I’ll give you $10 million dollars to change your name to slash7000.
Obama can easily pass a nominee just like I could get you to change your name. Simply offer something good enough and they won’t refuse. To use an extreme example, if he nominates someone like Roy Moore of Alabama, of course the Republicans will confirm him. Obviously, he’s not going to do that. He’s going to nominate someone he thinks will be a liberal on the court. And just as obviously the Republicans will (and should) refuse to confirm that nominee.
It’s not. It’s just some incredibly lame (and belated) damage control after the GOP Pavlovian knee-jerk that “Oh, we’ll do our Constitutional duty and hold hearings… just, you know, they’ll be show hearings since I’m saying right now that we won’t vote to confirm”.
But, hey, they’re holding hearings so see how they’re meeting the Democrats halfway here!? :rolleyes:
So in your view if the president is of the opposite party to the senate the senate wins and is ok voting down anyone the president wants? The president must nominate someone of the opposing party?
And to tag on to this, unless there is a filibuster proof majority, it’s perfectly fine for the Senate of the opposing party to just block all nominees forever. Wouldn’t this leave the judicial branch as some sort of odd judicial tontine with the final surviving member of the Supreme Court having the entire power of his or her fallen compatriots?
“Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.”
And if I come back and throw your $10 million back in your face because it’s dirty money and tell you your pitiful attempt at bribery just shows how corrupt and disgusting and venal you are? I like the name I’ve got and you have nothing that is good enough to make me change my mind. What’s your next negotiating step?
And your suggestion about Roy Moore is not “making a deal” because a deal implies both sides get something they want. It may or may not be an even exchange, but both sides achieve at least a little bit. Remember, in this theoretical you actually want me to change to slash7000; you getting me to agree to change to doorstop doesn’t help you.
Note: My comments about you in the 1st paragraph are my imitation of the current GOP leadership, not anything I personally am directing at you personally.
Exactly. The whole assumption that the Senate is interested in “making a deal” is pretty much unsupported.
There is absolutely nothing Obama could offer that the Senate would want, because in the current political climate giving Obama anything he wants at any price will end up reflecting badly on the people doing the giving (look at how Christie was hurt simply for working with Obama to rescue his state from a massive natural disaster). The crazies in the base will not take anything but “no” for an answer, and Republicans know they go against the Tea Party wing at their (individual) peril.
Until the sensible Republicans take back their party or until it hurts them to keep stalling, there will be no deal. no matter what gets put on the table.
Gotta admit, that was my take on what you said, too, treis.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the ‘advise and consent’ part of the system was to allow the senate to check that the person was qualified for the post. But I’ve never read that to mean, ‘we agree with him on all things’.
Nominations for SCOTUS are a matter of timing. But in this case if the president nominates someone who is qualified I think the senate is exceeding its mandate by refusing a confirmation vote due to politics. I think the American people will, as well. It’s another case where the hardline base of the republican party is driving the action to the annoyance of the moderate republicans and the indepedents.
I thought Grassley’s statement today was a small cry of pain due to the hard immediate play of McConnell’s unwise statements over the weekend. But that’s his problem, not mine.
OK, here’s what Schumer actually said: After saying that Senate Democrats had accepted Administration assurances that Roberts and Alito were mainstream conservative judges who would operate within the precedents and decisions of the Rehnquist Court, but had found out otherwise when it was too late, he said the following:
A little context clears things up nicely, don’t you think?
The real solution is for the Dems if they take the Senate on Jan 3rd is for Obama to make a nomination at 12:01pm and for the Senate (after swearing in new members) to:
Discharge the committee from considering the subject Rule XVII(4)(a)
Bring it to a vote on the Senate floor.
Make the Pubs filibuster 24/7 for 17 days straight if they try to obstruct the process. Remember that under a Call of the House, any absent Senator (unless excused by the presiding officer [and have Biden run the show as lame-duck President of the Senate] who of course would not excuse any Pubs) that does not immediately come into the House would be arrested and forcibly brought into the chamber.
Actually, no. Taking McConnel’s statements that no nominations should be made in an election year at face value, (and not just as the partisan obstruction we all know it is). Means that even Roy Moore would not get a hearing if Obama nominated him.
The point is that Obama does have something to offer and can get a nominee confirmed. What he can’t do is get someone confirmed that is going to be the automatic fifth liberal vote. There’s no reason for the senate to give him that.
This whole don’t nominate anyone is silly bluster. We’ve seen it time and time again before the Republicans cut a deal.
Actually, the more I think about it, I think that Obama couldn’t necessarily even get Roy Moore through the GOP blockade. If Moore agreed to accept a nomination from Obama, a percentage of the Republican base would regard this as unimpeachable evidence that Moore had gone over to the Dark Side. By displaying a willingness to work with the Great Usurper, Moore would have demonstrated that he was not a True Conservative, but rather a traitor to the cause and a closet liberal. (He’d get “Christied.”)
I disagree with those who say the pubbies will get rewarded at the ballot box for this one. Stonewalling any and all SCOTUS nominees is simply too high-profile of shenanigans to go unnoticed. In fact, I think it will drag their appellate confirmation obstruction out into the public consciousness too, and people will have more and a greater variety of insights into how nastily the GOP has been behaving. Conservatives like to snipe about Royal Decrees out of Obama, but really that is propaganda they are taught to excuse actually behaving that way: deciding by fiat that the President cannot discharge his duties, Constitution be damned.
I think Obama just needs to do the obvious and nominate some qualified candidates. If the first one is too controversial a la Bork, he/she goes down in flames. If the second (objectively qualified) candidate is rejected, well I guess the Senate has that prerogative. But if THREE (qualified) candidates are rejected, at that point we can clearly see shenanigans are afoot, and the Democrats will be able to promulgate the kind of messaging that will likely cost the pubbies the White House and the Senate.
The important thing is that the candidates not be partisan picks. A qualified candidate will have a deep knowledge and understanding of the law, and be IMPARTIAL. A good judge is neutral. Yah, everyone is human and has some political opinions, the nominee will probably tilt left in some way or another, but Obama cannot nominate an ideologue of any stripe to play this right.
I dunno. The longest confirmation in the last 70 years or so is 99 days. Obama has close to 300 days left to get through 3 nominees. If the pubbies stall that much, it can easily be portrayed as the same kinds of shenanigans that will cost them in November.