The Supreme Court vacancy, a minefield for Republicans

@Brandon9000,

The issue here is that the the Republicans in Congress, including McConnell, are rejecting Obama's nominee before even knowing who it will be.

The duty of the Congress is advice and consent. Rejecting a nominee before knowing who it is seems a clear example of dereliction of duty.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

The question is whether they'll ever have to pay for it.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The issue here is that the the Republicans in Congress, including McConnell, are rejecting Obama's nominee before even knowing who it will be.

The duty of the Congress is advice and consent. Rejecting a nominee before knowing who it is seems a clear example of dereliction of duty.

The Senate should hear each one out, however, it seems unlikely that the president would nominate anyone we would see as an acceptable replacement.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

I strongly disagree with your statement saying that democrats would do the same thing if they were in the republicans shoes. In fact, history itself says that you are wrong regarding that statement. It is not the job of the republican senate to block any nominee that is not conservative enough for their liking. It is the constitutional duty of the republican senate to consider and give a fair hearing for the nominee. After giving the nominee a fair hearing, then decide whether or not to confirm. It is also the president's constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. It would be a dereliction of his constitutional duty if he did not nominate a new Supreme Court Justice.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Your acceptance is not required nor asked for.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

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.

By playing politics, I assume you mean blocking an appointment they feel is not in the national interest. That's actually their job.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

National interest? Dont you mean republican interest?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

The Senate should hear each one out, however, it seems unlikely that the president would nominate anyone we would see as an acceptable replacement.

When were you elected to the Senate?

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

Yup, republican interest to tell Obama he can't nominate a SC justice until the next election cycle.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yup, republican interest to tell Obama he can't nominate a SC justice until the next election cycle.

I believe that some said that he shouldn't. Which ones said that he cannot?

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

You lie. The GOP demanded otherwise.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/02/13/partisan-dispute-breaks-out-immediately-over-antonin-scalia-replacement-process-for-supreme-court/CSPFenWpAZIK8kExPQiY8H/story.html

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You lie. The GOP demanded otherwise.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/02/13/partisan-dispute-breaks-out-immediately-over-antonin-scalia-replacement-process-for-supreme-court/CSPFenWpAZIK8kExPQiY8H/story.html

I said two sentences. Which one is a lie?

The first sentence was:

Quote:

I believe that some said that he shouldn't.

Was this the lie?

The second and final sentence was:

Quote:

Which ones said that he cannot?

Was this the lie? No, it can't be because it's a question. So the lie would have to be the first sentence. But the first sentence was just my opinion that some Republicans said he shouldn't make the nomination. This is both (a) a statement of what I believe (and unless you can read minds, you don't know what I believe) and (b) factually correct (some did say that).

Also, please point me to the statement in your link in which any Republican says that the president cannot nominate a candidate. Skimming the article, I don't see such a statement.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

GOP leaders say ''MUST NOT FILL." Is English your second language?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

GOP leaders say ''MUST NOT FILL." Is English your second language?

That's a headline written by the paper, not a quote from a Republican. I'm not even saying it's not so. I'm just saying that I haven't personally seen it. I note that, as always, you cannot argue your case without insults and jibes.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Why should we accept your standard of picking a conservative to replace a conservative should be the standard since it has never been such in the past? History is our guide on this. The Constitution is our guide on this. You can want a conservative to replace a conservative all you want but every legal and moral aspect of this points to your opinion being wrong.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Why should we accept your standard of picking a conservative to replace a conservative should be the standard since it has never been such in the past? History is our guide on this. The Constitution is our guide on this. You can want a conservative to replace a conservative all you want but every legal and moral aspect of this points to your opinion being wrong.

Okay, what in the Constitution says that the Senate cannot hold out for someone to whom they wish to give consent?

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Advise and consent is not the same thing as "refuse to even consider anyone until there is another President."

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Why would the newspaper lie? If it were not true, the republicans would jump all over it. They didn't.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Okay, what in the Constitution says that the Senate cannot hold out for someone to whom they wish to give consent?

Nothing. There's a difference between saying "we can do this" and "we should do this," though.

Stonewalling might appeal to the Tea Party buffoons and racist idiots in the Republican party, it might not appeal so much to swing voters.

If the Republicans stonewall and reject every nominee, they risk pissing off the voters that win them the general elections.

If the Republicans act reasonably, and confirm an Obama appointee, they risk pissing of the base voters that win them the primaries.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Advise and consent is not the same thing as "refuse to even consider anyone until there is another President."

Yes, yes, yes, they should consider them. However, it seems unlikely that Obama will nominate anyone who isn't a significant step down from Scalia.

1 Reply

The Supreme Court vacancy, a minefield for Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know