Senate republicans refuse to do their job

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Look. That dumbfuck Jug-eared motherfucker was TOLD they wouldn't approve anybody he nominated.

But what's the dumbass do anyway? Nominate someone. Congress has the right to approve or deny the nomination.

 

What part don't you get?

 

His job is to nominate someone...not to just bow down to congress claiming they won't do anything about it.

This may be the worst focking defense of this BS ever.

They are not approving or denying anyone, they are refusing to have hearings about it at all.

[Sho Nuff 720]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/poetic-juctice-obama-was-1st-us-president-to-vote-for-filibuster-in-supreme-court-nomination/

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee

 

 

Yet, they had hearings on him didn't they?

Ooops.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Interesting, so Alito had a confirmation hearing...on the senate floor and everything and the minority party attempted to filibuster a scheduled vote. Hmmm, that seems a bit different than today's situation.

Actual facts like this aren't allowed. Drobeski doesn't understand such things.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

and so here we are... Senator Obama filibusters a judicial appointment in 2006 so Miitch McConnell is gonna' do it back.

 

meanwhile, the American people are shorted one judge.

 

Good Job... Good Effort - now stop focking acting bewildered why people will vote for Donald Trump, Kim Kardashian, and Mickey Mouse before any of the incumbent ass wholes.

 

They attempted to...couldn't really get the vote, so they had hearings and confirmed him.

They are refusing to do anything at this point.

Thing is...th epeople voting Trump that are all pissed at this stuff, suport this crap by McConnell right now.

[edjr 6,684]

 

and so here we are... Senator Obama filibusters a judicial appointment in 2006 so Miitch McConnell is gonna' do it back.

 

meanwhile, the American people are shorted one judge.

 

Good Job... Good Effort - now stop focking acting bewildered why people will vote for Donald Trump, Kim Kardashian, and Mickey Mouse before any of the incumbent ass wholes.

 

[Reality 3,121]

They also elected a republican majority congress...

Little known fact that the left conveniently ignores.

 

I am not in favor of blocking this judge tho.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,514]

 

Not even close. This group has been far worse and more obstructionist.

Its funny how much Trump people complain about wanting change from the same old same old crap out of congress...yet many of those same people are cheering on this foot dragging crap.

 

Its political BS...and playing the...well, they did it, is just crap.

 

Oh, and Reid and Pelosi never refused to have a hearing about a nominee like this, have they/?

 

 

The five highest-ranking Democrats in the nation once staunchly defended the Senate’s constitutional role in the Supreme Court confirmation process.

Or at least they did, until now.

Now, President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy are suddenly ignoring the constitutional role that the Senate is mandated in the Supreme Court confirmation process.

President Obama is demanding a rushed confirmation of his eventual nominee. He along with Vice President Biden, and Senators Reid, Schumer, and Leahy are not only ignoring the Constitution but also historic precedent that since at least 1880 stands firmly on the side to giving the American people a voice in choosing who the next Supreme Court justice will be when a vacancy arises in a Presidential election year.

But let’s look at what each of these men did and said when they were in the Senate faced with confirming Supreme Court nominees (not in an election year, where historic precedent favors delaying confirmation until the next officeholder, but in the middle of a President’s term in office).

President Obama:

Then-Senator Obama actually voted against Justice Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, taking a leading role in an attempted filibuster against his nomination, something the White House now mysteriously says he “regrets.”

Regret was hardly the word to describe his position at the time. He eloquently described his view of the significant role played by the Senate in the Supreme Court confirmation process:

"There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable, and an all­around good guy. That once you get beyond intellect, and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise AND consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record."

It would appear that President Obama is one of the “some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee” and that the Senate’s role is merely a rubber stamp. Though his position has changed, I don’t believe the words of the Constitution have.

Vice President Joe Biden:

When then-Senator Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, he nearly invented the filibuster of Supreme Court nominees. It was he who created the concept of “Borking” a nominee as he prevented President Reagan’s pick of Judge Robert Bork from being confirmed to the bench. Then-Senator Biden proclaimed:

"The framers clearly intended the Senate to serve as a check on the president and guarantee the independence of the judiciary," Mr. Biden said in August 1987 in defense of his newfound opposition to Judge Bork. "The Senate has an undisputed right to consider judicial philosophy."

As The Wall Street Journal chronicled a several years ago:

Under Mr. Biden's leadership, holding up nominations to the nation's appeals courts also became a routine exercise. In 1988, the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed 17 months before refusing to confirm law professor and scholar Bernard Siegan to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because of his libertarian positions on economic issues. . . . By 1992, 64 judicial nominees were stuck in the senatorial muck waiting for the Judiciary Committee to give them a yea or nay.

A once judicial obstructionist of legend is now mostly forgotten by today’s mainstream media.

In 2005, Senator Biden explained his philosophy at length:

"At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it's about compromise and moderation. The nuclear option extinguishes the power of independents and moderates in the Senate. That's it, they're done. Moderates are important if you need to get to 60 votes to satisfy cloture; they are much less so if you only need 50 votes. Let's set the historical record straight. Never has the Senate provided for a certainty that 51 votes could put someone on the bench or pass legislation."

A year later, Senator Biden quipped, "I think a filibuster makes sense when you have a prospect of actually succeeding." When Justice Alito’s nomination came before his committee, he declared, "If he really believes that reapportionment is a questionable decision . . . then clearly, clearly, you'll find a lot of people, including me, willing to do whatever they can to keep him off the court . . . . That would include a filibuster, if need be."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid:

As Senate Majority Leader, Reid slashed much of the Senate’s historic role in confirming judges by invoking the “nuclear option” – removing the filibuster from the confirmation process of many judgeships, but notably not the Supreme Court.

Of course Senator Reid has been the leader of political partisanship, flip-flopping on the judicial confirmation process more than anyone else in the Senate. After leading the filibusteragainst President Bush’s nominee to a circuit court judgeship, Miguel Estrada, andvehemently opposing the “nuclear option,” he then invoked the “nuclear option” to remove the filibuster when his party took the Senate and the White House.

But one thing Senator Reid has said stands out. Judicial nominations are so important that the Senate’s constitutional role is “at best, we move slowly” in the confirmation process. And in regard to its constitutionally prescribed “advice and consent” on Supreme Court nominations, he chided, “The Senate will enact its will.”

Senate Democrat Conference Vice Chairman Chuck Schumer

Senator Schumer has been one of the most outspoken promoters of the Senate’s power in the nomination process, taking that position to the extreme.

In 2007, he declared that the Senate “should not confirm a [bush] Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.” He continued: "We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito."

Of course, he too quickly abandoned this position this week.

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy:

Senator Leahy is probably the clearest supporter of the historic precedent against Supreme Court justices being confirmed in an election year.

The Washington Post highlights Senator Leahy’s consistent statements through the years:

: "The Thurmond Rule, in memory of Strom Thurmond – he put this in when the Republicans were in the minority, which said that in a presidential election year, after spring, no judges would go through except by the consent of both the Republican and Democratic [leaders]. I want to be bipartisan. We will institute the Thurmond Rule, yes.”

November 2004

: "Whether [Republicans] acknowledge it as the Thurmond Rule or something else, it is a well-established practice that in presidential election years, there comes a point when judicial confirmation hearings are not continued without agreement."

July 2004

: "At this point in a presidential election year, in accordance with the Thurmond Rule, only consensus nominees being taken up with the approval of the majority and minority leaders and the chairman and ranking members of the Judiciary Committee should be considered."

Well, consistent until now. He quickly, claimed this week, “Well, there is no such thing as a ‘Thurmond Rule.’ I used to tease the Republicans about it.” Um . . . really, you were just teasing?

President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Sens. Reid, Schumer, and Leahy are welcome to their opinion (and they can flip-flop as much as they want – and trust me, they will), but they aren’t entitled to their own facts.

[drobeski 3,061]

Why doesn't Barry just use that pen ?

[edjr 6,684]

Only people eligible for the Supreme Court should be people that vote both sides consistently.

[MDC 7,590]

So Obummer, Reid etc. didn't support refusing to even hold hearings at all.

[rholio 339]

Scalia, a conservative, was approved 98-0. Funny how we keep hearing about Bork instead.

[Sho Nuff 720]

BB posting more right wing garbage.

Its not a rushed process, they have how many months?

And the voters did speak, when they elected and reelected Obama knowing his job is to nominate people t empty seats on the court.

 

Have the hearings and vote against him...but do your focking job and quit making bs excuses.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,514]

BB posting more right wing garbage.

Its not a rushed process, they have how many months?

And the voters did speak, when they elected and reelected Obama knowing his job is to nominate people t empty seats on the court.

 

Have the hearings and vote against him...but do your focking job and quit making bs excuses.

 

 

So the "right garbage" I posted isn't true?

[mobb_deep 920]

 

 

So the "right garbage" I posted isn't true?

Show me the part where the constitution says a lame duck president does not nominate and appoint justices? This should be especially good, since we didn't even have term limits until like 1950 (one of many great amendments sponsored by democrats).

 

"The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court . . . .

[TimmySmith 2,783]

Show me the part where the constitution says a lame duck president does not nominate and appoint justices? This should be especially good, since we didn't even have term limits until like 1950 (one of many great amendments sponsored by democrats).

 

"The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court . . . .

Is anyone saying Obama cannot nominate a justice?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,583]

 

Agreed and Agreed and a big Fail.

 

The problem is that electing Donald Trump is only going to make all this bickering, arguing, hyper partisan non sense worse, not better. That's the whole problem with your last sentence. A+ for effort, but F for choice of execution.

 

There is a way to combat this. By electing people who are going to push for term limits. By electing people who have history of working across the aisle. By electing people who push for policies regarding more transparency in campaign spending. Pushing for elimination of election laws that make it where two stale parties operate without fear of competition (Libertarian). Etc. Etc.

 

That's how you combat partisanship and the status quo in Washington. Not electing reality TV stars who are more divisive than the people already there. I get the sentiment, but the choice of execution sucks balls.

Who is your second choice for pres behind Kasich?

[mobb_deep 920]

Is anyone saying Obama cannot nominate a justice?

Are you unclear about what the definition of appoint is?

[IGotWorms 4,060]

 

Look. That dumbfuck Jug-eared motherfucker was TOLD they wouldn't approve anybody he nominated.

But what's the dumbass do anyway? Nominate someone. Congress has the right to approve or deny the nomination.

 

What part don't you get?

Jesus you're an idiot

[RLLD 4,275]

Dysfunction is our govern mentioned now, and while it previously shorted us as has already been stated here, NOW it's giving momentum to the likes of Trump and Cruz.....

[hoytdwow 202]

Typical of repubetards to piss on the constitution

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

 

So the "right garbage" I posted isn't true?

Its partially true and lacks the context showing that they still held hearings and confirmed the guy rather than dragging their feet refusing to do anything.

[gocolts 300]

I thought they WERE doing their job?

They are doing what they were elected to do, for once. They ran on elect us and we will stop Obama. They have not stopped jackshtt, so it is about time the stood their ground. If they cave, which I would be willing to bet they do at some point, it will likely cost them both houses in the next election.

[Voltaire 5,363]

I'd like to see Judge Garland approved. He seems to be just what I'm looking for.

 

Furthermore, since Trump will get beat by Hillary, this is the best result the Senate GOP can reasonably hope for in the next five years. If they wait until after the election to approve him in the lame duck session, they run the risk that Obummer may use their own words against them and pull the nomination allowing Hillary can appoint a young flaming torridjoe-esque liberal freak Justice instead - to be approved by what'll likely be a Dem controlled Senate. Or maybe the Senate liberals will filibuster him themselves to get the same result.

 

I'm really shocked Obummer went with a moderate. The liberals in his party are angry at him for it. Unless you think Trump has more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning, approve the guy.

[Sho Nuff 720]

They are doing what they were elected to do, for once. They ran on elect us and we will stop Obama. They have not stopped jackshtt, so it is about time the stood their ground. If they cave, which I would be willing to bet they do at some point, it will likely cost them both houses in the next election.

Should cost them for continuing the bs obstruction crap.

[cbfalcon 827]

Republican views in regards to the next Supreme Court Justice : "We will use every move within our power to give the voters a voice in determining the next justice."

 

Republicans views in regards to the next President of the United States: "We will use every move within our power to ignore the voters voice in determining the next President."

 

[BunnysBastatrds 2,514]

Show me the part where the constitution says a lame duck president does not nominate and appoint justices? This should be especially good, since we didn't even have term limits until like 1950 (one of many great amendments sponsored by democrats).

 

"The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court . . . .

This should be even better...When did hardcore partisan politics begin? Yesterfawkingday? The president can nominate whoever the fawk he wants. The senate has the power, if they preside, whoever they want to continue the process whit him their jurisdiction.. It's in their power to do so. Pretty cut and dry. But not to whiney liberal phaggots like you who understand the politics of today who b!tch and Fawking moan when repubs pull the same antics that your side has in the past.

 

Your side wrote the play book on how to deal with this sh!t and then b!tch and Fawking moan when the tables are turned.

 

The repubs finally play your sides game and now you have a problem? Fawk the fawk off you partisan piece of sh!t. You're memory is weaker than Cuntons server defense.

[Voltaire 5,363]

Republicans are being idiots on this and cutting off their own noses. They're being offered an olive branch, so take it.

 

When Hillary wins, they'll get some uber-liberal they can't stand, some young Ruth Bader Ginsberg clone. Fock that. Well unless it looks like Sotomeyer, in her case no one wants to fock that.

 

There isn't recent historical precedent for blocking SCOTUS nominees this late in a President's term because we never get openings this late. Both Parties do however hold up judicial appointments in the last year of a president's term. That's certainly not unprecedented. The Dems did it to Good Bush and Retard Bush, the GOP did it to Clinton and now Obummer. Nothing unusual there.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,514]

So why do they do it? If there was and is no precedent, why?

[Voltaire 5,363]

So why do they do it? If there was and is no precedent, why?

They do it because they control the Senate and want their own party's nominee to appoint judges and justices if they win rather than approve the sitting president of the other party's nominee.

 

In this case, their party's nominee will surely lose so they may as well take half a loaf when it's offered.

[mobb_deep 920]

This should be even better...When did hardcore partisan politics begin? Yesterfawkingday? The president can nominate whoever the fawk he wants. The senate has the power, if they preside, whoever they want to continue the process whit him their jurisdiction.. It's in their power to do so. Pretty cut and dry. But not to whiney liberal phaggots like you who understand the politics of today who b!tch and Fawking moan when repubs pull the same antics that your side has in the past.

 

Your side wrote the play book on how to deal with this sh!t and then b!tch and Fawking moan when the tables are turned.

 

The repubs finally play your sides game and now you have a problem? Fawk the fawk off you partisan piece of sh!t. You're memory is weaker than Cuntons server defense.

Just wow. Have a good life, guys. This place is too much.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,514]

They do it because they control the Senate and want their own party's nominee to appoint judges and justices if they win rather than approve the sitting president of the other party's nominee.

 

In this case, their party's nominee will surely lose so they may as well take half a loaf when it's offered.

Surely lose.....There is a movement going on. And nothing is "sure" in this election. We shall see.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,514]

Just wow. Have a good life, guys. This place is too much.

Just wow? Can't handle the facts? Shocking. Were you paying attention when Reagan won? They said the same things. And when he won, in a Fawking landslide, the speaker of the house, Tip Oneil, sat down with him and worked things out. They compromised. No?

 

When the repubs took control for the first time in decades, the dems got nasty and started all of this partisan BS we have today. When they lost their power, all he'll broke loose.

 

And the icing on the cake was Bush/Gore. It's been he'll fire since. Add in the leftist media and there is no one to blame but the left. We are where we are because of it. And that!

 

The Contract With America and that election forced the liberal elite machine to go into full destruction mode.

 

We are where we are today because of that loss by the dems. They were priveladged fawks who lost and went full retard trying to save face and regain power by any means necessary.

 

Go cry somewhere else. ThinkProgress is a start. Soros and company rely on people like yourself. and complain about the process, and once it unfolds, cry a river and then complain again about it being "to much!".

 

Those of us on the right are doing EXACTLY what those of you on the left would do. Support your side and move on to the next obstacle in the way. Get it?

[Voltaire 5,363]

Surely lose.....There is a movement going on. And nothing is "sure" in this election. We shall see.

Maybe. I do know in my case, I've voted Dem four straight times and will not do so this year. I like Kasich and dislike Trump and Cruz less than I dislike Sanders and Hillary. I'll go back to the GOP and vote for Trump. If there's enough people like me...

 

I just don't think there are. The dude scares a lot of people, especially the wealthy donor class that runs the Party an who he'll need money from. He probably chases those votes away and while he inspires a lot of new people he also scares at least as many, if not more.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,583]

Just wow? Can't handle the facts? Shocking. Were you paying attention when Reagan won? They said the same things. And when he won, in a Fawking landslide, the speaker of the house, Tip Oneil, sat down with him and worked things out. They compromised. No?

 

When the repubs took control for the first time in decades, the dems got nasty and started all of this partisan BS we have today. When they lost their power, all he'll broke loose.

 

And the icing on the cake was Bush/Gore. It's been he'll fire since. Add in the leftist media and there is no one to blame but the left. We are where we are because of it. And that!

 

The Contract With America and that election forced the liberal elite machine to go into full destruction mode.

 

We are where we are today because of that loss by the dems. They were priveladged fawks who lost and went full retard trying to save face and regain power by any means necessary.

 

Go cry somewhere else. ThinkProgress is a start. Soros and company rely on people like yourself. ###### and complain about the process, and once it unfolds, cry a river and then complain again about it being "to much!".

 

Those of us on the right are doing EXACTLY what those of you on the left would do. Support your side and move on to the next obstacle in the way. Get it?

The Iraq war was a the lefts idea and it's their fault.

[Voltaire 5,363]

This has been a really good political week for me, which is nice since hating both parties means I have so few. Rubio left the campaign trail, Kasich is still alive, and now Garland is the SCOTUS nominee. That's as good as it gets for me.

[DankNuggs 305]

Show me the part where the constitution says a lame duck president does not nominate and appoint justices? This should be especially good, since we didn't even have term limits until like 1950 (one of many great amendments sponsored by democrats).

 

"The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court . . . .

Consent not granted

[penultimatestraw 473]

Interesting, so Alito had a confirmation hearing...on the senate floor and everything and the minority party attempted to filibuster a scheduled vote. Hmmm, that seems a bit different than today's situation.

No kidding. I can't believe this is even an issue. Since republicans think it is apprpriate to blanket oppose any nomination, should a republican president be elected, why shouldn't democrats do the same?

 

What is the logic dictating nearly a year should pass before the justice is appointed? Why not 5 years?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,514]

Maybe. I do know in my case, I've voted Dem four straight times and will not do so this year. I like Kasich and dislike Trump and Cruz less than I dislike Sanders and Hillary. I'll go back to the GOP and vote for Trump. If there's enough people like me...

 

I just don't think there are. The dude scares a lot of people, especially the wealthy donor class that runs the Party an who he'll need money from. He probably chases those votes away and while he inspires a lot of new people he also scares at least as many, if not more.

One of the biggest phenomena is Trump is barely spending any money. He's doing it by media mostly. It's amazing to watch. Smoke and mirrors to this point. Amazing.

 

Even if he doesn't win, he's shown a path for future candidates. Either side. Establishment fawks are watching and learning.

 

Whether you like him or not, he's changing the policies DC has had in place for decades. He's the reverse switch on a vacuum.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,514]

The Iraq war was a the lefts idea and it's their fault.

They voted for it? Kerry? Clinton? Schummer? They are as culpable as the rest?

 

Thought: Whenever someone says "The president has no real power!!!" Think of that. The president persuaded congress and lied, according to poosay dems, and got us into a conflict."

 

Yup! The president has zero power to influence anything. He's just a tool for congress. Doesn't matter whose elected Prez.

 

Anyone who thinks or says that is a fawning moron and needs to be punched in their private parts by the coach who was forced to teach civics by the school board that hired them.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,583]

One of the biggest phenomena is Trump is barely spending any money. He's doing it by media mostly. It's amazing to watch. Smoke and mirrors to this point. Amazing.

 

Even if he doesn't win, he's shown a path for future candidates. Either side. Establishment fawks are watching and learning.

 

Whether you like him or not, he's changing the policies DC has had in place for decades. He's the reverse switch on a vacuum.

His path is not a path for future candidates. He had incredible name recognition before he ran, that and saying controversial things get him all that free publicity. It's a unique set of circumstances that have put him where he is. Your run of the mill billionaire won't begin in the spotlight likeTrump. Plus he's shameless. What kind of person has his failed business ventures on display on a table after a debate? A stack of steaks and some generic water that he put his name on? Not many people would be willing to make a spectacle of themselves like he does. It's working for him, but I doubt it would for most.