DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP Blocking Supreme Court Nominee

They swore to uphold the constitution during their terms in office. It's their duty to confirm appointees while In office. Otherwise everything they've been saying about the US constitution has been BS all along.

If what you say is true, then any disagreement with the President concerning the advise duties of the Senate means that the Senate is not fulfilling their obligation? I believe you have the Constitution mixed up with a Collective bargaining Agreement. The Senate has a duty. They perform their duty by advising the President to not nominate a justice in this political election cycle as it will not be approved. The President chooses to ignore the advice of the Senate and nominates a candidate for Justice. Both have done their duty so far. Now the Senate has a further duty. They can consent or not consent. Are you advocating that any outcome other than confirmation of the President's nominee would equate to the Senate not doing it's Constitutional duty? That is beyond my understanding. I did not realize that Supreme court justice Alberto Gonzalez or Robert Bork would agree with that assessment.

You're wrong. Totally wrong. You can never justify this to the majority of Amercan tax payers. Every case that goes to the SC will be delayed until the seat is filled. This will end up costing tax payers billions and once again the middle class will take the bullet. You are so wrong on so many levels it's sad.

The voters already did change their minds. They voted in a republican senate after Obama was elected, right? Let's not forget, it's the senate's job to confirm that appointment.

As soon as you show me where in the Constitution it says that they have to confirm whoever is appointed, I'll say they aren't upholding their Constitutional duty.

After 8 years of this President circumventing Congress and the Constitution with Obamacare changes, closing Gitmo, on and on...

Now he is all about the Constitution!

And people still wonder why we are taking our Country back.

Actually if there is a 4-4 tie I believe they have to confirm the lower courts ruling.

That's what I heard reported.

In the past, when a SC justice resigned/retired/died, and a new justice wasn't approved immediately, did the SCOTUS just quit functioning?



And to all, the presidents duty is to nominate someone. The senates job is to vet and approve or not approve that person.

The senate has apparently advised the president to not nominate someone. You think the president will honor that? No.

The senate cannot TELL the president to not nominate.

They can uphold the lower court decision, which is basically like they never heard the case.

The Chief Justice can also hold a case over for the next court, where the full court would then hear it.

Liberals need to get off their high horse. They are as big of hypocrites as the republicans are.

I'm really late to the thread, and didn't read more than a dozen or so of the 90 replies, but...

I think it is a big gamble for the republicans to keep denying Obama's nominations (assuming they're not super left). First, there's no guarantee the right will win the election. At this point, my gut says it will be dem. Second, I think both Clinton and Sanders nominations could be even further left. Also, if the republicans essentially hold the court hostage until fall, I'm guessing it might just tick off some voters in the middle moving them left.

Also, I don't think Obama is as stupid as many others think he is. He knows he's not going to get a nominee through that is very far left, so I suspect he'll find someone that leans left just enough to appease his party, but not so much that the republicans can fight too much. It might not be his first candidate, but that's what I think ends up happening.

Here is a tweet from some guy named Rory Cooper:

Under President Obama, Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats.

It looks more to me that the country wants a new direction.

Interesting info. I assume they're total and not net numbers. Regardless fascinating info.

I still (at this point...there's a long way to go) that a Republican will win it this fall.

*GENERAL REPLY*

While it's apparent that a lot of people on here need educated on the Constitution (props to Eric, Voleur, and a couple others .!) I am at least encouraged to see so many people actually discussing it.

Having said that, it was almost painful to watch Obama choke on the words today in his presser when he talked about how the Senate needs to closely obey the Constitution... hypocrisy at it's highest considering he's appointed 2 SC Justices that aren't exactly known for that. If he truly believes what he says, he'd repeal most of his Presidency... but a little loser to Earth, he'd nominate a strict Constructionist clone of Scalia.

But I digress...

There is nothing that can prevent Obama from putting forth a nomination and personally I'm fine that there isn't anything to prevent him from doing that.

The Republicans in a way have backed themselves in to an "all in" gambit here. They won't put any of his nominations to a vote because they won't be able to overcome the optics of denying someone they've previously unanimously confirmed.

But THEY can IMO not only mitigate the backlash, and possibly turn the tide if they continue to sell the idea that since a new election process has formally started, the reasonable thing to do is to wait for the next President's nominees. The difficulty is in selling that idea, and I think the way to do that is frame it as a situation where the next President will be in office long enough to be held accountable for who they nominate. Play up the fact that Obama cares only about politics and any appointment he makes is about his legacy, not about the country.

I think they also need to push hard on is the relevance of having a jurist who strictly interprets the Constitution. It's well past time the Country received an education about the Constitution. I'm just not sure there is enough time left and if there are enough people who can effectively do that.

Now Swish aptly pointed out that what are the Reps gonna do if a Dem wins? Hold up the process for another 4 years? Possibly, but not likely in the least bit. The language people like Cruz are using is to wait for the next President. If it turns out to be a Dem and they continue to stall, they'll get crushed in subsequent elections.

In regards to Lincoln, he was known for throwing journalists in jail for writing columns that ran contrary to or were critical of his policies. Completely ignored their 1st Amendment Rights.

In regards to slavery going away on it's own, it's not as far fetched as you might think. Zachary Taylor was the 12th President (get this, 40yrs in the Army, got nominated and elected without actually attending a single rally for himself... anyway) He was a slave owner personally, but he pissed off a lot of other owners because he not only didn't move to protect slavery, he actually worked counter to the institution. For example: at that time any territories that wanted to join the Union, had to be split between slave and not, equally in order to maintain the balance. What he actually did was try to convince areas like California to skip the Territorial phase and immediately draft their State Constitutions prior to joining, knowing full well they would not be slave States. That's over a decade before Lincoln and he wasn't the only one to see the writing on the wall that slavery would not stand for much longer anyway.

f

That helps..

except businesses are already paying people less than what they are worth in this country.

if businesses can get free labor and maximize profits, they absolutely would.

this is where you keep failing at: by assuming businesses have some sort of moral compass.

we have already seen time and time again what happens when we let businesses do whatever they want.

we also have seen time and time again what happens when you let the states make decisions on civil rights matters.

for somebody who constantly says you don't trust the government, you sure are trusting the government.

as far as the SC goes, as i said before, because of the tasteless comments and declarations by the republicans, all the heat is all them.

and it's not just the media, as some posters are claiming. the people are annoyed by that as well.

obama has so approval numbers, but there's a reason why congress is even lower. they have accomplished absolutely nothing since their big push for the congressional control.

nothing.

and now they wanna continue that by blocking the president, and possibly delaying more if the next president is a dem?

this is pathetic. and yes, it is pathetic when the dems do it too. but we're talking about 2016, you guys are already nut cases in the eyes of not just america, but the damn world.

but y'all find new ways to out due yourselves every week it seems.

Now that IS VERY INTERESTING. Scratching my head

That's net, not total.

The SC with a majority of conservative judges upheld Obamacare.

And Gitmo is not closed. Stop serving koolaid.

You do realize that means the economy isn't growing, and there are so many unemployed that those companies can set the wages instead of the workers, don't you? It's always a small highlight when you make conservative statements.

Your statement might have been accurate if it wasn't for the fact that American wages have been stagnant for the last 20 years, and the economy has grown in between those times.

One reason there are so many unemployed is because those same businesses you trust so much shipped those jobs overseas, because why?

Cheaper labor.

It doesn't matter that you think there has been this tidal wave of opinion change in the United States, the President is the President until he's not, the Senate is the Senate until it's not... and as long as they serve in that capacity, they have a job to do.

They do not/should not abdicate that job because some polling says (or because you have a feeling) that things might change a year from now.

I'm in the employment business.. And I'm here tell you this is absolutely true. Except wages haven't been stagnant. They have NOT kept up with the Cost of Living.. In no way shape or form. But not totally stagnant.

As for the unemployed. Quite a bit of our unemployment can be traced back to a lack of jobs in the labor sector.

These were jobs that paid 12 to 25 dollars an hour. Many of those jobs have been sent off shore. I have a client in NE Ohio that had an accounting staff of maybe 25 or so folks. Many have been on the job for as long as 40 years.

All but a hand full were laid off at the end of the year and those accounting jobs were shipped off shore.. YES, Accounting jobs. So that shows that it's not just unskilled labor.

A large contingent of major corporations are opening up accounting and engineering departments in other countries where the wages for those types of professional folks are much lower.

It's a bottom line world we live in.

One thing I liked about Obama was in 2008, he said he would address that issue and close tax loopholes (like GE and Eaton having their corporate HQ's in Ireland thus eluding our tax charges)

He failed at those and other promises, so he didn't get my vote again.

He didn't cause them, but he did nothing about them either.

Think of Dell, HP, Microsoft and others that have call centers with thousands of workers in India that all used to go to American workers.

It's not just blue collar jobs, it's white collar as well.

There was and think there still is a company based in India called TaTa (no jokes, that's a real name)www.tcs.com and they send Software engineers to America. They work for 10 or so dollars an hour plus housing and transportation to develop software for banks (yes, banks) and major corporations. National City Bank (when it existed before being gobbled up by PNC) used them by the dozens at the offices on West 150th street.

Companies here and around the globe outsource development projects to TaTa as well.

So there you have it. Swish is correct and it's not just unskilled or even skilled labor, it's just about anything.

Spiral, do you agree that the Senate can chose to not approve of a nominee the President wants to make a Justice? If you agree that the Senate has the authority to deny a nominee to be a Justice, you cannot then also claim that asking the President to not nominate a Justice because the nominee will not be confirmed is wrong or an affront to the American people. Again I give you Justice Alberto Gonzalez and Robert Bork as examples. (sarcasm) Democratic Senators who now cry foul are hypocrites at least or deceitful at worst. The President claiming some authority granted from the PEOPLE due to his election to the Presidency can not then claim the Senate does not have the same authority for the same reason. It is easy to understand that the President wants his person on the SCOTUS. It is just as easy to understand that the Senate wants to put in someone they can agree to. It is not the President's RIGHT to have who he wants and the Senate has no say on who they want as well. Advise and Consent is not Wink and Nod.

Voleur

The fact that 90 million are out of the work force, H1B visa applicants undercut Americans, and lack of growth in the economy are the reasons. Yes, there has been economic growth, but it's anemic. We keep bringing people into the country and they are hired over citizens. That should not happen.

Quite simply, if you remember the 90s, we are in a market readjustment from a time in the country where it was an employees market for years.

Your statement makes a lot of assumptions and guesses. If you are correct and not getting a Justice placed on the SCOTUS would aid the Democratic Party politically, why would the Democratic Party wish to oppose the Republican opposition to the nomination of a Justice? When your political opponent is shooting themselves in the foot, do not stop them. I believe it is not about the current election for the Democrat Party. It is about gaining a Supreme Court Justice who will support the Democrat Party political policies at the Supreme Court. They want to legitimize legislation, regulations, and policies that restrict liberty and freedom of the citizenry of the USA. The Democrats would rather have another SCOTUS Justice than a few Congress(wo)men and Senators. The end result has been the loss of faith in the government by the citizens. I personally believe the Republicans will cave because they are the same as the Democrats. They just want to be in charge.

Yes, the Senate is responsible for approving the nominee. I'm fairly sure that the intent of advise and approve is based on qualifications of the nominee, not on political timing. The Senate should only deny a nominee if the nominee doesn't meet the threshold of qualifications..


Yes, both sides are deceitful and hypocritical all the time.. that doesn't make it right.


I agree. Which is why it is very poor form to announce that you aren't going to approve somebody, before you even know who that "somebody" is. If the President nominates somebody with whom the Senate has legitimate objections, then fine... fight it out, that's your job. Stating that you are unequivocally NOT going to approve somebody just because you disagree with the President who nominated them, without knowing their qualifications, is part of the problem.. it's putting politics above the good of the people... it just looks really bad.


It is the President's right as long as the person is qualified. This is where we seem to disagree, the Senate should be approving based on qualifications to perform the job and not as much on political ideology. As Peen said, Obama SHOULD nominate somebody who is a centrist, the Senate should vet and approve that person rather quickly... If Obama nominates some radical, then fight the battle then... but at least give me a logical argument as to why you are fighting it... "Because Obama... " is not a logical argument.

And that's also why we have things like TV prices.

A 19" color TV would run you $500 in the 1986.

A 31" color TV would cost you $1200 in 1993.

I saw a 32" HDTV at Wal Mart the other day for something like $150.

Consumers demand lower prices. We no longer make most electronics here. We don't make clothing here. The list goes on. Consumers demand lower prices, and most will not buy from a US manufacturer if their price is significantly higher for a similar quality product.

People want their stuff as inexpensively as possible, and will shop price as one of their primary motivators. That's a huge reason why many companies have moved manufacturing out of the country. Further, many want to be able to sell in other markets. Most items sold in the US are either replacements or upgrades for things we already own. You might be trying to take a US consumer into replacing a washer and dryer that are in fine working condition, or buying a 3rd or 4th family car for convenience ...... but in other markets, you have people just entering the consumer age, and they want to own the product, period. US companies cannot manufacture goods for these markets in the US, because they will lose badly on price in these new markets.

One other consideration is that manufacturing has evolved with robotics and automated processes, and fewer jobs are available, because fewer people are needed. Instead of having 5 people on a line driving bolts, for example, you might have one guy making sure that the computers and automations are working properly, and making adjustments where necessary.

I truly don't know what the answer is. If we see prices double, or triple, (or more) on electronics and other goods, people will revolt. We'll have massive inflation in certain sectors.

This problem is nowhere near as simple as many politicians make it out to be. The solutions are all imperfect, at best, and there is always an opposite reaction to any action we take.

Yes, ObamaCare was upheld as a tax but the President later made changes and adjustments by executive orders, circumventing Congress and the Constitution.

Gitmo is closing more each day as the President orders the release of prisoners in his goal to close it entirely, all the while circumventing Congress and the Constitution.

Forget the Koolaid, drink coffee and read the Papers for facts!

The Senate's advice to the POTUS is to not make an appointment to the SC because they will not confirm any appointment until after the election, correct?

That's not advising. That's refusing to do what they all swore they would do. You know, like upholding the constitution. And not to start making up stuff like this that isn't in the constitution.

Good one

Both examples you used was a lie.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Actually, the lie was with the Obama administration, who swore up and down that Obamacare was not a tax program .... he denied that it was a tax multiple times, with no ifs, ands, or buts ...... but when they went before the Supreme Court, and the only way Obamacare could be Constitutional was if it was a tax, all of a sudden, it was a tax.

Obama's original and continuing statements saying that Obamacare wasn't a tax, well, those were lies.

j/c

this showed up in my facebook feed.
interesting.

please note the highlighted passages.


"McConnell wrote very persuasively against partisan Senate obstruction of SCOTUS appointees in 1970."


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/16...ointees-in-1970

that dude has been in politics that long?

Hillary Clinton implies racism to blame for Republicans’ effort to block Obama Supreme Court pick

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2...ourt-pick.html/

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested bigotry and racism were behind the GOP’s opposition to President Barack Obama’s nominating anyone to be the next Supreme Court justice, ABC news and other media have reported.

Related
Houston's Geto Boys are not happy with Ted Cruz's remix dissing Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton to appear in Texas Saturday
Hillary Clinton opens Dallas office, gets endorsement from Mexican-American Democrats
“You know that’s in keeping what we heard all along, isn’t it?” Clinton said at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in Harlem. “Many Republicans talk in coded racial language about takers and losers. They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe. This kind of hatred and bigotry has no place in our politics or our country.

Obama has said he will name a nominee for Supreme Court justice soon to replace Antonin Scalia, who died last week.

“The Republicans say they’ll reject anyone President Obama nominates, no matter how qualified,” Clinton said. “Some are even saying he doesn’t have the right to nominate anyone, as if somehow he’s not the real president.”

After Scalia died Saturday, Republican leaders, including Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s majority leader, said the Supreme Court seat shouldn’t be filled until after the next presidential election.

Obama will remain in office until January.

“The president has the right to nominate under the Constitution,” Clinton said.

Her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders, also has criticized GOP opposition to an Obama nominee.