But Eagle - the Senate DID approve of Bush's nominee.
Therefore, they are obligated to do the same today.
Therefore, they are obligated to do the same today.
He has every right to submit a name. The GOP has every right to not hold a hearing. They're doing their job too.
As was pointed out... the Dems in Congress during the final Bush year made it clear that a SJC Judge should not be appointed by him.
They are obligated to follow the law and procedures. Any other "obligation" is just your opinion.But Eagle - the Senate DID approve of Bush's nominee.
Therefore, they are obligated to do the same today.
But Eagle - the Senate DID approve of Bush's nominee.
Therefore, they are obligated to do the same today.
They shouldn't have the right to "not hold a hearing."
The power that is vested in committee chairs to completely veto government business by simply refusing to put an item of business on an agenda is nonsense. I feel the same about the power of the House Speaker to effectively veto any piece of government business by refusing to put it on the agenda of the House of Representatives.
If they feel that the president's nominee should not be ratified, then they should defeat the motion to ratify them. This bizarre declaration that a president does not have the constitutional authority of a president for at least a quarter of their term is cheap political gamesmanship.
They shouldn't have the right to "not hold a hearing."
It worked well under Harry Reid when he was in charge of the Senate. He blocked and obstructed just about everything to shield the President.The power that is vested in committee chairs to completely veto government business by simply refusing to put an item of business on an agenda is nonsense. I feel the same about the power of the House Speaker to effectively veto any piece of government business by refusing to put it on the agenda of the House of Representatives.
Nobody is saying the President can't be the President. That is just the Democrats and Libs acting as they do. The President can certainly choose a nominee... the Senate is simply not going to have a hearing.If they feel that the president's nominee should not be ratified, then they should defeat the motion to ratify them. This bizarre declaration that a president does not have the constitutional authority of a president for at least a quarter of their term is cheap political gamesmanship.
I guess he just disapproves of the system of checks and balances laid down in the Constitution.No they are not obligated to approve a nominee. Do you have any idea how the SJC nomination process works?
And that's exactly what the Framers intended. They weren't fools, and they understood that balancing the self-interest and selfishness of the various factions was the best way to keep things on an even keel.That is how political parties operate. It has nothing to do with what is right or good for the country.
I guess he just disapproves of the system of checks and balances laid down in the Constitution.
Near as I can tell, that system's working. Obama's people have been searching for somebody who'd be acceptable to most folks in both parties. They already came up with one:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...da-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/
Funny how people who want to turn the U.S. into a leftwing or rightwing paradise (for values of paradise = nightmare) keep getting blocked by that pesky Constitution.
You do understand, I hope, that politicians change positions all the time, right?From what I have seen and read, the issue is that the Senate absolutely won't, under any circumstances, look at anyone Obama suggests.
Even if they would normally be acceptable.
I'm all for people doing their jobs, but before the body was even cold you had Republicans say "Absolutely no" on an Obama choice.
Going from "not nominating" and "seriously considering not scheduling hearings" to outright "We don't care it's not gonna happen no matter what" is huge, IMO.
Tell you what. Why don't you write down your feelings and send them to the Senate? Maybe we'll get a Constitutional amendment going to help you feel better.They shouldn't have the right to "not hold a hearing."
The power that is vested in committee chairs to completely veto government business by simply refusing to put an item of business on an agenda is nonsense. I feel the same about the power of the House Speaker to effectively veto any piece of government business by refusing to put it on the agenda of the House of Representatives.
If they feel that the president's nominee should not be ratified, then they should defeat the motion to ratify them. This bizarre declaration that a president does not have the constitutional authority of a president for at least a quarter of their term is cheap political gamesmanship.
Tell you what. Why don't you write down your feelings and send them to the Senate? Maybe we'll get a Constitutional amendment going to help you feel better.
Maybe he meant this part. . .And that is the kicker. I am listening to NPR and a Democrat Senator is saying the Republicans must follow the Constitution and fulfill their Constitutional duties and hold a hearing. But the fact of the matter is that it is NOT in the Constitution that they have to do such a thing. Either the Democrat Senator has no clue or she knows her constituents have no clue. I am thinking the latter.
Maybe he meant this part. . .
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . ."
--U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 5, cl. 2.
They are obligated to follow the law and procedures. Any other "obligation" is just your opinion.
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed," ~ Sen. Joe Biden Democrat
Bork. Ginsburg. Miers.Technically you are correct.
But in this matter Eagle and other right wingers in their delusionalism have said what goes around comes around in that they believe the Dems denied the Repubs their choice. That because of this the GOP now has the right to turn the tables. But as you well know and Eagle FAILS to understand is that the Dems did NOT deny the Repubs their nominee.
They don't like Hillary either, and last I checked, she's white as Queen Elizabeth.The GOP hardliners don't like Obama because he is a "******", there is nothing else to talk about.
Technically you are correct.
But in this matter Eagle and other right wingers in their delusionalism have said what goes around comes around in that they believe the Dems denied the Repubs their choice.
That because of this the GOP now has the right to turn the tables. But as you well know and Eagle FAILS to understand is that the Dems did NOT deny the Repubs their nominee.
Therefore, they have no possible justification for denying the Dems as a matter of revenge the way their deluded believers are saying here.
BUT THE SENATE DID HOLD THOSE HEARINGS AND IT WAS BIDEN WHO PRESIDED WHEN CLARENCE THOMAS WAS APPROVED.
Case closed.
But Eagle - the Senate DID approve of Bush's nominee.
Therefore, they are obligated to do the same today.