DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP prepares to fight Obama nominee, no matter whom he picks

if you gonna continue harping on the ghost rule, then have it.

one thing you and the rest of the clowns in congress aren't taking into account that your reputation with the public is continuing to tank at epic proportions. such was not the case in 1992.

the public's impact then and now is completely different.

But i don't expect the GOP to keep up with the times, so i guess thats my fault.

i'm seeing dinosaurs failing to adapt. no wonder your party is going extinct.

You should talk to Pit, he is an expert at what you are saying.

I'm saying there is no rule no matter what anyone calls it and there was no action by Democrats that blocked any SC nominee by Bush. Now if you can show me any different, we have something to discuss. As it stands, you have a few Democrats making comments on something that never came to pass.

What we have now is the GOP having a concerted effort across the entire party to block any nominee that is named no matter their qualifications. They're not just making comments, they're acting on it.

Robert Bork

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

“That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/pol...-1992.html?_r=0


Soon after the inauguration of Bush as president in January 2001, many liberal academics became worried that he would begin packing the federal judiciary with conservative jurists. Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote an article in the February 2001 edition of the liberal magazine The American Prospect that encouraged the use of the filibuster to stop Bush from placing any nominee on the Supreme Court during his first term.[4]

From June 2001 to January 2003, when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, the most conservative appellate nominees were stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never given hearings or committee votes.[10] However, after the 2002 mid-term elections in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, these same nominees began to be moved through the now Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.[11]

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12, 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[13] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_Supreme_Court_candidates

-Yet not one tear was shed by Pit.

They will approve Obama's nominee for fear of who Hillary will pick. Garland is a centrist and some of the GOP like him. If they wait and Hillary wins, she might appoint Obama.

Good. I hope the GOP fights this and Hillary wins, which she will handily , and she Rams her judge down the throat of a crippled GOP . Never has a party deserved being gutted the way the Republican Party is being dismantled more . I love the fact that their time has come to an end and that they were the architects of their own destruction .

It was a dick move then; and it's a dick move now.

Stuff like this is why their public approval rating is lower than below cockroaches, traffic jams, and Nickelback.


Click the link below. It's not only an eye-opener, it's also (almost) a hoot. I say 'almost' because it's actually real- not a satirical article.





http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/...ans-esteem.html

He'd still have to be confirmed... and after 8 years of saying "no" TO him, I can't imagine them saying "yes" ABOUT him. Billary would need a landslide of new dems in congress (on the order of 2010 midterms) for that nomination to have any chance.

On the other hand, it would be fun just to see him get nominated... that sound you'd hear would be 301 'red heads' simultaneously exploding.

even if that happen, the GOP is in a lose/lose situation.

at this point, it's either vet and confirm the current pick, or continue a massive wave of crap storms coming their way.

it's not going to turn out good either way for the GOP. but continuing to wait does nothing but raise the chances that the GOP will be out of a job come next senate/house election cycle.

Just clicking:

Is anyone else tired of this nonsense. I mean, Obama, being the sitting President, did what he was supposed to do which is nominate a person for Justice.

Now we hear republicans saying it doesn't matter, we're not going to have hearings. NOT EVEN HEARINGS.

Why can they just do their jobs. Investigate the nominee and make a decision up or down. it's that simple.

If you don't want to approve a nominee that Obama puts up, don't approve him/her. But damn it, be smart, have hearings. Do your jobs.

because if you listen to the people who hate obama on this board, it's congress's job to not do their job.

apparently.

John Roberts

Just silly. The Republican Senate IS doing its job, just like the Democrat Senate before them.

Why all the tears now? No one cared when the Democrats did it.

Oh yea, Liberals.

When did the Dems refuse to hold hearings on a nominee?

And apparently, there have been plenty of times when Democrats held the same position. So we are either all going to demand they do their job all the time or we are going to continue to pick and choose based on our own preferences and the situation.... which is where we are now.

Except you don't hear any liberals on this board defending the actions of democrats in the past.

At all.

If you're argument boils down to "they did it first", then you're saying it's ok for congress to act like children from something that happened 30 years ago.

Is that all you got.. Listen, It's wrong if the Republicans do it and it's wrong if the Dems do it.

So cut the bull about liberals and conservatives..


It's the job of the President to Nominate someone, it's up to the Senate confirm or not confirm

This is a simple matter of them NOT DOING their jobs. Nothing more nothing less.. Politics ahead of what their jobs are.. Every damn time,, That's all we hear..

Then instead of looking at it for what it really is, I get to hear people like you talk about Liberals or Conservatives. You should be saying (as am I) that they are both wrong when they don't do the jobs they were elected to do.

Another great argument for lower wages for elected officials as well as term limits. They don't deserve what we give them for the garbage we have to put up with.

But they defended it at the time... and it's my guess that they will defend it again in the future.


Which is basically the exact opposite of what I've been saying. I want the Senate to have hearings and vote. I want desperately to get past the "they did it first" argument on both sides. I don't think it's ever going to happen, but for as long as I can remember both sides have done it and it does nothing but get in the way of reasonable discussion and debate.

+1

I want us to put our foot down the next time the Democrats pull their crap, not now.

vs. in mouth?

http://nypost.com/2016/03/17/by-hamiltons-rules-on-supreme-picks-the-senates-right-and-obamas-wrong/

The argument about nominating a Supreme Court nominee is silly. The President is constrained by the Constitution. The Senate is not under any obligation to do anything about a nominee. That is how it is. Politics are the only thing that can explain anyone who states otherwise. It is not conjecture to state that the President has the authority to nominate a Justice. It is not conjecture to say the Senate has no obligation to act upon a nominee. The President acting separately of the Senate without consulting them and asking their advice on a nominee is asking for the Senate to take no action. The President has already stopped the process by not abiding by the process. I believe this article explains how the intention was of the Advise and Consent of the Senate by the Founders of the Constitution.

Oh dear, the emotional Liberals won't like this at all.

Am I going to start a fight 40years?? My intention is not to start a fight. My intention is to inject a Constitutional aspect to a Constitutional question by using the words of someone involved in writing the Constitution. I hope it helps to define the issue and remove the politics from the issue. Politics by its very nature is confrontational and divisive. We are Americans discussing a Constitutional question, unless some of the readers are not American citizens. What is more American then that?

What's the end game when Hillary Clinton becomes president, and one of her first acts is to appoint a judge?

No chance in hell the GOP is sniffing the white house for many years to come.

You may be right about them not being REQUIRED to act on a nominee.

But you can't tell me that it's not their job to do.

Therefore they aren't doing their jobs.

In the real world, if you work for someone and they define your job as one where there is a task you dislike, what happens?

You either do your job as described, or you get fired.

Now, if you say to me it's NOT their job to hold hearings on a nominee or vote up or down on a nominee, then who's job is it?

Sometimes, I think it's really sad we can't fire politicians on the spot and ban them from holding public office when they refuse to do the job they were elected to do.

But of course, that's just my opinion. Oh and 40, I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I NEVER vote along any party lines. I vote for individuals that I like and believe in and yes, sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. (lately, it seems it's always the lesser of to evils)

I am saying that they are not required to act. The article I posted stated it as so. It is not a job that has to take action. The Senators have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. They did not take an oath to give an up or down vote on a nominee. The Constitution says that the President nominates someone to fill a vacancy WITH THE ADVISE AND CONSENT of the Senate. The Senate is not only within its duties to not act, it can be said that it is REQUIRED to NOT ACT because they were not involved in the process.

The President is in his final year in office. He has had a contentious relationship with the Republicans in the Congress. Who's fault it is really is not important. It is important that as an equal member of the separation of powers, the Senate has a duty to advise and consent. Many feel that to advise and consent means to have a hearing and a vote up or down. There is no basis for that reasoning other than it suits the current President and his political agenda.

I find that the Supreme Court has made itself less and less relevant as the selection process has become more and more politicized. The rulings by the Supreme Court on political issues such as Abortion, healthcare, education, etc... has created the mess we now face. The Federal government has no real stake in abortion, healthcare, education, or other social/cultural issues. The fact that as a equal branch of government, the Supreme Court has injected itself into such political issues has demeaned the court itself and tainted it's rulings.

The Supreme Court needs the other branches of government to enforce its rulings. If the Executive Branch or Legislative Branches refused to act on political rulings by the Supreme Court, what recourse would it have? The Federal Courts are a creation of the legislature. They can be done away with through legislation. The judges are nominated by the executive and confirmed by the legislature. If neither act, what can the judiciary do? Nothing is the answer. They are the weakest branch of the government. They have attempted to make themselves more powerful through their rulings.

Look at what happens today. The President ignores court rulings that oppose his political agenda. He praises those that support his agenda. He uses the power of the executive to ignore laws by the legislature if it suits his agenda, immigration being only one case.

You have recourse as a citizen of the USA. You have your vote. You can vote politicians out of office. But we know that even that does not change things much. It is the total disregard for individual liberties, authority left to the states and local governments being ignored and usurped by the Federal government, that has created your current divisive political climate. I have in closing only one last thing to say.



Who is John Galt?

Voleur provided all the facts you need to know on how our government is to proceed with a SC nomination. Great post Voleur!

Now if you want to go on nit picking about not doing their job or they should always wave with their right hands or they should put their left pant leg on first in the morning, you go right ahead.

You are right, those things are only your opinion. Stop trying to run the rest of OUR government with your opinion. Know the law, follow the Rules.

Exactly what we have been saying all along, lets wait to see who the PEOPLE vote for so they will have their say in this nomination!

Obama is a lame duck, limping towards the exits.

Is it or is it not their job to hold hearings and make decisions? If not, who's job is it!

Where in the constitution is there a timeline on the senate's advice and consent of a nominee?

We can parcel it any way we wish. We can use the Constitution as an excuse why they don't have to act.

The problem is, most Americans see this for what it is. Pure obstructionism. The GOP would be much better served to hold hearings and vote up or. The outcome would be the same, yet they wouldn't appear as arses. One thing people still seem to miss in the big picture of things.

About on third of people vote GOP. About one third vote Democrat. One third of voters are Independent. To win elections, it's the Independent vote you must gather to win.

You won't win those voters by appearing to stomp your feet and throw a tantrum by refusing to follow protocol that has been followed for generations. It's as simple as that.

Wrong.

Hamilton wrote of judges that what the president had was the power “to nominate, and, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, to appoint.”

The Appointments Clause of Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President to obtain the ``advice and consent'' of the United States Senate to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court.

Nominate away Mr.President but you may not appoint.
The Senate's "Advice" is to allow the next President to nominate and we will not give our "Consent" to any nominations you make.

Mission Accomplished! Job well DONE!

Next!

Is it their job or not?

I certainly hope you like Hillaries nominee better.

We will be very happy to provide "Advice" to her on these matters. "Consent", well, we will just have to see about that there thang.

Murica

So wonderful the Constitution was written by men using their minds and not by others thinking with their emotions.

LOL You just gave every republican senator a Heart Attack

Truth be told, everything I've read about Garland tells me he's pretty centered and fair.

So the only reasons not to hold hearings would be to show up Obama (that's idiotic) or to get a strong conservative on the bench.

If you read about Garland, you'll find he's got an equally conservative view but he can look at both sides of an argument and reach a reasonable conclusion. Or so it appears.

What's lost in this debate is, IS GARLAND QUALIFIED? The answer appears to be yes.

Someone explain why he isn't?

This country was founded on that document, it's our rule book and both parties have been playing by these rules for years and years, D, R or I makes no difference. The amendment process is the device by which the rules are changed. So far no one has sought to amend this process.

It is simply what it is and everyone can make up their own mind how they wish to react to it. You or I can only cast our single vote (assuming you're not in Chicago), in our federal and state elections, after that the die is cast and we'll move on with paying our bills and taking care of our loved ones.

There is no reason to incessantly argue inane points that won't change.

Yep. Let's see you make excuses for four more years. Like you actually believe you'll hold the Senate that long. lol