Will Congress forestall every attempt by Obama to appoint a new justice for the rest of his term?

[doorhinge]

@tim314

If that’s what you took from my post you quoted, then you totally misunderstood me. I’m saying if the Republican’s don’t approve Obama’s nominee, they may end up stuck with someone they’d like even less, particularly if they lose their Senate majority.

If the Republicans/Tea Party keep control of the Senate, why would they want the SCOTUS to be more liberal than it already is?

We the Voters made the Republicans/Tea Party the majority in the Senate. Will that change in November? Maybe. Will Obama’s choice of SCOTUS nominee result in more Republican voters, or more Democrat voters, turning out in November?

The way I see it, Obama’s nominee (whoever that may be) may cost the Democrats the Whitehouse AND keep the Republicans in the majority in the Senate.

[doorhinge]

@Euphonious_Polemic

The Republicans have shown clearly over the past 7 years that they don’t make deals anymore. They don’t compromise.

You see, when they painted Obama as the Ultimate Evil, the Worst President Ever, the Literal Antichrist, they sort of painted themselves into a corner; You don’t negotiate with the AntiChrist. You don’t make a deal with the personification of Satan On Earth.

They literally CANNOT compromise now.

If Obama wants to push his nominee thru a recalcitrant Senate, it’s Obama who is going to have to make a deal. Some kind of deal. Any kind of deal. A deal deal. Or he can stand on the sidelines scratching his ass wondering why everybody doesn’t love him as much as he loves himself.

[doorhinge]

@CaptMurdock

[Wayne Campbell voice]

Exsqueeze me? Baking powder? I could have sworn you just said that WE’RE in a hurry - after Ted Cruz said, before Nino’s body was even cold(er), that he would filibuster any, Any, ANY nominee of the duly elected sitting President.

:dubious:

[/WCv]

And you’d be wrong.

[doorhinge]

@DSeid

You see that is exactly the point: they have announced that it does not matter WHO he puts forth. ANY HORSE HE ENTERS is, sight unseen, qualifications and politics unknown, declared DOA.

Now maybe if they had waited until they saw what horse was entered they could spin it … well this horse is too liberal, or not experienced enough, what have you … but they have announced that this has nothing to do with the quality of the candidate. it’s the game baby: we can obstruct so we will.

(post shortened)

I expect the Republicans to disagree with Obama’s selection. What I find most interesting is that the Democrats have already assumed that Obama won’t be able to get his nominee thru the Senate.

[Procrustus]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

I expect the Republicans to disagree with Obama’s selection. What I find most interesting is that the Democrats have already assumed that Obama won’t be able to get his nominee thru the Senate.

Assume? They’ve been told that in no uncertain terms. No nominee will get a fair hearing or a vote, and that’s a promise from the leader on down.

[doorhinge]

@Merneith

I’m blaming the Republicans for insisting that the President is not entitled to nominate a candidate. I’m also blaming the Republicans for abdicating their responsibility to advise and consent on that candidate (or deny consent, as the case may be). Republicans are trying to skip the whole process and still get their way, without following the rules.

Hahahaha. Which Republicans, specifically, are, in your words, “insisting that the President is not entitled to nominate a candidate”? Of course the President can nominate a candidate. What the President is not entitled to do is expect the U.S. Senate to treat the selection as if it were a royal decree.

The Senate will do what the Senate majority wants it to do. Them’s the rules.

[doorhinge]

@CarnalK

Doorhinge, the Republican leadership and Presidential candidates are saying the President has no right to nominate a judge right now. They are saying the election is too close so he should leave it to the next President to nominate someone. They have no Constitutional basis for this, they are just saying that’s the right thing for him to do - leave the office empty for the next year.

Dear carnalk, Many people have suggested that next President should be the one making the choice. Not everyone agrees with that suggestion.

I assume Hillary, Bernie, and Bill would also like to nominate the next Supreme.

[doorhinge]

@CarnalK

Are you saying they don’t have a duty to formally confirm or reject a Supreme Court nominee?

The Senate can confirm, reject, stall, or ignore the nomination. Is there a rule that says the Senate must confirm the Presidents nomination? You seem to want the Senate to confirm, sight unseen, Obama’s nomination. That ain’t gonna happen.

[RTFirefly]

One thing I’ve heard in some places is that Obama might have a hard time getting anyone to agree to be his nominee, because of the sort of hell the GOP will put him through.

I’m not sure I buy this. When Obama nominates some judge with a strong but not overly ideological record from one of the Circuit Courts of Appeals, as is likely to be the case, what I expect to happen next is…nothing. McConnell will reiterate that the nomination will not be referred to a committee, and no hearings will be forthcoming, let alone even the hint of a timetable for a vote.

Then everyone, including the nominee, will go back to what they were doing before Obama announced his nominee. There may be some effort from some far-right precincts to try to discredit this particular nominee, but since the GOP’s inaction has nothing to do with the credentials of the actual nominee, it really won’t get much traction.

At least, that’s MHO. We’ll see soon enough what actually happens.

[kenobi_65]

@doorhinge

What the President is not entitled to do is expect the U.S. Senate to treat the selection as if it were a royal decree.

Please show evidence that this is what Obama or the Democrats are seeking.

McConnell’s statement goes far beyond “we will refuse to rubber stamp your nominee”. Word for word, he said:

“…this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

He’s effectively saying, “we do not want to even consider an Obama nominee.”

[Procrustus]

@doorhinge

Dear carnalk, Many people have suggested that next President should be the one making the choice. Not everyone agrees with that suggestion.

I assume Hillary, Bernie, and Bill would also like to nominate the next Supreme.

Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders have both stated that President Obama should nominate someone and the Senate should consider the nomination.

The problem with “many people” suggesting that the next President should be the one making the choice, is that there is no valid reason for such a strange suggestion, other than the fact our president already nominated two justices. He’s the President, there is a vacancy, he has the duty and obligation to nominate someone to fill the vacancy. That’s how it goes.

[doorhinge]

@Procrustus

Assume? They’ve been told that in no uncertain terms. No nominee will get a fair hearing or a vote, and that’s a promise from the leader on down.

And Democrats assume that Obama is helpless, and impotent, when it comes to herding his nominee thru the Senate.

[doorhinge]

@kenobi_65

Please show evidence that this is what Obama or the Democrats are seeking.

McConnell’s statement goes far beyond “we will refuse to rubber stamp your nominee”. Word for word, he said:

“…this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

He’s effectively saying, “we do not want to even consider an Obama nominee.”

And you act like Obama is impotent when it comes to deal making. He’s the POTUS. Tell him put on his big boy pants and make a deal.

[kenobi_65]

@doorhinge

And Democrats assume that Obama is helpless, and impotent, when it comes to herding his nominee thru the Senate.

In a Senate in which the Republican leadership has overtly said that their mission is to thwart Obama, both on this subject, and in general? In a political climate in which the Republican base views any compromise or cooperation with the Democrats to be signs of weakness? Obama could be the greatest political negotiator of the past hundred years, and still would have extreme difficulty making headway in this sort of Senate.

[Procrustus]

@doorhinge

And you act like Obama is impotent when it comes to deal making. He’s the POTUS. Tell him put on his big boy pants and make a deal.

Deal? He’s going to nominate someone. The Senate can confirm or reject. Should he offer them something more for doing their job?

He can certainly make a deal if he wants his nominee confirmed, and I assume he would be happy to work with Senators who were willing to consider approving qualified nominees. Please let the White House know if you hear of any Senators like that.

[doorhinge]

@BrainGlutton

Other way around, actually.

It’s Obama who wants to see his nomination make it to the SCOTUS, Obama is going to have to get involved. If Obama wants a deal, Obama is going to have to make the deal. Democrats are acting like Obama can’t make the deal. Personally, I don’t believe Obama has the skillset to make the deal work.

[kenobi_65]

@doorhinge

And you act like Obama is impotent when it comes to deal making. He’s the POTUS. Tell him put on his big boy pants and make a deal.

Again, McConnell’s quote illustrates that the Republican leadership isn’t even interested in a deal. Their desire is for Obama to give up and not even bother nominating a candidate.

It takes two to tango, and even if Obama wants to make a deal, McConnell is telling him, “no dice.”

[Ravenman]

@doorhinge

Is there a rule that says the Senate must confirm the Presidents nomination?

Since you are returning to this argument, please answer my previous question to you:

I’d be very curious if doorhinge and D’Anconia are truly committed to their underlying point: that if there isn’t a rule against it, it is okay to do.

There’s apparently no law prohibiting the IRS from giving conservative political action committees extra attention on their tax status. Hey, if it isn’t prohibited, there’s nothing to complain about, eh? Let’s see if Mitch McConnell’s Super PACs have ever done anything wrong. You know, just an open-ended investigation, to make sure everything is above board.

No complaints, right doorhinge? Right D’Anconia?

No rule against the IRS running Republican PACs through a meat grinder on basis of their beliefs. So that’s okay, right?

[BobLibDem]

@doorhinge

And you act like Obama is impotent when it comes to deal making. He’s the POTUS. Tell him put on his big boy pants and make a deal.

Screw that. You don’t want to make a precedent of dealing with bullies. Republicans had to learn that they couldn’t use the debt ceiling as a hostage, the dumbest thing Obama could do is beg the Republicans to make a deal. I say nominate Michael Moore.

[doorhinge]

@Chronos

doorhinge, you say that you don’t want the Republicans to just rubberstamp everything Obama does. So why do you tolerate it? That’s exactly what the Republicans are doing. They’ve got a big old “NO” stamp that they’re sticking on everything. Why is this acceptable?

I’m saying that the U.S. Senate does not have to rubberstamp everything the President wants. Them’s the rules.

The Senate can say NO. No means no, unless you have the power of Executive Order. In which case, any future President can overturn the Executive Order. And just to be clear, EO does not apply to SCOTUS nominations.