Wonder WHY GOP senators are against a justice's nomination??

[OldLady]

That is exactly what they are against. No need to read any farther than that.

Yes, expected from morons....and actually welcomed. Vote AGAINST your own best interests...after all we need idiots for comparison to our kids what may happen if they don't stay in school......Thanks !!!

There is no way an Obama Justice would be in my interest.

Do you remember the New Haven Fire FIghter Case and how Sotomoyer ruled in that?

Then it's too bad your side lost in 2012. But it did, so live with it, for Chrissakes, until Election Day.

 

[easyt65]

It is not for you or the elected representatives to 'judge' his actions and leap to the conclusion that you no longer need to do your job as set forth in the constitution. There is nothing in there saying the Congress will advise and consent if they like the President or that the Congress will advise and consent if they agree with the President's policies and past actions. The problem isn't that the Republicans might disagree. The problem is when they refuse to even look at a nominee because they (sulkily,imo) don't like their liberal president.

It by God most certainly IS the people's and the elected representatives' job to 'judge' his actions! The entire system, a system Obama has intentionally and Un-Constitutionally bypassed, is built on Checks and Balances by Congress that REQUIRE them to judge his actions as per the Constitution. They are OBLIGATED to be the 'Checks and Balances' on the Executive Branch!

And the American people ARE the LAST 'checks and Balances' when elected officials refuse / fail to do their jobs! This nation was built on REPRESENTATIVE government, which is the antithesis of what the likes of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have sought to change it into.

Pelosi should have been challenged, taken to task, and removed from Congress the moment she DECLARED to the American people that they had NO RIGHT to know what was in the ACA 'EDICT' until it had been rammed into law against the majority will of the people. Despite what she thinks this nation, this government, is 'of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE', not self-appointed would-be Socialist / Oligarchist Rulers!

You seem to think as Obama and Pelosi do, that once elected politicians can do whatever the hell they feel like and to hell with the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the people! Not so!

 

[Meathead]

Then it's too bad your side lost in 2012. But it did, so live with it, for Chrissakes, until Election Day.

Dems lost in 2014. Elections have consequences and they should stop whining about it.

 

[OldLady]

You're right. There is no "rule" . They are CHOOSING not to vote. Indeed, election have consequences. Looks as though the shoe is on the other hand, now doesn't it?

What you nitwits refuse to acknowledge is that "CHOOSING to not vote" does not go over well in an election cycle....Bear in mind that 24 GOP senators are up for election.

I'm sure the lib media will try to spin it negatively.

Hopefully the public will dismiss the media spin.

If not, well, it was a nice country while it lasted.

There is no 'spin' to it! You don't have to spin it, it is that obvious and clear that the Republicans are refusing to do their job.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Actually, GOP senators are not so much against a nomination of a justice by Obama, their problem is the expected spectacle of their nitpicking even a moderate nomination during the subsequent hearings. Bear in mind that many of these GOP senators (if the nomination ever made it out of the judicial committee) are up for re-election, and their stalling tactics may not go over well among those independent voters that they so much need.

Realizing that the portion of a Daily Kos article below will be met with sneers by right wingers, for those who still have an open mind, the influence that big donors play on GOP senators (and representatives) is both informative and scary for any democracy turning into a plutocracy.....

So, if the McConnell and company "warning" to Obama to not even nominate someone, the author of the article offers the following:

What really matters is why they're doing it, and who it serves. The answer to that question leads straight to their donor base. Although it scarcely bears repeating, the Republican Senate and (to an even greater extent) the Republican House of Representatives now exists to serve the economic interests of a tiny group of very, very wealthy people, people who now stand to either gain or lose hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars spent complying with environmental, finance and labor laws and regulations, depending on who replaces Scalia. That is what this fight is all about. For the GOP and the billionaires who pull their strings, much ballyhooed rhetoric about abortion, affirmative action, union rights and voting rights are all subsidiary to this main event.
The two most prominent members of this tiny group of people are Charles and David Koch:

In this election cycle... the Kochs have publicly stated that they and their compatriots will spend $889 million, more than either the Republican or Democratic parties spent last time around. According to a recent analysis in Politico, their privatized political network is backed by a group of several hundred extremely rich fellow donors who often meet at off-the-record conclaves organized by the Kochs at desert resorts. It has at least 1,200 full-time staffers in 107 offices nationwide, or three and a half times as many as the Republican National Committee. They may be the most important un-elected political figures in American history.​

We're against whack-job activists. It is that simple.

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW YET WHO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. That is the problem.

I know who Obama is.. that is all I need to know.

 

[RandallFlagg]

You're right. There is no "rule" . They are CHOOSING not to vote. Indeed, election have consequences. Looks as though the shoe is on the other hand, now doesn't it?

What you nitwits refuse to acknowledge is that "CHOOSING to not vote" does not go over well in an election cycle....Bear in mind that 24 GOP senators are up for election.

I'm sure the lib media will try to spin it negatively.

Hopefully the public will dismiss the media spin.

If not, well, it was a nice country while it lasted.

There is no 'spin' to it! You don't have to spin it, it is that obvious and clear that the Republicans are refusing to do their job.

Lady, here's news for you...the entire CONGRESS has refused to do it's job for the last 7 years...

 

[OldLady]

It is not for you or the elected representatives to 'judge' his actions and leap to the conclusion that you no longer need to do your job as set forth in the constitution. There is nothing in there saying the Congress will advise and consent if they like the President or that the Congress will advise and consent if they agree with the President's policies and past actions. The problem isn't that the Republicans might disagree. The problem is when they refuse to even look at a nominee because they (sulkily,imo) don't like their liberal president.

It by God most certainly IS the people's and the elected representatives' job to 'judge' his actions! The entire system, a system Obama has intentionally and Un-Constitutionally bypassed, is built on Checks and Balances by Congress that REQUIRE them to judge his actions as per the Constitution. They are OBLIGATED to be the 'Checks and Balances' on the Executive Branch!

And the American people ARE the LAST 'checks and Balances' when elected officials refuse / fail to do their jobs! This nation was built on REPRESENTATIVE government, which is the antithesis of what the likes of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have sought to change it into.

Pelosi should have been challenged, taken to task, and removed from Congress the moment she DECLARED to the American people that they had NO RIGHT to know what was in the ACA 'EDICT' until it had been rammed into law against the majority will of the people. Despite what she thinks this nation, this government, is 'of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE', not self-appointed would-be Socialist / Oligarchist Rulers!

You seem to think as Obama and Pelosi do, that once elected politicians can do whatever the hell they feel like and to hell with the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the people! Not so!

It by God most certainly IS the people's and the elected representatives' job to 'judge' his actions!
In the voting booth, and not before. I know how checks and balances work, same as you. The Court told Obama he couldn't bypass the system when he was out of line, and I have no problem with that. You are a bunch of whining babies saying you won't play because you might lose. It is so clearly transparent. I'm happy my state's senators have more sense than that. I'm extremely disappointed that the presidential candidates are upholding this bullshit.

 

[Siete]

the Senators aren't against a SC appointment ... they're against ANYTHING Obama.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

the Senators aren't against a SC appointment ... they're against ANYTHING Obama.

Obama's pretty much gotten his way for the last seven years. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[nat4900]

Why is the GOP doing it? For the same reason the Dems would, if the situation was reversed.

Mark

The intent of the O/P was to show (possibly) how big money interests are running this country. Scalia was an ultra partisan who went hunting with Cheney while he was to judge in a decision that would affect Cheney's interests....Scalia was also down in that Texas luxury resort, comped by the owner, who was ALSO a defendant in a case before the SC.......

Lets' face it, Scalia, was far from either impartial or ethical.

Again, let me state that I DO WANT for the GOP in the senate to stonewall....THAT is the spectacle that I very much want.

 

[nat4900]

Obama's pretty much gotten his way for the last seven years. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

In the absence of a functioning congress...YES, Obama had to act through EOs.

For example, when it came to immigration reform, Obama repeatedly told congress to do something....they refused, so......................

 

[Correll]

You're right. There is no "rule" . They are CHOOSING not to vote. Indeed, election have consequences. Looks as though the shoe is on the other hand, now doesn't it?

What you nitwits refuse to acknowledge is that "CHOOSING to not vote" does not go over well in an election cycle....Bear in mind that 24 GOP senators are up for election.

I'm sure the lib media will try to spin it negatively.

Hopefully the public will dismiss the media spin.

If not, well, it was a nice country while it lasted.

There is no 'spin' to it! You don't have to spin it, it is that obvious and clear that the Republicans are refusing to do their job.

Standing up to a leftist that wants to put a leftist in the seat, is their jobs, as far as I am concerned.

 

[OldLady]

You're right. There is no "rule" . They are CHOOSING not to vote. Indeed, election have consequences. Looks as though the shoe is on the other hand, now doesn't it?

What you nitwits refuse to acknowledge is that "CHOOSING to not vote" does not go over well in an election cycle....Bear in mind that 24 GOP senators are up for election.

I'm sure the lib media will try to spin it negatively.

Hopefully the public will dismiss the media spin.

If not, well, it was a nice country while it lasted.

There is no 'spin' to it! You don't have to spin it, it is that obvious and clear that the Republicans are refusing to do their job.

Lady, here's news for you...the entire CONGRESS has refused to do it's job for the last 7 years...

Whatever. I'm not so old I don't remember who SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT a couple years ago. It wasn't the Democrats, was it? This is just more of the same. The Republicans are leaving a bunch of court appointments in the "stall" pile and who does it hurt? People who have to wait far too long for a timely trial date. Who got hurt when the government got shut down? In our area, it was small businesses and the people who work for them, who count on a big tourist Columbus Day Weekend because of our beautiful national park during peak autumn foliage. The park was closed and a lot of people lost a lot of their income. This kind of refusal to govern hurts people. The Supreme Court may have to defer decisions to the lower court because of the vacancy. That is NOT the way it is supposed to work.

 

[OldLady]

You're right. There is no "rule" . They are CHOOSING not to vote. Indeed, election have consequences. Looks as though the shoe is on the other hand, now doesn't it?

What you nitwits refuse to acknowledge is that "CHOOSING to not vote" does not go over well in an election cycle....Bear in mind that 24 GOP senators are up for election.

I'm sure the lib media will try to spin it negatively.

Hopefully the public will dismiss the media spin.

If not, well, it was a nice country while it lasted.

There is no 'spin' to it! You don't have to spin it, it is that obvious and clear that the Republicans are refusing to do their job.

Standing up to a leftist that wants to put a leftist in the seat, is their jobs, as far as I am concerned.

Fine. Let him at least name the leftist before you refuse.

 

[Siete]

the Senators aren't against a SC appointment ... they're against ANYTHING Obama.

Obama's pretty much gotten his way for the last seven years. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

having his way or not doesn't discount the fact Republican Senators automatically balk at anything Obama .. to believe otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[nat4900]

Standing up to a leftist that wants to put a leftist in the seat, is their jobs, as far as I am concerned.

Scalia was a far right hack........How did left-leaning dems. vote for his confirmation?

(and THAT is the difference between the 2 major parties)

 

[Siete]

Obama ... I would like to propose

Republican Congress ... Hold it right there Mr. President ... NO ... now, go ahead

 

[Correll]

You're right. There is no "rule" . They are CHOOSING not to vote. Indeed, election have consequences. Looks as though the shoe is on the other hand, now doesn't it?

What you nitwits refuse to acknowledge is that "CHOOSING to not vote" does not go over well in an election cycle....Bear in mind that 24 GOP senators are up for election.

I'm sure the lib media will try to spin it negatively.

Hopefully the public will dismiss the media spin.

If not, well, it was a nice country while it lasted.

There is no 'spin' to it! You don't have to spin it, it is that obvious and clear that the Republicans are refusing to do their job.

Standing up to a leftist that wants to put a leftist in the seat, is their jobs, as far as I am concerned.

Fine. Let him at least name the leftist before you refuse.

Why?

To pretend that this is not going to be a bitter partisan battle?

Pretend is the game libs like to play.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Obama's pretty much gotten his way for the last seven years. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

In the absence of a functioning congress...YES, Obama had to act through EOs.

For example, when it came to immigration reform, Obama repeatedly told congress to do something....they refused, so......................

He got plenty through Congress... see "ACA". AS for the EO's, that isn't what they are for. They're not there as a mechanism to bypass Congress when you don;t get your way.

 

[nat4900]

What I find disconcerting is that not all of us are against a non-elected, filthy rich cabal (re-read the O/P) meets to decide who should represent common citizens' interests....Right wingers should also realize that they are pawns of big moneyed groups who couldn't care a twit about their welfare.