Either the nominee gets confirmed or they don’t. There is no rule that says the Senate must hold a hearing, or must have a floor vote, or must confirm a President’s nominee.
The President can always select another nominee if he can’t get his first choice thru.
Voters can’t impeach Senators.
And you STILL haven’t addressed how Obama is supposed to shepherd anyone through the Senate.
Let’s go back to the hypothetical I posed to you earlier. You assert that your negotiating strategy would be to give me something I want. Well, what I want is to be able to tell my base that I never ever made any kind of deal with you and did absolutely nothing to enable any of your efforts. What is your negotiating strategy to give me what I want and still accomplish your goal, or any facsimile of your goal?
Saying “The President can always select another nominee if he can’t get his first choice thru” is deliberately ignoring the fact that the Senate Majority Leader has announced that Obama will not be able to get any nominee of any description through. No matter who he nominates, they’re going down in flames because the Senate will not consider any nominee proposed by Obama. The good, the bad, the ugly, the moderate, the leftist, the well-regarded, the poorly-regarded–it doesn’t matter who they are or what their personal qualifications are. McConnell has declared that the mere fact that Obama has nominated them is automatically disqualifying. What possible negotiating strategy can he use against this position?
Oops. You are correct. We the voters will just have to be satisfied with voting for a new and improved Senator, when the need arises.
I actually think they may happen if they fall into Obama’s trap here. The man is a genius at the long game.
If I say I am not going to do my job I get canned for insubordination, whether I was joking or not.
If an elected official says he is not going to do his job, why is he not impeached? He’s playing politics? Please. The evidence is on tape. He is refusing to advise or consent based on the identity of the nominator. He should be out. Secondary evidence? He said (7 years ago) his aim was to prevent a second O term. The arrogance and entitlement are absolutely breathtaking.
Hahahaha. You MUST be a Democrat. Why should I save Obama’s reputation? Either Obama can figure out a way to shepherd HIS nominee or he can’t. It’s obvious that you’ve already given up on Obama’s ability to make it happen, and you’re his supporter.
Did George Washington’s supporters give up on Washington when he led troops against a much superior British army? Did Abe Lincoln’s supporters give up when he led the fight to reunite the United States of America? Did Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s supporters give up when he led a two-front war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?
Maybe you’re right? If Obama’s supporters have no faith in his abilities to get the job done, why should anyone else?
Obama is history in approx 11 months. It seems that Obama’s trap consists of his claiming that he’s fallen down and can’t get up.
Democrat’s seem to assume that Obama’s nominee, and his assumed subsequent failure, will lead to a larger voter turn out than Obama’s nominee will cause an even larger number of Republican voters to turn out.
I wish Obama would actually find and announce who his nominee will be. Let’s get the ball rolling. There’s only 9 months left until the general election.
I think it’s considered respectful and thoughtful to wait until Scalia’s body is cooled before nominating a replacement. I’m sure it will be within the next couple of weeks, so hang in there.
(post shortened)
Senators were elected to represent their constituents. Their job is to represent their constituents. If their constituents do not want Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, and the constituent’s duly elected representatives promise to prevent and/or prevent Obama’s SCOTUS nominee from being seated, the constituents are unlikely to punish their elected reps for doing their job.
I’ve read many of the progressive, liberal, Democrat responses to Scalia’s death and only a minority have been respectful and thoughtful. IMHO, of course.
With the last two vacancies he took about a month to announce his nominee. A typical confirmation process takes a little over two months. Plenty of time.
I don’t know about that. But it doesn’t matter President Obama is a thoughtful and respectful man, and I’m sure he would find it unseemly to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia before his funeral.
The average Supreme Court nomination to vote duration is 25 days. There is plenty of time for the President to nominate a qualified replacement and for the Senate to confirm or reject him or her. Even Clarence Thomas nomination, which was “controversial” in many ways, didn’t take very long. He was nominated on July 1, 1991 and confirmed October 15, 1991. He was sworn in on October 23rd.
“The particulars of this case put me in mind of something that happened when I was doing a performance of ‘Twelve Angry Men.’ Brian Donlevy had been playing pranks on the stage manager for weeks, and…”
Here’s what seems to be playing out:
REPUBLICAN SENATORS: “We will reject anyone that Obama nominates. We won’t even vote on it. We won’t even hold hearings. We don’t give a shit who it is.”
REPUBLICAN APOLOGISTS: “Haw, haw! Obama can’t get his nominee through. Must be his fault. Haw, haw!”
Out of respect for Scalia, it is appropriate for Obama to wait until after the funeral to announce a pick. Then it takes as long as it takes for him to make a selection. They may have a short list from last time, they need to make sure they didn’t overlook anyone and that anyone considered before hasn’t done something to drop from consideration. At least he is practicing due diligence in performing his constitutional duties.
You must be looking at the historical average which isn’t useful. According to Wikipedia, citing the Congessional Research Service, the average since 1975 is 67 days.
They have a job to do as well, having to do with governing.
He stated he was not going to do it BEFORE there is even a nominee. It was a big mistake not to wait for a name at least. It demonstrates guilt.
When does behavior become egregious and what is the result for a senator who does not govern? It can’t be “wait until the next election”
How many of those posters were the president of the united states?
Are you guys suggesting that all of the sturm und drang over whether Obama could nominate or shouldn’t nominate, and whether the Senate should consent or shouldn’t consent, or how the GOP will be, maybe picking on Obama and his nominee are simply much to do about nothing?
Are you suggesting that posters wait until Obama actually nominates a living, breathing, human being before they start clutching the family pearls and swooning? That seems so thoughtful, reasonable, and is of course, totally out of the question. This is the internet.
It would have been even better had Republicans waited until Obama actually submitted a nomination before Republicans rejected it.