Funny that the left is so concerned about what the Constitution says about appointing someone to the Supreme Court when they don't want whoever is appointed to follow the Constitution anyway....

Funny that the left is so concerned about what the Constitution says about appointing someone to the Supreme Court when they don't want whoever is appointed to follow the Constitution anyway....

 

Funny that the right is so adamant that the Constitution be ignored when it comes to appointing someone when they say they want someone appointed who will strictly follow the Constitution.

Funny that the right is so adamant that the Constitution be ignored when it comes to appointing someone when they say they want someone appointed who will strictly follow the Constitution.

 

Zinger!!!

As someone pointed out the other day on TV, Scalia himself would oppose this latest obstruction tactic by the GOP because it runs counter to the intent of the founding fathers.

As someone pointed out the other day on TV, Scalia himself would oppose this latest obstruction tactic by the GOP because it runs counter to the intent of the founding fathers.

 

 

Correct.

 

President nominates a moderate, they will get approved.

The Republicrats are at it again.

 

If the roles were reversed, the arguments would be too.

 

When it comes to politics, the shoe always ends up on the other foot.

 

Schumer: Don't use my 2007 speech to justify blocking Obama nominee | Washington Examiner

 

Excellent point. One interesting thing about politics is if you wait long enough all debate comes full circle with opposing sides migrating to each other.

Correct.

 

President nominates a moderate, they will get approved.

That's not what McConnell is saying. He's saying no nominee of this president will be considered by this Senate. Where the nominee registers on the political scale is of no significance.

That's not what McConnell is saying. He's saying no nominee of this president will be considered by this Senate. Where the nominee registers on the political scale is of no significance.

 

Correct, McConnell wants the peasants/tax slaves to have a say in it during the election. McConnell clearly doesn't understand that the American citizens shouldn't have a voice in the laws of the land for the next 30 years. Well after Obama's reign.

Correct.

 

President nominates a moderate, they will get approved.

 

 

If the President puts up a moderate ,they would be wise to approve him/her. But they won't.

Correct, McConnell wants the peasants/tax slaves to have a say in it during the election. McConnell clearly doesn't understand that the American citizens shouldn't have a voice in the laws of the land for the next 30 years. Well after Obama's reign.

 

Well where does that end? We won't consider nominees for the court in an election year. Then we won't do it in the last 18 months of a lame duck. Then we won't do it in the last two years. Then we won't consider it during the term of any president we don't like.

 

This is not a good road. Do what the Democrats did with Bork: get the nominee in, vote him or her down, send them home.

That's not what McConnell is saying. He's saying no nominee of this president will be considered by this Senate. Where the nominee registers on the political scale is of no significance.

 

He is an idiot.

 

If they truly were not going to approve someone, they wouldn't have come out and said it.

 

They did, and someone will be praised as being able to reach across and get something done.

 

The President will also not nominate a moderate.

Correct, McConnell wants the peasants/tax slaves to have a say in it during the election. McConnell clearly doesn't understand that the American citizens shouldn't have a voice in the laws of the land for the next 30 years. Well after Obama's reign.

What you describe is not how the system works. It's not what the Constitution mandates. Such GOP obstruction tactics would not please Justice Scalia. McConnell and his Ft. Thomas supporters should have worked harder three years ago to elect Romney.

McConnell's statement would seem to be a blunder, but as I said before if the Senate moves to confirm an Obama appointment swiftly it will all but guarantee a Trump or Cruz nomination. McConnell has some strategic reasons to have beaten them to the punch on it, especially with the debate being that night.

 

The big question in my estimation is whether McConnell and Republicans will come around on a confirmation once the party's presidential nomination is locked in.

Well where does that end? We won't consider nominees for the court in an election year. Then we won't do it in the last 18 months of a lame duck. Then we won't do it in the last two years. Then we won't consider it during the term of any president we don't like.

 

This is not a good road. Do what the Democrats did with Bork: get the nominee in, vote him or her down, send them home.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the first paragraph. And really the second, just from a perspective of that would have seemed to be the best strategy. The effectiveness of that strategy is undercut to a degree by the pronouncements they have made, of just blocking anyone. Finally, there is this persistent idea that Bork got done wrong, and he kinda did and kinda didn't. Kinda did in that the forces against him really blindsided him and "made a point" out of him. Kinda didn't in that he didn't deserve to be on the court. Believed poll taxes would be constitutional and committed an adjudged criminal act in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre in exchange for Nixon's promise to nominate him. (A promise Nixon couldn't keep because he left office). But I would agree that while a "no" vote on him was required (imo) that there was no reason to make a spectacle out of him.

What you describe is not how the system works. It's not what the Constitution mandates. Such GOP obstruction tactics would not please Justice Scalia. McConnell and his Ft. Thomas supporters should have worked harder three years ago to elect Romney.

 

Again, now the Dems want to follow the constitution when it benefits them. We can go round and round all you want. When one side has the advantage the constitution works again.