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

If you look really hard, you'll find people from both sides of the aisle both agreeing and disagreeing depending on which party holds the executive office.

Of course he did.... and if this had happened in GWB's last year, he would be pushing to get somebody appointed immediately and the Democrats would be stalling...

Politics in general is becoming harder and harder to take.

Thank you!

FB meme going around that Scalia was actually a successful hit by Obama's muslim terrorist cell.

What Republicans Said About Supreme Court Nominations During George W. Bush’s Last Year

Moments after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia was reported, Republicans in the Senate coalesced around a single message: the next president, not Barack Obama, should nominate Scalia’s successor.

When Republicans argue that Barack Obama should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice to replace Antonin Scalia, they are embracing a modified version of the “Thurmond Rule,” a concept invented by one of the Senate’s most notorious racists.

The first thing to know about the Thurmond Rule is that it is not a rule but a pronouncement by late Senator Strom Thurmond that judicial nominees should not be confirmed in the six months leading up to an election. Thurmond used his “rule” to justify blocking the nomination of Abe Fortas, who was already on the court, to Chief Justice.

Thurmond, an ardent segregationalist, was upset that Fortas and Johnson supported civil rights for African Americans. The Republicans are now seeking to extend Thurmond’s “rule” in 2015.

Since it is more than six months before the next election, even if the Thurmond rule was a rule, it wouldn’t apply in the case of the vacancy created by Scalia’s passing. What Republicans like Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley are arguing for is the expansion of the concept to encompass the entire final year of Obama’s presidency.

These same leaders, however, had a much different perspective in July 2008, the final year of George W. Bush’s presidency, when they convened a meeting entitled “Protecting American Justice: Ensuring Confirmation of Qualified Judicial Nominees.” The hearing focused on the circuit court nominees at issue at the time, but featured lots of commentary on the Thurmond Rule.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)


“[The idea that July 2008 would trigger the] Thurmond Rule ­­– that’s just plain bunk. The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term.”

Today, Grassley says that “The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year… it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)


“There’s no excuse for not considering and voting upon a well­ qualified judicial nominee in the United States of America today… [J]ust because it’s a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we’re here. We’re ready to go to work.”

Today, Alexander says that “it is reasonable to give the American people a voice by allowing the next president to fill this lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)


“[N]ow is the perfect time for a new politics of judicial confirmation to arise where Republicans and Democrats work together to confirm qualified men and women to the federal bench. Now is the perfect time because, of course, we’re in a presidential election year and no one yet knows who the next president will be. What a unique opportunity to establish that regardless of the next president’s party, the nominees will be treated fairly and on the basis of their qualifications, and not on the basis of ancient political squabbles.”

Mitch McConnell (R-KY)


“I think it’s clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that.”

Today, McConnell is leading the charge for an expanded Thurmond Rule. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” he said, immediately after Scalia’s passing.

For his part, Barack Obama intends to nominate a Scalia’s replacement. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote,” he said in a statement on Saturday.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02...ushs-last-year/

There's some wacko on youtube claiming it's was a secret jesuit hit team sent by the Pope. They used a frozen gun that sent an icicle into his heart.

Oh dear, I thought I deleted that.

Still on about just one side, I see. Let me amend my statement, it's the senate's job to confirm, or not.

Thank you.

They have said they won't even consider an appointment.

Meaning.... they won't be doing their job. Not shocking, since they haven't been doing their job for 7 years and 2 mo's now.

That's true. But to confirm or deny they must have hearings. Not refuse to hold those hearings. It's their job.

Here you go perfect. Must have missed it the first time I posted it?

Typo. but lol, I guess it would have me scratching my head if you wrote it too.

Just like the article I posted when the GOP said the opposite of what they're saying now when Bush was in office. It's all politics from both sides. Who is saying it depends on who is in office.

McConnell believed the opposite of what he's spewing now.

I don't know why folks so worked up. To me its just politics as usual. People can vote for the president knowing that the president they vote for will be choosing a supreme court justice. It's not like it stop the court from anything. The votes will just be 5-3 instead of 5-4.

I actually think the judges should not have lifetime appointments but term appointments of perhaps 8 years with two judges changed out each year. their terms can be renewed or they can be replaced based on the president's choice. 90 year old judges just makes no darn sense.

The initial intent of the Advise and Consent by the Senate was to protect the interests of the state rights against Federal incursion. Initially the Senate was elected by the State Legislatures not by popular vote. The Senate was meant to slow down Federalist action and to protect the rights of the states. The advise and consent was intended to make the Judiciary beholding to both the states and the Federal government. If you believe that the Senate should approve any nominee as long as they meet the basic requirements, you deny states rights, you deny individual freedoms, you also advocate an tyrannical alliance of the Senate, Executive and Judiciary. I am certain that is not what you mean to advocate.



Deceitful Senators who opposed nominees of past Presidents and now claim that it is un-American and dare I say racist to oppose the current President's nominees is worse than Hypocritical and deceitful. It shows a total lack of character and borders on maniacal.



I disagree. The place to start would be to state that there will be no consent of a nominee during a political election year. That in of itself can be a legitimate basis for denying any consent to a nominee. Many of the Senators running for office in 2016 will be asked to consent to a President's nominee. Some will not be re-elected. Will the people of those states who have a new Senator-elect now have NO say in the Supreme Court Justice? There are three Senators running for the Presidency at this time. One of them may become the President. Why would they not want to nominate their own Justice to the Supreme Court? Bad form is not an argument for approving a nominee in an election year.



According to the Constitution there are no qualifications to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. If you mean legal knowledge, rational, logical, political philosophy, etc... those are all subjective qualifications. Historical precedents do not qualifications make. The protection of the rights of the citizens of the US by protecting the rule of law as stated in the Constitution is the only real true qualification in my opinion that matters in nominating a Supreme Court Justice. Part of the problem is the politicizing the court in order to support policies of a sitting or future Presidents. I am ashamed to hear a Justice make a ruling that upholds any limitations on the citizen's freedoms or twists logic in a way as to make something "legal" or "Constitutional" when it is clearly stated otherwise in the Constitution.

Watching NBC Nightly News they just reported that Obama will not be attending Scalia's funeral.

I don't know how a sitting president can disrespect a justice of our Supreme Court like this but the narcissist in chief will always find a way. What a scumbag.

was there a particular reason? it better be a matter of national security or some serious important stuff.

They didn't report that, only that Biden was going to be there.

Really?

I hope he has some really important business to attend to that day.

Bet he has nothing going on though.

golf

But you know what he didn't say? He didn't say that wouldn't approve anyone that Bush put up. He just said he would do everything he could to stop a judge with ideas counter his own.

That might be nitpicking a little but yeah, he didn't make a blanket statement that he wouldn't approve anyone that Bush appointed.

8AM tee times are hard to get.

I don't begrudge Obama for his vacations and his golf outings, etc.. every President has done it and I believe they deserve it... but he spends so much time doing stuff like that, he would be hard pressed to convince me there is anything more urgent that day than attending this funeral.. If he was on a different continent at a G-8 or something, maybe... anything short of that.. not going looks as spiteful as the republicans saying they will refuse to consider a nomination.

There is a little more to the story than that. I can't remember what the reason for not attending, but it did say he would go to viewing the night before wherever he's laying in state.

Still, not attending the funeral seems pretty tacky to me.

Michelle Bachman was on Fox News talking about this was a hit job.


Jade helm!!!

It's kind of funny now that the President wants to look like he's taking the high ground, he's apologizing for filibustering the nomination of Justice Alito in 2006, who had enough Senate support to pass.. claiming he should have made his case based on the merits of the nomination rather than "throwing sand in the gears of the political process" as he put it...

Because now he wants the Republicans to look bad for "throwing sand in the gears of the political process"..

Hypocrisy is everywhere bro....

When Obama starts accusing somebody in the Republican Party of murder, let me know.

HYPOCRITES!!!

THAT WAS THEN: White House
says Obama 'regrets' Alito filibuster

THE WHITE HOUSE says President Obama believes his 2006 decision to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court was a mistake – after being accused of hypocrisy for blasting Senate Republicans for vowing to block his next high court nominee.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/...ml?intcmp=hpbt1

hakuna matata

HYPOCRISY is the national pastime of politicians.

Tulsa, I cannot understand why he would not attend the funeral. It is baffling. Oh well, we are so much more united as a nation than we were 8 years ago. (Sarcasm)

Two wrongs don't make a right.

This country never unites unless something tragic happens. Then we unite for a few months, then it goes back to normal.

Don't fool yourself.

Thanks Socrates... I've said Obama and the democrats were wrong then for filibustering and not doing their job.. I'm saying the Republicans are wrong now for stating they will unilaterally block a nomination without even knowing who that person is...

This stuff has been going on forever, nothing wrong or right about it in my opinion.

I certainly favor not allowing Obama to screw up the Supreme Court any more than he already has.

Just say no.

After all, the Libs and Socialists on here keep saying their person is gonna win so whats the big deal?

Bernie may want a Socialist Judge.
Hillary may want an Internet Genius for Judge.

So what? They can nominate a SCJ in a few years from now when one of them holds the office.. .

Obama is president now. It's his right to appoint one now. Republicans who want to delay are only hurting themselves and not upholding the constitution which they swore they would do.

No Problem.

Obama can do whatever he wants but the answer is still no.

Wrong. The republican senate is already starting to soften their stance. HA!