Republicans Immediately Reject Idea of Republican Supreme Court Nominee
No, it’s not an Onion headline. It’s legit news.
I can no longer distinguish between satire, farce, tragedy, and our government.
To paraphrase Walt Kelly, I have met the enemy and he is us.
I can’t help but think that We the People have somehow brought this on ourselves, but I’m not sure just where we went wrong.
:mad:
I suspect there was not much chance Obama would appoint a Republican to begin with, and the floating of the idea was done to undercut the Republican position that the appointment should be made by the next president. Once the Republicans agree that there’s someone they would accept, then they are exposed as not being about this supposed principle to begin with. Then Obama can turn around and nominate whoever he wants and the Republicans have to counter the person on their merits and can’t make a big deal about waiting for the next president.
So the whole thing was probably just a political gambit, and the Republicans are not falling for it.
[FTR, I think the notion that there’s any principle that you need wait for the next president is ludicrous. Although personally I would almost certainly be opposed to any nominee that Obama might put forth.]
How about:
“President Obama promises to veto every bill passed by Congress until they vote on his nominee”?
Nah, only today’s Republicans are that petty.
I should add to my prior post that I’ve not seen any commentary about this, but I suspect the Republicans are afraid that Obama will nominate someone with appeal to some crucial part of the electorate, and then make the next election something of a referendum of the Republican refusal to approve “the first [whatever] to be nominated” or whatever. So the Republicans need to pretend that it’s about this supposed principle, in order to avoid offending whatever interest group would be gung-ho about Obama’s nominee. Then Obama’s gambit is to expose this principle as being bogus, and the Republicans need to counter that, and that’s where we are, as above.
“Yet education is simply the most recent of a long list of Sandoval’s conservative heresies: The abortion rights governor has embraced Obamacare; lauded immigration reform and DREAMers; fiercely championed renewable energy; and taken lesser known actions on police body cameras, driver’s licenses for undocumented aliens and multiple moves to squelch Republican-led tort reform.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/nevada-primary-brian-sandoval-213668#ixzz417gXXggs
I’m not sure there is a ‘not falling for it’ option here - they were basically screwed when they announced they wouldn’t consider (not wouldn’t vote for, but wouldn’t even consider) any nominee.
Politically, that was an incredibly asinine move, because now Obama floats the idea of nominating a moderate Republican, and they’re in a no-win situation:
If they agree to consider the nominee, they’re as good as admitting that the whole “no nominations in an election year” thing was bullshit partisanship, and lose whatever shreds of credibility they had left.
If they don’t, they sound like petulant children, who care more about blocking progress than taking the chance at a compromise that benefits them. Which makes it even easier to paint them as ‘the obstructionist do-nothing Congress’, come the election.
I’d like to say that this shows how brilliant Obama is, but honestly, he’s just doing his job - this is the Senate GOP resolutely tripping over their own feet. They could have said, “We will not consider a *radical liberal *nominee.”, or “We will only hold hearings on exceptionally qualified nominees”, and then stall and weasel around the definitions of those adjectives to reject anyone who came along. Fortunately (for those of us hoping for a Democratic-majority Senate next year), they instead chose to be idiots.
I don’t see that.
What they can do is wait until Obama actually nominates some moderate Republican and then decide to compromise. It’s not uncommon for politicians to compromise on principles, and the public tends to reward them for it, rather than deciding that the principle was bogus to begin with. But to compromise at this point would be “falling for it”, because they’d be selling out the ostensible principle with nothing to show for it.
I think having Obama nominate a moderate Republican would be a huge win for the Republicans, and they would probably take it. But I doubt if Obama would actually do such a thing, as above.
Which is part of why leaking the rumor, without actually making a nomination proper, is such a brilliant move.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “brilliant”, but it’s certainly a smart move.
Unless it takes on a life of it’s own (Harry Reid has apparently just endorsed it) and Obama then feels pressured into something he never intended to actually go through with.
I can’t honestly say I would expect anything different if it were a Republican president and a Democratic senate. Not saying it’s excusable, just the way it is.
It’s utterly lazy to think both sides are equal.
Today’s GOP are complete cunts. They have been having a seven year tantrum. The Dems didn’t act like this during Bush’s reign.
He wouldn’t refuse to do that because he’s petty. He would refuse to do that because he’s by far too strong a believer in a big, powerful, intrusive government. He has vetoed only NINE bills so far–the fewest since Harding.
Bush’s reign, huh?
I wish you liberals would make up your minds–was Bush in charge, or was it Cheney? It’s all very confusing.
Sure.
Bush was in charge. He was stupid enough to listen to Cheney, however.
I’m glad I could explain simple things to you, to ease your travels through this complex world we live in. Please feel free to ask again, if you have any more questions. <3
The second sentence does not follow from the first. Sloppy reasoning, friend.
It’s utterly lazy to think that it’s always the other side that is wrong.
Meh.
“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong – but that’s the way to bet.”
[RIGHT]D. Runyon[/RIGHT]
But today’s Republicans have a way of being worse. Objecting to a particular nominee is one thing–Democrats have done that. This stunt of refusing to consider any nominee for the Supreme Court because the Obama presidency has a little less than a year to go is quite unprecedented.
Please tell me where the Constitution defines “Lame Duck.”
The GOP isn’t always wrong. At least not automatically.
But since Obama is moderate, and is trying to enact sensible policy, the GOP’s current stance of, whatever is exactly opposite to what Obama says, makes them wrong an awful lot.
Dems aren’t perfect. But Republicans are stupid assholes, and the people who vote for them are worse.
Seems wrong, does it, to say:
The speaker for that quote?
Then-Senator Joe Biden, in 1992, directed to then-President George H.W. Bush.
Quite unprecedented.