Sure he does. He’s one of the most skilled politicians of our generation. He just doesn’t have anyone to deal with. Furthermore, what do you mean “make a deal?” In normal times he could invite the Senate leadership over for lunch and talk about his short list and get a sense of who they might find acceptable and who would cause a fight. These days, as we now know, they would say “no one you nominate is worthy of our consideration.” Hard to “made a deal” with that, isn’t it?
There’s every reason to think that We the Voters have individual opinions on what we expect from Congress, and from our duly elected individual Senators and Congressman.
You assume that our elected representatives must rubber stamp a Presidential choice. I don’t agree. Congress is damned if they do and damned it they don’t. They’re used to our disappointment.
Right, but what the Legislative Branch wants to do is neither confirm nor deny, but refuse to even have the discussion. If they want to deny Obama’s pick, let them hold the hearing and vote to deny.
All this is carrying on - this is just showboating. It shows that they don’t have the courage of their own convictions.
I certainly don’t. I just expect them to behave like something other than craven pussies, and put it to a vote. I agree with Mitch McConnell:
Hahahaha. So it’s the most skilled politician who is the one who is forced to issue Executive Orders and Executive Privilege to try and get things done. I’ll try and remember that.
You can list some, or all, of the reasons why you believe Obama can’t make a deal with Congress, but Obama can’t make a deal with Congress. Good government is based on the ability to reach a compromise that is acceptable to most of the voters, be those voters Congresspersons or the public.
Unless Obama can show a reason why his nominations must be approved, it’s still up to the Senate to approve the nomination.
Hahahaha. Has Obama even announced a nomination, yet? You’re in such a hurry to blame Republicans for your loss that you’ve forgot to enter a horse in the race.
I think things are being set up so that if a Republican President takes office on January 20, Senate Democrats can just decide there should be no vote on his nomination.
After all, the new President will be in a honeymoon period where sober judgment isn’t possible.
And after that, we just don’t know if the new President will just be a one-termer. Why be rash when the will of the American people isn’t yet clear?
And if the GOP President does get re-elected in 2020, then he’s a lame duck. And under the Republican precedent, we should shouldn’t have lame ducks making big nominations.
I literally said exactly the opposite of that
There’s always been some dysfunction built into a system where the president makes nominations and the senate has the power to turn them down. Nothing has ever prevented the president from making nothing but outrageous nominations, and nothing has ever prevented the senate from refusing all nominations from a president of the opposing party… other than a general desire on all parts for our democracy to continue to function.
The Republicans have vowed to violate that implicit deal, once again putting party above country… all too typical of the recent Republican party.
If that’s what you took from my post you quoted, then you totally misunderstood me. I’m saying if the Republican’s don’t approve Obama’s nominee, they may end up stuck with someone they’d like even less, particularly if they lose their Senate majority.
These are modern Republicans. I could see them blocking this for as long as they can, and then blocking a Hilary Clinton appointment for four years, or until they lose control of the Senate.
They have lost their minds.
The Republicans have shown clearly over the past 7 years that they don’t make deals anymore. They don’t compromise.
You see, when they painted Obama as the Ultimate Evil, the Worst President Ever, the Literal Antichrist, they sort of painted themselves into a corner; You don’t negotiate with the AntiChrist. You don’t make a deal with the personification of Satan On Earth.
They literally CANNOT compromise now.
[Wayne Campbell voice]
Exsqueeze me? Baking powder? I could have sworn you just said that WE’RE in a hurry - after Ted Cruz said, before Nino’s body was even cold(er), that he would filibuster any, Any, ANY nominee of the duly elected sitting President.
:dubious:
[/WCv]
You see that is exactly the point: they have announced that it does not matter WHO he puts forth. ANY HORSE HE ENTERS is, sight unseen, qualifications and politics unknown, declared DOA.
Now maybe if they had waited until they saw what horse was entered they could spin it … well this horse is too liberal, or not experienced enough, what have you … but they have announced that this has nothing to do with the quality of the candidate. it’s the game baby: we can obstruct so we will.
If they follow through and actually win the presidency they SHOULD expect payback with filibustering anything other than a very well qualified moderate. They will be able to obstruct and they will. It could be a long time before either side blinks in that game. All by the rules.
If they follow through and lose the presidency, especially if they also lose the Senate, then they should expect a “you said the people should decide by way of the general election vote and they have; they want a more liberal court.” The pressure to approve someone to the left of Sotomayor will be significant.
I’m blaming the Republicans for insisting that the President is not entitled to nominate a candidate. I’m also blaming the Republicans for abdicating their responsibility to advise and consent on that candidate (or deny consent, as the case may be). Republicans are trying to skip the whole process and still get their way, without following the rules.
It seems like doorhinge doesn’t actually know what’s going on at all.
Doorhinge, the Republican leadership and Presidential candidates are saying the President has no right to nominate a judge right now. They are saying the election is too close so he should leave it to the next President to nominate someone. They have no Constitutional basis for this, they are just saying that’s the right thing for him to do - leave the office empty for the next year.
Let’s say that the Senate does just that. No hearings, no votes on a nomination for the rest of the term.
What rule will they be breaking?
Are you saying they don’t have a duty to formally confirm or reject a Supreme Court nominee?
A modest proposal from a judge friend of mine:
*With respect to the question of filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court resulting from the death of Justice Scalia, one element of the President’s authority has been ignored (and, it would seem, has been generally ignored throughout our history): the Constitution says that the President “…shall nominate, and by and with the *advice *and consent of the Senate, …Judges of the Supreme Court.” (Emphasis added.)
Perhaps the President should call in both the Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate, including of course the Judiciary Committee leadership, and propose that, given this unprecedented situation, it will be disruptive to the operation of the Supreme Court and to the political process itself, to have a deadlock continue for a year or more. Under the circumstances, then, he should suggest a committee comprised of the White House and the Senate leadership to vet and then jointly propose a candidate (or, alternatively, a trio of candidates, from which the President would select one) to be submitted to the Senate for a confirmation hearing. This would obviate the threatened filibuster, avoid a looming constitutional crisis, and permit the Supreme Court to resume a full complement as soon as possible.
I expect that, in this era of enhanced partisanship, such a proposal might seem to be a non-starter; nevertheless, it would give President Obama an opportunity to act as a statesman, rather than as a politician—and of course would force the Republican leadership either to go along or to appear to be partisan politicians themselves.
*
It’s in the constitution, in article 2 section 2, that the president -
“shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,”
By refusing the President their advice and consent to his appointments, (which of course, includes their right to decline a nominee) the Republicans would be shirking their duty as laid on them in the Constitution. The process of providing advice and consent is spelled out in the Senate rules, which I’m too lazy to look up, describing the process for confirmation hearings. The Republicans, in insisting that they won’t allow a confirmation hearing, are not following the proper procedures and also not following their constitutional duty.
By insisting that the president is not entitled to nominate a candidate at all, the Republicans are directly flouting the constitution.
There is no such rule, just as there is no such rule against politicians flip-flopping on their view of government when it becomes convenient for them:
Senator Alexander: “I pledged, then and there, I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.” (Congressional Chronicle, June 9, 2005)
Senator Burr: “But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution.” [Senate Floor Speech, 4/20/05]
Senator Cornyn: “And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents’ nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat… We need a permanent solution to this problem. And I believe it should be along the lines that I suggested, that each president’s nominees would be treated exactly the same and not dependent on who happens to take up the decision to block, in a partisan fashion, a bipartisan majority from being able to cast an up-or-down vote.” [CQ Transcriptions “U.S. Senator John Cornyn Holds a News Conference on Judicial Nominees,” 5/9/05]; “Far too many judicial and executive nominees have been delayed by the majority party of the Senate. An up-or-down vote is a matter of fundamental fairness, and it is the Senate’s constitutional duty to act on each nomination. It is also critically important to our judicial system and the proper functioning of our federal government to fill these positions. Senators have a right to vote for or against any nominee-but blocking votes on nominations is unacceptable.” (Senate website, Feb. 7, 2008)
Senator Grassley: “History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. It’s time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor.” [Grassley.Senate.gov, “Talking Judges to Death,” 5/8/05]
Senator Hatch: “…I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor…” [NPR, “Orrin Hatch Discusses Debate in Senate,” 5/19/05]
Senator Roberts: “Let me talk about cost. Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the Federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches. Reckless behavior such as this is irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars.” [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/05]