So tell that to McConnell. He’s the one who’s saying the Senate should rubber-stamp everything. It’s the Democrats who don’t just want a rubber-stamp.
My god what an annoying article. First they state the obvious, a nominee would have an uncomfortable time and no guarantee of getting the job. Then they toss out ridiculous possibilities like maybe he’ll nominate some Republican Senator, you know just to mess with them. 81 year old Orrin Hatch for Christ sake?
Yeah, Orrin Hatch has much chance of being nominated by President Obama as… as… jeez, I dunno - Ted Cruz, maybe!
I dunno. But the Republicans have seemingly made a tactical mistake. If they say let the people have their say in the new presidential election, what happens if Clinton/Sanders wins? It’ll be extremely awkward to oppose their nominee. Not that it will stop them, but still.
They would have done much better stalling for a few months before voting down whoever Obama nominated.
You aren’t new to politics. Yes, he has to make a deal.
Just how impotent do you believe Obama is if he has to search the internet for help? Kinda late for that, ain’t it? Obama could, maybe, ask the Democrats in Congress to help him make a deal? Can you suggest any Democrats that haven’t burned the bridges with the Republicans and Tea Party? Hairy Reid? Pelosi? Bueller?
The IRS officials claimed 5th Amendment protection. It seems that the IRS officials are concerned that there are rules against the actions they took. Maybe you should rephrase your hijack?
Why? Is your internet connection broke? If you want to tell him, go right ahead. I’m not going to stand in your way.
Taking the Fifth doesn’t mean admitting guilt to criminality. It cracks me up that you’re lecturing people on the Constitution, and can’t get the Bill of Rights right.
But in any case, the FBI investigated. Lois Learner didn’t break any laws. Since she didn’t break any rules, that’s okay, right? Because the standard you are setting out is that there has to be a rule against something for someone to be wrong to do it.
Face it, if you follow your own logic, Learner did absolutely nothing wrong. The Democrat Party thanks you for your support of her.
You’re saying the *Democrats *in the Senate are the problem? That’s breathtaking.
I know the country is polarized, and I don’t suggest the Democrats are perfect by a long shot, but holy crap Batman, even you can’t believe the Republicans in the Senate are acting reasonably, ethically, or even intelligently. What if Obama decided to veto all Bills that hit his desk over the next 11 months, saying “I think the next President should decide if the Bill becomes a law, so the people have a say in it.” Perfectly legal, but completely ridiculous.
Simple enough: you always start your negotiating at the extreme of your position and then work toward the middle. You don’t start negotiation the price of a car by offering 95% of what the dealer wants for it. You start well below what the dealer will accept and then counteroffers are made, etc. I’m sure you know the process.
By initially offering a Chomsky-type jurist (not Chomsky himself, he’s way too old) Obama sets himself up to offer a more moderate but still very leftish jurist when the Senate rejects the Chomsky-oid. Now Obama and the Democrats look like reasonable people who are willing to make a compromise. And the Repubs look like, well … themselves. Of course they will call the more moderate jurist a fiendish communist from Hell, but they’ve used that sort of rhetoric that nobody believes them any more. The Dems can’t lose here.
By your definition, the obstructionist, Republican-led Congress is every bit as bad at government as you believe Obama to be.
Breath. It’s good for your complexion. Unless you prefer shades of blue.
Democrats don’t believe Republicans are acting responsibly.
Republicans don’t believe Democrats are acting responsibly.
Democrats and Republicans like to tell the other side what they should, and shouldn’t, believe. Republicans and Democrats no longer care what the other party thinks they should believe.
What if Obama managed to find a SCOTUS nominee and presented him/her to the Senate? Instead of all this faux internet rage, the Senators could then proceed to the next step. What will they do? I can hardly wait to find out.
Will the nominee survive the Congressional conformation hearing?
Will the nominee survive the onslaught of the media outlets?
Will the nominee survive the quips from social media?
Will all of the Democrats support the nominee?
Will all of the Republicans refuse to support the nominee?
Will more Democrats/Republicans turn out to vote based specifically on the discussions over the SCOTUS nominee?
November is a looooong way off. There are lots of discussions on the various issues but no serious discussion on Obama’s SCOTUS nominee can take place until after Obama finds a nominee.
It’s not some kind of secret, doorhinge. The actual quotes from Republicans denying that President Obama has a right to nominate a candidate have been all over the news for days, now. But here’s the quotes, again, with citations. Don’t say I never did anything for you.
Ted Cruz
"“This should be a decision for the people,” Cruz said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on Sunday. “Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace [Scalia], they need to win the election.
<snip>
Asked whether he would filibuster Obama’s choice, Cruz said: "Absolutely.”
"
Mitch McConnell
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/15/why-senate-republicans-made-a-big-mistake-on-the-supreme-court-opening
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
Nobody but you has insisted that Democrats want the Senate to automatically approve Obama’s candidate. I have specifically and repeatedly said that the Senate is free to reject them.
What I’m saying is that Cruz’s insistence that he won’t even let the hearing take place is unconstitutional and against the rules.
Let the Republicans hold the hearing, ask their questions, and then make their vote. Publicly. That’s what I want. And then let them do it again. And again. And again.
Then we’ll let the American People have voice in what they think about that behavior.
I think you’re wildly overestimating anyone’s affection for Noam Chomsky, most of all the youth vote who are buoying up Sanders’ numbers.
Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia
Sadly, listening to some conservative parts of the web, I think some actually believe something very like that.
Ummm … and the Pubs wouldn’t filibuster the motion to recess? It is a debatable motion you know.
Sounds like a solid place to start negotiations!
Well, you have to game out different scenarios (I am sure republican senators are drawing up a detailed roadmap on what to do).
If the republicans thought that Clinton or especially Sanders was going to win the White House they would be better off taking an Obama appointee. If they think they have a chance of losing control of the senate they are REALLY better off taking an Obama pick.
At least with Obama the Senate can demand someone closer to the middle and less liberal. They will have a harder time making that demand and continuing obstructionism under a new democratic president. And of course all bets are off if they lose the senate (which is a real possibility…not a foregone conclusion but not one they can easily ignore either).
Of course the democrats can do that math too and at some point decide to stop putting forward a nominee.
It is all a gamble really and neither side can know for certain. Still, there are more scenarios where I think republicans would actually rather have an Obama nominee than anyone other than a republican president.
My guess is they will drag their heels till near or after the conventions and then see where things stand.
Personally I would love it if dems win the presidency and win the senate in November and then Obama in early January nominated himself to the court (which he can do it seems). While I actually think he might make a good justice I would like it mostly for the wailing and ganshing of teeth it would cause among conservatives.
doorhinge: How do you make a deal with someone who says unequivocally, “I will not make a deal under any circumstances whatsoever, so don’t bother asking”?
Let’s try a hypothetical: you want me to change my username to slash7000, and I refuse to do so. Please lay out your exact negotiating strategy to “make a deal.”
Moreover, the ruing in NLRB v Canning clearly prohibits a recess appointment in a recess of less than 3 days. And per the Constitution the House must consent to the Senate recessing more than 3 days.
So this hypothetical does not work unless the Dems take both houses of Congress.
No one on their right mind is projecting the Democrats to take control of the House. Senate, maybe.