Hillary or Trump wins. They won't have any choice but to approve of at least 2 SCOTUS in the next cycle regardless if they do nothing or do something. This is about "I Hate Obama.....spit on floor". It should have ended shortly after he was elected the first time but it's become a habit. That habit may be the end of the Whig.....er.......Republican unless it's turned around. They are too busy hating to actual govern. BTW, I am now supporting Trump. Trump may be the savior of the GOP yet or he may be the end of the GOP. If he doesn't save it then it's not worth saving.

so what if it's about: I hate Obama. when the Democrats did it to Bush, it was about, I hate Bush and you left/dems supported it then.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They can more effectively make that point by vetting, holding a hearing, voting, and then justifying that vote. By doing nothing they just look like obstructing assholes

McConnell's not dumb.

He's not up for reelection for 4-years. What he's doing it keep any Obama nominee from being brought up for hearings and a vote so that the 24 R's up for reelection this year don't have to go on record in a vote of the Yeas and Nays voting against a highly qualified nominee.

He takes the heat now and is protecting the 24 R's planing on the "heat" being off the news cycle during the summer. That allows him to release the 4 or 5 Senators that have a serious chance of losing to distance themselves from HIS actions and disagree with him hoping for a better outcome in the Senate elections. If the ones in trouble get reelected then the Senate might remain a majority "R". He's afraid a highly qualified candidate being put through hearings now will result in those 4-5 candidates losing their race, meaning the D's become the majority party in January.

The plan is that by the time 4-years are up, the people will have forgotten all about his dereliction of duty when he's up for reelection.

**********************************************

They mantra that this is about "letting the people decide" in November on a next President is a lie.

This is NOT about the Supreme Court nominee, this is about the current Senate Leadership trying to stay in power.



>>>>

 

[Redfish]

3 separate but equal branches of government, heard of it?

But it seems only 1/4th of the government is holding things up out of unabashed spite and hatred. The question is whether the Senate has violated the Constitution by not even evaluating the nominee's credentials and or vetting him. The reason cited for doing so is lame. The GOP is saying that the next president ought to select the USSC vacancy on order to give the American people a voice in the selection. Well, Obama is the president and the voice of the people is still resonating from his last presidential victory. Obama's approval rating is over 50%. That ought to raise alarms in the obstructionist's chambers.

What Barack Obama’s Approval Rating Means for the Democratic Nominee in Campaign 2016

Its working perfectly and exactly as the founders intended it to. There's a reason we don't have a king making all the decisions with a wave if their hand. Its supposed to be difficult for congress to get anything done. Its supposed to be difficult for the President to get things passed in congress. There is a reason there is a Constitution that limits their power and a SCOTUS to defend the Constitution. This is by design, the founders who lived under the tyranny of a king predicted a tyrannical corrupt government and took measures to protect us from that.

No, it is NOT working perfectly. Sabotaging the vetting process is NOT what the founders intended, No one is asking the Senate to accept the candidate,they are simply being asked to evaluate the nominee as prescribed in the Constitution. They can either reject or confirm him but ignoring the entire process is not provided for in the Constitution

I sent my elected representatives to Washington with instructions to tell Obama and Democrats to go to hell and vote no on anything they ask for. I love it when a plan comes together. (lights a Hannibal Smith cigar, A-Team theme song starts playing)

I don't care what your Senators do s long as they don't interfere with the Constitutional process of vetting a USSC nominee. They are refusing to do that and I expect Obama fie a lawsuit. This is not a filibuster which is legal BTW and has been used before, this is an unprecedented breech of Constitutional doctrine that cannot be tolerated as it would set a precedent that could have ramifications on both sides of the isle for every future nomination.

you are so FOS. The dems did exactly that same thing when the parties were reversed. You libs are sick.

 

[Redfish]

I'm not going to doubt that a high degree of politicians are hypocritical (both democratic AND republican). However, i don't see why people are rallying behind this. If you actually supported Republicans wouldn't you be fighting TO actually get them to have a hearing on the Justice immediately? You don't know what this next election cycle will bring and you stand a chance of losing the majority positions that you hold. Why wouldn't you be clamoring to confirm or deny a Justice you know, for certain, that you can have a controlling voice in rather than waiting around and hoping that the tide swells more for your favor rather than away from it?

why do we need this now? when all the other times as been shown. those Hypocrites from the Democrat party has held up a SS pick for reasons they are now Protesting. this is just to make themselves the news, THE VICTIM of those mean ole Republicans. their usual dirty politics played on us all

Again, I'm not questioning the fact that most politicians are hypocrites. I agree. However, the standing President has never not picked a SCOTUS replacement in history (speaking of the rare occasions they have been required to in their last year in office), why would Obama suddenly start now? That doesn't even make sense. When speaking of the Senate, again, I'll point out that the Republicans hold the majority. WHY wouldn't they want to hold a confirmation hearing? They are ASSURED to confirm or deny who they want since they hold the majority. Why would they wait until after the election cycle when they may lose the majority? It literally makes zero sense. You would think that they would be scrambling to hold the hearing.

wake up. a hearing where the outcome is already known would be a waste of time and a distraction from the election. That's why obozo is pushing this, to take the media attention off of Hillary and her FBI investigation and possible indictment.

this whole thing is politics, nothing more.