Do you have access to his email accounts and his blackberry?
You mean it is OK to use artillery against a Republican Senate? How come we didn’t know this before? :eek:
Are you suggesting that Obama should order the Defense Dept to force the Senate at gunpoint to hold a vote? I’m sure Obama has the ability to do that, but he’s also got ethics and intelligence.
When you are trying to use military force (as in all your examples), your opponent’s resistance or lack thereof doesn’t much matter to your goals: either your army can beat theirs or it can’t. When you are trying to reach an agreement, however, the other person’s opinions do matter, and when the other party’s opinion is that no agreement is possible under any circumstances, persuasion and skill can’t necessarily carry the day. The world’s greatest negotiator can’t persuade somebody to the table when the somebody’s whole goal is to avoid the table altogether.
For example, if the Confederacy’s whole goal had been to get Abe Lincoln to agree to allow slavery everywhere, and Lincoln was not allowed to use any military force whatsoever but had to talk to them, would you have thought him likely to succeed? What if George Washington’s goal was to talk the British into agreeing to make one of his slaves the Princess of Wales, or FDR had no military might but had to talk Hitler into giving up the Sudetenland and playing nice with the Jews?
Are you really missing the crux of the debate, both here in throughout the nation? Everyone knows the President will nominate someone in a couple of weeks. The outrage, such as it is, is due to the fact that all of the Republican candidates and much of the Senate leadership has said they won’t consider any nominee of the current President because they don’t feel like it.
Despite your refusal to believe it, no one is saying the Senate has an obligation to confirm a particular nominee (“rubber stamp” in your words), no one is saying there is anything unlawful about the Senate doing that they are threatening to do. The complaint is that the Republicans are taking partisanship to a new low by refusing to even consider the lawful nomination of a sitting president. Some say that’s a shitty way to run the Senate. Some of us even say they might end up paying a political price for their shitty behavior. Time will tell. You, however, seem alone in your inability to understand the debate or provide any meaningful contribution to it.
Too lazy to do this myself, but even more useful would be plot out the number vs the year, and project out to today.
Considering the current circumstances, I doubt that plotting would be on the mark for this particular nomination but we can certainly assume it’s going to be longer than 2 months.
Good point. I wonder who actually started the kerfuffle? Was it the Democrats who are saying Obama can’t get his nominee thru the Senate, or was the Republicans who are saying Obama can’t get his nomination thru the Senate?
You kind of just admitted you have no idea what you’re even arguing about.
It’s only OK for you to attempt this. Tell the DC National Guard (tell the guard at the gate that you want to see Pvt Parts). Tell them that I said it was OK for you to borrow a couple of M1A2’s for the afternoon. Give me two days notice because I’d like to notify my brother. He’s never seen a train wreck. 
Aren’t both sides saying that Obama can’t get his nominee thru the Senate? What word didn’t you understand?
Both sides know it is because of the Republican stated position. No one, other than you, blames it on Obama for some reason. If the Republicans cave, as I expect they will, then he will get his nomination through. The other possibility is they continue to put their partisan extremism front and center and suffer at the polls in November. That would be okay too.
(post shortened)
Ahem, Washington’s, Lincoln’s, and Roosevelt’s supporters didn’t give up before the fight started which allowed great men to accomplish great things.
Obama’s supporters are already claiming that Obama can’t get the job done. What chance does Obama have if his supporters have no faith in him?
Saying “the next president should choose the judge” is also saying, “the current president should not choose the judge, even though he’s constitutionally required to do so.”
The constitution requires that the senate give advice & consent. Refusing to give advice and consent is unconstitutional. The process for giving advice and consent, and all other constitutional duties is described in the senate rules. Individual senators can’t just wing it when it comes to fulfilling their constitutional duties. Cruz is obligated by the constitution to give his advice and consent on Obama’s nominee and he must do so according to the agreed rule and procedures of the senate. Cruz (or anyone) can’t just flip the bird and bounce.
I understand every word. You explicitly said that you don’t understand what started all this. What started all this was Republican candidates and party leadership stating that the next Supreme Court judge shouldn’t be appointed until after the election.
I asked who started the kerfuffle.
My position is that Obama lacks the skillset to get his nomination seated on the SCOTUS.
A truly exceptional American, which Obama claims that he isn’t, would be able to find a way to make the deal happen. Your side is already making excuses for Obama’s failure and the race hasn’t even started yet.
No, I didn’t. Read it again and then we’ll talk.
Unlike your side, Democrats respect the Constitution.
n/t
What is your definition of “consent”? It obviously doesn’t mean that the Senate must rubberstamp a President’s nominee.
The Republicans, within hours of the announcement of Scalia’s death.