(post shortened)
We the Voters did have a say in this. We the Voters also elected our U.S. Senators. The Executive Branch nominates a person for the SCOTUS. The Legislative Branch either confirms, or doesn’t confirm, that nomination. Them’s the rules.
No, he cannot. The Vice-President, as President of the Senate, has only two duties:
1)Casting a vote in the event of a tie
2)To Preside over, and certify the vote of the Electoral College
He can’t force a vote on any issue, in fact, he doesn’t even have speaking privileges on the Senate Floor.
I don’t think blocking [insert any nominee’s name here] will end well for Republicans. But neither would confirming anyone after all this grandstanding. Nice hole, Mitch.
Of course “thems the rules” But that doesn’t mean the Senators aren’t full of shit when they “the next President should nominate someone for this vacancy.” This President should, and will, nominate someone. They American people had their say when they elected him, and when they elected the members of the Senate. The Senators can do as they wish, no one denies that. But the absolutely stupidest and most dishonest position to take is the one many of the current assholes running are taking:
Do the Republicans dare opposing the will of their constituents? Democrats talk as if the Republicans need to appease the Democrats. Silly Democrats. The Democrat voters aren’t going to vote for Republican candidates because the Republican candidate voted for an Obama nomination.
Some independent or even sane Republican voters may very well turn against an obstructionist senator who refuses to vote for a qualified nominee.
Obama can nominate anyone he choses. So what? The U.S. Senators are responsible to their constituents. Obama is history after 2016. He’s never had the power to get other Democrat politicians elected. Maybe Obama might be able to hold some future fund raisers for the party? Obama has nothing to trade and he doesn’t have the skillset needed to reach a compromise.
Seriously? We the Voters elected the current Congress. Do you actually believe We the Voters chose to give the majority of both houses to the loyal opposition because they approved of Obama’s nominations, suggested legislation, and gun-running scheme to Mexican drug cartels?
Senators have constituents of both parties, and independents. I have no major beef if they want to vote “no” on a qualified nominee. That’s politics and they may or may not pay a price for that. My objection, and I think I’m not alone here, are the Senators who don’t want to vote at all “because Obama has only 25% of his term left.”
I don’t know if I’m part of the Democratic “base,” but such a view by any Senator in my state would surely energize me in the next election. That would ever actually happen, living in Washington State, but I might just open my check book a bit more for people running against Senators who act like that.
Yes, seriously. I’m sure there’s a bit of buyers’ remorse among sane people who helped give the Senate to the Republicans. It’s one thing to vote for a Republican, quite another to watch them refuse to govern for 6 years.
Biden can’t force a vote.
Obama can’t force a vote.
After the Democrat party tells Obama which nomination(s) to select, maybe Biden can cut a deal? With somebody? Somewhere? Before the end of 2016? Or not?
So the “democrat party” is going to give Obama his choices? How do you figure that works?
Agreed. This is the same poor logic as is often expressed on that other topic which must not be named. “They will attack a moderate anyway, so let’s just throw up a Trotskite.” ::headdesk:: No, no, no: we want their attacks to look ridiculous, not accurate!
How is that worse than cowardly Republicans who are too scared to even take a vote? Sounds like they are afraid to show how weak their caucus is, when their own party cannot be trusted to toe the establishment line.
Presumably voters expected the congress they elected to do what every other congress ever elected has done with respect to supreme court nominations… reject any that are too extreme or unqualified (Bork, Miers), but grudgingly accept nominees who are clearly qualified even if politically distasteful. There’s no reason to think the American people elected a senate with the mandate to just hold their breath until their face turns blue and automatically refuse all nominations no matter what.
Agree, but nitpick. Miers never got to a vote. She dropped out in the face of Republican opposition.
From wikipedia:
Do you actually believe that a President has a completely free rein to pick anyone of his choosing? Let’s compromise and call it a compromise between the party and the President?
They don’t have to call for a vote. It’s not required that a vote must follow a nomination. You call it cowardly, I call it politics. Life’s a bitch.
Obama doesn’t have the skillset to make a deal with the Senate.
He has free reign. He will take political considerations into account when he makes his decision. So let’s compromise and say you were totally wrong.
There is no plausible reason except uncertainty about the votes of their own caucus. Buk-buk-b’GAWK!!!