@oralloy,
Quote:So they blocked him from 2006 through 2008
Under your argument, the Senate is still blocking nominations from Clinton and LBJ. Once a candidate's name is removed from consideration the Senate is not blocking them.
I heard an interesting idea today --
If they block President Obama's nominations until he's out of office, and a democrat is elected, they could nominate Obama to the Supreme Court.
@boomerang,
That's an irony that I would enjoy seeing.
@cicerone imposter,
It would be positively delicious!
@boomerang,
Unless the Democrat's coat tails brings a majority to the Senate, they'll still have a problem.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Not really. A nomination by the president, and blocked by the republicans will prove they're playing politics with the appointment. I would like to see them block it. That would have repercussions into the future that the American public will not tolerate.
@cicerone imposter,
Really? Ever hear the term "Borked"
@Finn dAbuzz,
Yes, for good reason.
Quote:Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring,
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.[6]
Ted Kennedy was right, and you're wrong.
@cicerone imposter,
Oh, and there was nothing political about that absurd claim.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Bork was the extremist. Are you like him, and support him? Show how it was absurd.
@cicerone imposter,
The onus is on the person making the absurd claim to prove it. Something Teddy was never able to do with evidence of Bork's prior rulings.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Some Republicans also voted against Bork. He was a controversial figure because of his participation in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre in 1973.
@cicerone imposter,
This isn't proof of anything other than the fact that liberals opposed him.
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:
I heard an interesting idea today --
If they block President Obama's nominations until he's out of office, and a democrat is elected, they could nominate Obama to the Supreme Court.
Hell, Obama could resign today and Biden could appoint him... <Mic Drop!>
But Obama has said that he doesn't think he's suited to the job.
@parados,
About Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. Interesting stuff on history.
http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/what-was-the-saturday-night-massacre
@DrewDad,
I would assume he and his family would wish to have more, and well deserved, well being. I'm not talking about money, but re their careers/interests in life.
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:Hell, Obama could resign today and Biden could appoint him... <Mic Drop!>
there's a great meme on this with Biden entering the campaign for the Democrats as incumbent president
The premise of this thread is fairly weak since it assumes that there might be unexpected fallout from the Republican position.
We can also pose a thread "Obama not attending Scalia's funeral, a minefield for the president and Democrats."
These people aren't utter fools. The number of voters who are going to base the decision in the upcoming election on how Republicans deal with this matter is very small and probably insignificant.
No matter what your politics, how many times have you said to yourself "I can't believe that didn't hurt them."
This is progressives hoping that a logical reaction from the GOP will hurt them significantly.
Mitchell would sell out the conservative movement in a second if he though he needed to politically.
@parados,
parados wrote:
Quote:
That may be taking it too far, but there is no reason why we should permit a conservative on the Supreme Court to be replaced by a liberal. The appointee may be there for a long time.
Interesting. So we should go back in time and correct all those instances where a USSC judge leaning one way is replaced by one leaning the other?
You don't seem to understand the basic process. The President gets to nominate whoever he wants. There is no obligation to replace a judge with someone similar.
When did I say that we should go back in time and correct anything? I am talking about what happens now. When did I say that the President didn't get to nominate whom he wants? It's you who doesn't understand the process. The Senate has no obligation to confirm him if they think his presence on the court is not in the national interest.