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.
Sorry Obama: No SJC Hearing For You!
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
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 are obligated to follow the law and procedures. Any other "obligation" is just your opinion.
No they are not obligated to approve a nominee. Do you have any idea how the SJC nomination process works?
That is how political parties operate. It has nothing to do with what is right or good for the country.
Then perhaps a law needs to be changed because clearly they do have that right and the Democrats #2 in charge agrees.
"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
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.
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.
Elections have consequences.
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.
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.
And if he does send a person that is agreeable to them the Senate should reconsider and give the nominee a look. If he sends another Sotomayer type for consideration they should stick to their position IMO.
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.
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.
Yes that is what they've said and it is their right to do exactly that if they so desire. The Democrats would do the same thing as Joe Biden stated in the past. It is fun to see the Democrats trying to wiggle out of their #2 man's words.
For your review...
"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
and he added....
"seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."
For your review...
"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
and he added....
"seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."
You do understand, I hope, that politicians change positions all the time, right?
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.
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.
Perhaps.
The rules were A-OK under Sen. Harry Reid (D) up until the last midterms. Now the Dems don't like it so much.
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.
All along McConnell said that the vacancy needs to be filled:
Mitch McConnell In 2005 Disagrees With Mitch McConnell Now On Obama Replacing Scalia | Crooks and Liars
if he and other Republicans had any principle at all they would do so now.
BUT THE SENATE DID HOLD THOSE HEARINGS AND IT WAS BIDEN WHO PRESIDED WHEN CLARENCE THOMAS WAS APPROVED.
Case closed.
Bork. Ginsburg. Miers.
The problem ain't the process. The problem's the shrieking morons who think every little political spat is
The GOP hardliners don't like Obama because he is a "******", there is nothing else to talk about.
They don't like Hillary either, and last I checked, she's white as Queen Elizabeth.
No... that was your delusion. I never said the Dems denied the Republicans their choice... so again you are delusional not me.
I do understand.... again you are letting your imagination run free,
No revenge... the GOP is just following Democrat advice. Funny isn't it?
I think you're missing the point and are upset.
So you had hoped.
Now THIS is delusional. Not the first part but the bold enlarged font. You have to admit... that's pretty delusional.
They can always pass an law or amendment forcing future senates to always hold the hearing or always not hold the hearing in election years. Of course if next pres is a republican, expect the dems to be back in the house in 4 or so years (it usually works that way) and it may bite you in the ****.
Or they can enjoy the payback anyways when the time comes.
Or they can enjoy the payback anyways when the time comes.