Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » McConnell: Senate won't act on Obama Supreme Court nominee

McConnell: Senate won't act on Obama Supreme Court nominee

+2
Sal
ZVUGKTUBM
6 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/index.html

What will the Republicans do if they do not win back the Oval Office in November and lose their tenuous majority in the Senate?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sal

Sal

2seaoat



It may not matter. The Republican senators who are in swing states and up for election this fall are beginning to sway.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-mark-kirk-scalia-obama-met-20160222-story.html

More to come exactly as I predicted. If Obama proposes a moderate candidate, those senators on the bubble may break ranks and argue that it is better to compromise and get a moderate in negotiations, than to fight and get a radical justice....more to come.

Markle

Markle

Sal

Sal

Markle

Markle



Aren't video tapes fun?

Sal

Sal

That's right, Ol' Man Markle.

If a senator does not consent to a SCOTUS nominee, he/she is well within their constitutional right to vote against or even filibuster the nominee.

However, refusing to even give a nominee a hearing because it's the last year of a President's term is unprecedented and an abdication of their sworn constitutional responsibility.

The blowback for this is going to be massive.

2seaoat



Kirk jumped ship exactly like I predicted a week ago, and more to come.....when a justice dies in office and less than an hour later a Senator is making chit up about an election year restriction in our constitution, or that the people have not already spoke by a five million vote plurality.....then senators are going to be left out to wither on the vine as the American people who understand the constitution know this is a variance from what our founding fathers intended.....but heck.....the senate will be hand delivered to the democrats and in the long shot of a Republican being elected, do you really think the democrats are going to be stupid enough when they control the senate to make statements about not holding confirmation hearings? really?

2seaoat



Aren't video tapes fun?



If they are truthful and not manipulated by propagandist.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://jimhightower.com/node/8848#.VszInfkrLIV

Mitch McConnell's squirrelly effort to rewrite our Constitution

Monday, February 22, 2016 | Posted by Jim Hightower

Antonin Scalia is gone. The nastiest and noisiest of right wingers on the Supreme Court is dead.

But he can't be more brain dead than Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader of the US Senate. In a blatantly-partisan ploy to prevent President Obama from nominating a successor to Scalia, McConnell has cited a historical precedent dictating that presidents who're in the last year of their term do not name new justices to the high court. "Therefore," he babbled, "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

What a silly old squirrel, McConnell is! Article II of the US Constitution plainly states that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... Judges of the Supreme Court." Note that the Constitution says the president "shall" do this – as a duty to the Nation. Nothing in the founding document suggests that this power and duty is voided in an election year. In fact, 13 Supreme Court nominations have been made in presidential election years, and the Senate took action on 11 of them. McConnell's assertion is bogus (and silly), for history and the Constitution clearly back Obama.

Ironically, one who would have nailed McConnell for such a slapstick political perversion of plain constitutional language is Scalia himself. He practiced what he called "originalism" in his official judgments, insisting that the Constitution must be interpreted only by the words in it and only by the original meaning those words had for the founders when they wrote them into the document.

McConnell's squirrelly stall tactic is as ridiculous as it is shameful. It's also totally hypocritical, since Mitch himself voted in February 1988 to confirm a Supreme Court nominee put forth by Ronald Reagan – in the last year of his presidency.

"In Court Fight, History Backs Obama," www.nytimes.com, February 16, 2016.

"More Republicans Vow to Block Any Nominee," www.nytimes.com, February 16, 2016.

"Battle Over Bench Started Well Before Scalia's Death," www.nytimes.com, February 15, 2016.

"Supreme Court Nominees Considered In Election Years Are Usually Confirmed," www.nytimes.com, February 16, 2016.

Sal

Sal

It's going to create quite the visual when the old white men of the GOP Senate refuse to even meet with the President's nominee, who will probably be female and/or a minority.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Obama offers hints on Supreme Court pick
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

The President is going to raise the ante on this bet by nominating someone. It will be interesting to watch the GOP squirm.

And remember, two GOP Senators are hot in the running for the Republican nomination for POTUS. I wonder if Cruz or Rubio would be absent for this vote? Those two have been playing hooky from the Senate a lot lately.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Obama offers hints on Supreme Court pick
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee/index.html

The President is going to raise the ante on this bet by nominating someone. It will be interesting to watch the GOP squirm.

And remember, two GOP Senators are hot in the running for the Republican nomination for POTUS. I wonder if Cruz or Rubio would be absent for this vote? Those two have been playing hooky from the Senate a lot lately.

Rubio is getting a lot of attention from big money. It must be going to his head, because it is clear that he isn't presidential material. Plus, he's all but abdicated his Senate seat...I guess the Senate is just not a big enough challenge. In Texas, we would call Rubio "all hat and no cattle". That would be charitable.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Floridatexan wrote: Plus, he's all but abdicated his Senate seat...I guess the Senate is just not a big enough challenge.

Rubio isn't in politics for power; he is in it for $$$$. He'll leave the Senate and parlay his failed presidential bid into a fat-cat lobbying job on K Street that offers much more money than the pay a Senator makes.



Last edited by ZVUGKTUBM on 2/25/2016, 1:31 am; edited 1 time in total

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

Heard some far-fetched reasoning today about Trump and Cruz. Cruz backs Trump for the November election win and then Cruz is nominated by Trump to the Supreme Court.

Wake me up... Shocked

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Salinsky wrote:
....   refusing to even give a nominee a hearing because it's the last year of a President's term is unprecedented and an abdication of their sworn constitutional responsibility.

There's no Constitutional requirement for the Senate to hold a confirmation hearing.   Although there is one that the President seek the advice of and obtain the consent of the Senate when appointing a new Justice ... so a vote at some point would be Constitutionally in order.   But they could do that in about 10 minutes without holding hearings if they wanted to.

Has Obama asked the Senate their "advice" yet?   If not, I suggest he start with a polite hat-in-hand phone call to Mitch.   That would kind of seem to be the first step per the Constitution.

Salinsky wrote:
The blowback for this is going to be massive.[/font]

Doubt it.   How many times in recent years has Congress and the President failed to have a budget?    They told us the world would fall apart if we had a partial government shut-down too .... didn't happen. I could give plenty of other examples of Presidential and Congressional actions/inaction where fears of blowback turned out to be overblown.

But okay, I'll play along ..... tell us then 'Chicken Little' how it's going to be "massive."   What do you think would happen?   Realistically.  I'm listening.

Sal

Sal

EmeraldGhost wrote:

But okay, I'll play along ..... tell us then 'Chicken Little' how it's going to be "massive."   What do you think would happen?   Realistically.  I'm listening.

I'm a little reluctant to match wits with the prognosticator who told us that our next President will be a giant sack of feathers named Marco, but I guess I'll give it a shot ...

... I think you'll see President Obama nominate a very qualified, uncontroversial, and moderate woman and/or minority, and the old, white men of the GOP will refuse to allow them even a courtesy visit, and then President Obama and his nominee will parade through the state of every vulnerable Republican Senator.

The blowback will come in the form of control of the Senate and a much more liberal nominee chosen by Hillary Clinton, with possibly two more to come.

"A hat-in-hand phone call to Mitch" ...

Hahahahahahah, people who have administered as many whoopings as Obama has administered to that shriveled old turtle don't make "hat-in-hand phone calls", poindexter.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Salinsky wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:

But okay, I'll play along ..... tell us then 'Chicken Little' how it's going to be "massive."   What do you think would happen?   Realistically.  I'm listening.

I'm a little reluctant to match wits with the prognosticator who told us that our next President will be a giant sack of feathers named Marco, but I guess I'll give it a shot ...

... I think you'll see President Obama nominate a very qualified, uncontroversial, and moderate woman and/or minority, and the old, white men of the GOP will refuse to allow them even a courtesy visit, and then President Obama and his nominee will parade through the state of every vulnerable Republican Senator.

The blowback will come in the form of control of the Senate and a much more liberal nominee chosen by Hillary Clinton, with possibly two more to come.

"A hat-in-hand phone call to Mitch" ...

Hahahahahahah, people who have administered as many whoopings as Obama has administered to that shriveled old turtle don't make "hat-in-hand phone calls", poindexter.

I agree with Sal....

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

EmeraldGhost wrote:
Salinsky wrote:
....   refusing to even give a nominee a hearing because it's the last year of a President's term is unprecedented and an abdication of their sworn constitutional responsibility.

There's no Constitutional requirement for the Senate to hold a confirmation hearing.   Although there is one that the President seek the advice of and obtain the consent of the Senate when appointing a new Justice ... so a vote at some point would be Constitutionally in order.   But they could do that in about 10 minutes without holding hearings if they wanted to.

Has Obama asked the Senate their "advice" yet?   If not, I suggest he start with a polite hat-in-hand phone call to Mitch.   That would kind of seem to be the first step per the Constitution.

Salinsky wrote:
The blowback for this is going to be massive.[/font]

Doubt it.   How many times in recent years has Congress and the President failed to have a budget?    They told us the world would fall apart if we had a partial government shut-down too .... didn't happen.  I could give plenty of other examples of Presidential and Congressional actions/inaction where fears of blowback turned out to be overblown.

But okay, I'll play along ..... tell us then 'Chicken Little' how it's going to be "massive."   What do you think would happen?   Realistically.  I'm listening.

Those government shutdowns and the sequester which they managed to blame on the President cost billions in lost revenue.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Salinsky wrote:
....   refusing to even give a nominee a hearing because it's the last year of a President's term is unprecedented and an abdication of their sworn constitutional responsibility.

There's no Constitutional requirement for the Senate to hold a confirmation hearing.   Although there is one that the President seek the advice of and obtain the consent of the Senate when appointing a new Justice ... so a vote at some point would be Constitutionally in order.   But they could do that in about 10 minutes without holding hearings if they wanted to.

Has Obama asked the Senate their "advice" yet?   If not, I suggest he start with a polite hat-in-hand phone call to Mitch.   That would kind of seem to be the first step per the Constitution.

Salinsky wrote:
The blowback for this is going to be massive.[/font]

Doubt it.   How many times in recent years has Congress and the President failed to have a budget?    They told us the world would fall apart if we had a partial government shut-down too .... didn't happen.  I could give plenty of other examples of Presidential and Congressional actions/inaction where fears of blowback turned out to be overblown.

But okay, I'll play along ..... tell us then 'Chicken Little' how it's going to be "massive."   What do you think would happen?   Realistically.  I'm listening.

Those government shutdowns and the sequester which they managed to blame on the President cost billions in lost revenue.

The sequester is the mechanism that obama now uses to tout the reduction in the deficit.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » McConnell: Senate won't act on Obama Supreme Court nominee

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum