Opinions differ. Such as whether the Bill of (individual) Rights actually applies to individuals or only to a militia.
n/t
Right. They are entirely within their right to not consider any Obama nominee. Announcing immediately (with the body still warm as it were) that the nomination should wait for the next president, however, was uncalled for. (Also, beneath them - that was a call that should have been made by Limbaugh or Breitbart or the National Review first.)
Do you think for a second anyone is buying your act?
One mo’ time. “Who” not “What”. Who actually started the kerfuffle?
Lincoln tried to talk to the Southern leaders first. How did that work out?
Washington and other colonial leaders tried to talk to the British first. How did that work out?
Roosevelt tried to talk to the Japanese first. How did that work out?
Within an hour of the announcement of Scalia’s death, McConnell (he’s a Republican) made his first announcement about how Obama had no business nominating anybody. At the time, the only Democratic statements were messages of condolence to the family.
In other words, McConnell started the kerfluffle. His statements have been quoted repeatedly in this thread. Read them, please, before attempting to explain them away.
Sure, now Republicans care about “consent.”
McConnell then? I told you what started this, which included the “who”. Do you now understand who started this kerfuffle?
eta: though technically I guess Scalia started it by dying at such an inconvenient time.
I can’t believe you are honestly saying I’m the one having trouble understanding.
I can’t believe I’m agreeing with doorhinge but I said this would be a problem for Obama when running in 2008. He had no markers or gravitas on Capitol Hill due to his short time in the Senate. He needs to thank Sen. Pat Geary and Skeletor and CJ Roberts for getting ACA passed for him. No one owes him any favors so good luck with that.
You guys really do speak your own secret language, don’t you?
You mean unlike all those other Presidents with long careers in the Senate?
Answered already:
“Republican candidates and party leadership”
Do you need the names spelled out for you? Why did this confuse you?
Good point. In fact, let’s take a closer look at Lincoln. He was elected in 1860, to take office in March 4, 1861. Before he was even inaugurated, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas had already seceeded.
After he was inagurated South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, and Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas seceeded.
Clearly, Lincoln was an abject failure. He had neither the personal gravitas to convince the first group of states to at least wait until he was inaugurated to see what he would do, nor the negotiating skills to keep the second group in line after he took office.
What a LOSER!
Define “govern.” Like it or not politics is a game and power is the prize.
So profound, dude.
That’s far from true.
Well, this certainly clears everything up.
Poll: Americans Split on if Senate Should Vote on Supreme Court Pick
Ah, but polls don’t matter in this case, the Constitution defines the rules. Give it time.
That’s where Obama’s leverage is in this. If his nominee is accepted, great, score one for the Dems. If his nominees are simply stonewalled, without even a vote, until the election, senators can be identified and basically publicly accused of committing a crime.
The Senate voting ‘no’ on a nominee is one thing, but not allowing a vote is another. And rejecting all nominees through party discipline in voting may be harder than it looks in this case because there are plenty of GOP senators up for re-election who have enough problems without having to explain why they voted against an obviously qualified candidate.