I don’t think it’s “hopeless.” I think Obama will do a masterful job of making the Senators look like complete assholes and they will either 1) cave and approve a reasonable nominee or 2) not cave and pay a price in November. Either one is okay with me and I’m positively giddy for the chance to watch the evil doers suffer another self-inflicted wound.
He is? I do? AFAIK, he is.
It’s Obama who needs to make a nomination. Obama can then do whatever it takes to see that his nomination becomes a Supreme. Or not. A rather large percentage of people do not believe that Obama can get the job done.
You sure? Seven states had already seceded before he took office and Buchanan chose to ignore the situation.
He quite capable of that level of stupidity by himself.
Even if he was approached, he couldn’t work out for himself how stupid it was?
Why are you trying so hard to deny reality? McConnell started this kerfuffle.
Nope. He issued a statement all on his own.
You seem to think he wasn’t telling the truth when he said he would not allow a vote on any nominee. So either you were wrong, or he’s a liar. Your choice.
Just don’t do anything? Is that what people think is going to happen while Rome burns? That sounds like a party that is dying out. Nobody under 60 is going to miss that. The Pope doesn’t even buy it. They might as well be writing their own death warrants as public figures.
Who here voted for Obama to have a 3 year term? People who saw Bush V. (fill in the blank) kind of want to see the process move, and dare I say deserve it.
I never thought I would see the end of the R party in my lifetime.
Only a small number of Republican Senators would be directly impacted by this–most red state Senators will not be at serious risk of losing over this issue. The question is will the party fear losing the Senate due to purple state Senators up for election in 2016 (like Rob Portman in Ohio) enough to do something? Against the wishes of the hardcore Tea Party wing? It’s hard to say–McConnell may have learned his lesson about being too moderate to a degree, he was damn near defeated in a primary by a Tea Party challenger for doing things like not obstructing 100% of Obama’s activities. So while I think the GOP would hate to lose the Senate, there’s also a lot of sitting Senators in red states that deeply fear losing their seats to a Tea Party primary opponent.
As I mentioned up top (post 402), it seems to me that if the Republicans refuse to allow the Senate to advise and confirm/vote they are actively blocking a procedure set out in the Constitution. If they refuse to bring his nomination before the Senate could Obama bring it to ummm the Supreme Court for a ruling? Not approving is one thing, not doing anything is another.
The poll I cited back in post #399shows that the country is almost exactly split in half over whether Obama should even nominate a new Justice.
If that’s true, then it there’s no benefit for an obstructionist Senator to push for a confirmation hearing, let alone an actual vote. Whatever vote one may pick up as a courageous statesman, they’ll lose an equal number from people who don’t want Obama to make the pick.
You are describing a very short term nihilistic game here.
Government by polling is a very short term game that has become irrational and insane. If the rebuplicans want to play it then they will get what they deserve. (Sorry, I mean they are getting it…)
I don’t know about you but I started to reconsider what polls mean when it was reported how many Rs polled anonymously believe Obama is a Muslim or not American etc. or would vote for Trump etc etc.
They must do something. Tabling it while the news reports it each day in a 24 hour news cycle for 9 months, with half the country pissed off at you? It just doesn’t seem like a good long term tactic.
It’s just a trip that your answer has nothing in it about civic legal responsibility and that there are only immediate potential machinations to think about.
This must be impeachable.
So now are some of you on board with my idea for a fourth branch of government whose only purpose is to oversee the overseers? Take the impeachment power away from the legislative branch and invest it in a fourth branch which would have power to investigate and remove from office anyone from the other three branches who commit gross or frequent ethics violations. Ethics rules would also be set by this fourth branch.
That’s probably more fantasy land than changing the number of Senators per State idea.
Except it only requires one constitutional amendment.
But it would have to come out of a constitutional convention. Congress would never consent to oversight. Congress believes in self-regulation.
You have an, um, interesting view of history. I would submit that NONE of the three (Lincoln, Washington, or Roosevelt) was able to make a deal with their major opponents defeating them militarily. All three had to resort to force of arms, including the two deadliest wars in American history, to accomplish their goals. Obama using military force to compel the Senate to hold a vote is simply not an option available to him, and I don’t see why you would want it to be.
If Obama could send the 101st Airborne into the Senate chambers, sure, he could get the job done; there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind about the outcome of that battle. The USS George Washington is currently down in Norfolk, conveniently close to Washington; I’m sure its air group could do to Capitol Hill what Roosevelt had their predecessors do to Tokyo. In what way is military action resulting in mass casualties even vaguely related to the situation facing the current president, and how do the skillsets used by these wartime leaders aid in reaching a peaceful settlement?
What Obama supporters don’t like to admit is that unlike past good Presidents, Obama can be opposed with impunity and there is zero electoral blowback. Because the public has never actually perceived him as a good President for more than a few days in his Presidency(as in, when he first started and when Osama bin laden was killed).
Omg, you found the loose thread in doorhinge’s usually impeccable logic!
Yes, but Lincoln tried to get them back in, and to prevent the secession of the remaining southern/border states, during that brief window between his taking office and the first shots at Fort Sumter. For example, he transmitted to the governors of each state (including the states that had already left) a copy of the proposed Corwin Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have provided constitutional protection for the institution of slavery, and in his first inaugural address he specifically addressed this proposal and stated he had no objection to it “being made express and irrevocable” that the federal government would never interfere with a state’s right to allow slavery within its borders.
His approval-disapproval has, except for soaring heights at the beginning, hung around 45/50-50. Reflects the partisanship of the last few years, istm. As mentioned elsewhere, I think that he gets “opposed with impunity” has more to do with Republicans worrying about nomination battles with Tea party members more than Obama’s lack of love.