Sorry Obama: No SJC Hearing For You!

[EagleSmack]

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.

You are correct. I think it would simply be a Senate rule change that states a hearing must be held within a certain amount of time and a vote within a certain amount of time.

As it stands the Senate is under no obligation to even read the name of a Presidential nominee.

 

[gopher]

Bork. Ginsburg. Miers.

The problem ain't the process. The problem's the shrieking morons who think every little political spat is

Bork = denied by Dems


Ginsburg = denied by GOP

Miers = denied by GOP





the problem is the delusionals who can only criticize Dems while ignoring their own hypocrisy and double standards

Now THIS is delusional. Not the first part but the bold enlarged font. You have to admit... that's pretty delusional.

No, the delusionalism is how you again FAIL and are caught in your hypocrisy.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

They don't like Hillary either, and last I checked, she's white as Queen Elizabeth.

It's not the same, they don't like Hillary because she's a threat to them.

 

[EagleSmack]

No, the delusionalism is how you again FAIL and are caught in your hypocrisy.

Where is the hypocrisy? Perhaps you can use your imagination again to come up with something.


Perhaps your nonsense stems from the fact that you said the senate is obligated to approve the President's nominees... which of course is completely false.

 

[FiveParadox]

Perhaps your nonsense stems from the fact that you said the senate is obligated to approve the President's nominees... which of course is completely false.

There is no obligation to approve the president's nominee, but they absolutely are required to undertake, in good faith, the consideration of the president's nominee, and to make a decision on whether or not to approve that nomination. All of this non-sense around a committee chairperson, by Republican fiat, refusing to even bring the matter up for consideration is an affront to the proper functioning of the senate — and is fully and offensively unconstitutional.

 

[pgs]

There is no obligation to approve the president's nominee, but they absolutely are required to undertake, in good faith, the consideration of the president's nominee, and to make a decision on whether or not to approve that nomination. All of this non-sense around a committee chairperson, by Republican fiat, refusing to even bring the matter up for consideration is an affront to the proper functioning of the senate — and is fully and offensively unconstitutional.

Did you feel the same when the democrats did it ?

 

[FiveParadox]

Did you feel the same when the democrats did it ?

Yes. The senate has a constitutional duty to provide advice to the president on his nominees for high office.

 

[EagleSmack]

There is no obligation to approve the president's nominee, but they absolutely are required to undertake, in good faith, the consideration of the president's nominee, and to make a decision on whether or not to approve that nomination. All of this non-sense around a committee chairperson, by Republican fiat, refusing to even bring the matter up for consideration is an affront to the proper functioning of the senate — and is fully and offensively unconstitutional.

No they are not required to do anything of the sort. You and the Democrats want them to but they are not required to do anything.

Yes. The senate has a constitutional duty to provide advice to the president on his nominees for high office.

Democrats and Republicans Agree: Senate Should Hold No Hearings and No Votes on Supreme Court Nominee | American Center for Law and Justice


"The U.S. Senate has the constitutional right to hold no hearings and no votes on President Obama’s eventual nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court."

 

[damngrumpy]

That's OK when Ms Clinton takes over she can appoint someone on the left
The way its going in the real election Democrats may have the House and
Senate too as the current crop of GOP Presidential leaders have turned this
into a disgrace unfortunately America needs two strong parties without
insane leadership. .

 

[pgs]

That's OK when Ms Clinton takes over she can appoint someone on the left
The way its going in the real election Democrats may have the House and
Senate too as the current crop of GOP Presidential leaders have turned this
into a disgrace unfortunately America needs two strong parties without
insane leadership. .

Which Ms. Clinton is that. I understand there is a Mrs. Clinton seeking the democratic nomination if she can stay out of jail long enough .
But look as I may I cannot find a Ms. Clinton .

 

[EagleSmack]

That's OK when Ms Clinton takes over she can appoint someone on the left
The way its going in the real election Democrats may have the House and
Senate too as the current crop of GOP Presidential leaders have turned this
into a disgrace unfortunately America needs two strong parties without
insane leadership. .

If she is the President she certainly could.


But seriously DG... the last two midterms your predictions failed miserably. You have no clue about US Politics. You simply say the Democrats are going to win each and every time.

 

[FiveParadox]

"The U.S. Senate has the constitutional right to hold no hearings and no votes on President Obama’s eventual nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court."

How very shocking! To hear a socially-conservative, Christian-based, Republican-backing organization stating that it is perfectly constitutional to have the Senate refuse to perform one of its only functions set out in the United States constitution, to the advantage of the Republican Party!

 

[darkbeaver]

That's OK when Ms Clinton takes over she can appoint someone on the left
The way its going in the real election Democrats may have the House and
Senate too as the current crop of GOP Presidential leaders have turned this
into a disgrace unfortunately America needs two strong parties without
insane leadership. .

You've obviously become self radiacalized. There is only one party.

I believe there is a reward offered for turning your kind in.

 

[gopher]

Where is the hypocrisy? Perhaps you can use your imagination again to come up with something.


Perhaps your nonsense stems from the fact that you said the senate is obligated to approve the President's nominees... which of course is completely false.

and your problem is the fact that you said what goes around comes around as if the Dems denied the Reps when they didn't

but keep playing your BROKEN RECORD

 

[EagleSmack]

How very shocking! To hear a socially-conservative, Christian-based, Republican-backing organization stating that it is perfectly constitutional to have the Senate refuse to perform one of its only functions set out in the United States constitution, to the advantage of the Republican Party!

And they would be right in doing so. VP and Democrat Joe Biden agrees as do many other Democrats.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

And they would be right in doing so. VP and Democrat Joe Biden agrees as do many other Democrats.

While they can, I actually would be surprised if they will. I suspect this is a posturing for something later. They are just raising the stakes a bit on a game which has been played for as long as these 2 parties have been around (as you mentioned with Biden's speech). I would have to think that the Republican braintrust must realize that some time in the future the situation will be reversed and if they play their cards here, the hand dealt them down the road will be the same. But if they are only looking at 2016, then my thinking may be wrong.

 

[EagleSmack]

While they can, I actually would be surprised if they will. I suspect this is a posturing for something later. They are just raising the stakes a bit on a game which has been played for as long as these 2 parties have been around (as you mentioned with Biden's speech). I would have to think that the Republican braintrust must realize that some time in the future the situation will be reversed and if they play their cards here, the hand dealt them down the road will be the same. But if they are only looking at 2016, then my thinking may be wrong.

And if the situation was reversed you can bet your bottom dollar the Dems would do the same thing. Biden and other Democrats confirmed they would.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

And if the situation was reversed you can bet your bottom dollar the Dems would do the same thing. Biden and other Democrats confirmed they would.

Yes, there seems to be an escalation each time it happens. But yes, neither political party are angels in this regard.

 

[gopher]

And if the situation was reversed you can bet your bottom dollar the Dems would do the same thing. Biden and other Democrats confirmed they would.

BROKEN RECORD




THE THOMAS CONFIRMATION - SENATE CONFIRMS THOMAS, 52-48, ENDING WEEK OF BITTER BATTLE - 'TIME FOR HEALING,' JUDGE SAYS - NYTimes.com





this because 11 Democrats voted in his favor - now it's time for Republicans to return the favor

 

[darkbeaver]

You all know I don't comment on American politics. What an intellectual cluster fuk! If you don't know up five minutes into it you should abandon the thoughts