The Supreme Court vacancy, a minefield for Republicans

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

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

I was asking for any single quotation from any Republican office holder who said that Obama cannot. This is what you claim happened.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Yes they should consider them but then they should reject them outright before they even consider them. Seems to be an argument to reject anyone without considering them.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

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

Sorry, how is refusing to confirm a candidate you think would screw up the country racist?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Yes they should consider them but then they should reject them outright before they even consider them. Seems to be an argument to reject anyone without considering them.

It's not my argument. I think they must interview the candidates. Still, I think it's unlikely Obama will nominate someone we conservatives would like to see in the position.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Shocking isn't it?

0 Replies

Remember when George W. Bush lost the World Trade Center and wasted thousands more lives in Iraq and still nominated Supreme Court justices? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Cool

1 Reply

Good Lord but this thread is filled with BS.

Only partisans will believe the partisan tripe that Democrats would never do anything as dastardly as what the Republicans now seem to be doing. You really make yourselves look like fools when your bray this nonsense.

And if what the Republican plan on doing is such a minefield, why not relax, sit back and enjoy the explosions?

The answer is because it is frosting your left-wing asses that Obama won't be able to replace Scalia with a liberal judge.

2 Replies

@jcboy,

jcboy wrote:

Remember when George W. Bush lost the World Trade Center and wasted thousands more lives in Iraq and still nominated Supreme Court justices? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Hmmnn...George Bush lost the World Trade Center? It would be equally ridiculous to assert but a better argument could be made, along the lines of your twisted thinking, that Bill Clinton did.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's not my argument. I think they must interview the candidates. Still, I think it's unlikely Obama will nominate someone we conservatives would like to see in the position.

He won't. The buzz is he will nominate Srikanth Srinivasan who some consider a moderate jurist. This will be an entirely political move on Obama's part because he will really want to nominate someone like Elizabeth Warren.

Srinivasan could turn out to be the mirror image of Justice Souter, but the GOP shouldn't count on that.

I hope the buzz is correct. The Indian-American voting bloc in this country is insignificant. He would be smarter to nominate a latino judge.

There's actually some talk about him nominating Brian Sandoval the Republican governor from Nevada, but he's not at all that crafty.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

The last time there was a Supreme Court Justice vacancy in the final year of a President's term was under Ronald Reagan. President Reagan exercise his constitutional duty by nominating Anthony Kennedy on November 11, 1987. Anthony Kennedy was confirmed February 3, 1988. This occurred in Ronald Reagan's final year of his second term. The Senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy 97-0. When you say that Democrats would be doing the same thing the republicans are now threatening to do, history rejects that assumption.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

And if what the Republican plan on doing is such a minefield, why not relax, sit back and enjoy the explosions?

I am. The anticipation is fun, too, and so is speculation about it.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

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

Sorry, how is refusing to confirm a candidate you think would screw up the country racist?

Hmm.... is that what I said? Are you sure?

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

"You think would screw up the country" is too subjective to take seriously.

0 Replies

I predict that Obama's choice to replace Scalia will be the most liberal nominee ever foisted upon the senate and the American people. How do I know that? Because Fox News and the conservative echo chamber will tell me so. I don't even have to know who the nominee will be. Srikanth Srinivasan? Ultra-liberal. Loretta Lynch? Ultra-ultra-liberal. Brian Sandoval? Ultra-liberal, and maybe an illegal alien. Elizabeth Warren? Don't make me laugh.

As usual, though, the conservative dittorati will shoot themselves in the foot on this one. Mitch McConnell and his cohorts in the senate have the opportunity to swing a deal with Obama - "nominate a moderate and we'll let you have this one." Instead, they will block Obama's nominee and then end up with President Clinton nominating a genuine liberal who will sail through the democratically controlled senate next year.

It will be just like health care reform. The Republicans were given all sorts of chances to weigh in on the form that the ACA would take, but instead decided to be obstructionists. So the ACA turned out to be something that was entirely objectionable to them (even though it shouldn't have been - it was a conservative idea originally). The GOP leadership, however, is incapable of appreciating the big picture. Sometimes, the best way to be an obstructionist is to be an accommodationist.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I agree. They seem to shoot themselves in the foot too often. Their gridlock isn't going to win voters.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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

Sorry, how is refusing to confirm a candidate you think would screw up the country racist?

Hmm.... is that what I said? Are you sure?

Looks like it. http://able2know.org/topic/310660-5#post-6130373

You imply that Republicans stonewalling must either be tea party buffoons or racist. In this instance, stonewalling would be refusing to confirm a candidate and therefore must be racist.

Is that not what you meant?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

No. Keep up with the news. The GOP doesn't want Obama to nominate a SC judge.

0 Replies

the senate would try to prevent the appointment if the nominee was Ted Cruz, merely because Obama nominated him

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

This makes me doubtful of your ability to parse English.

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

Since the republicans have already forecasted their intentions publicly, you are correct. The republicans hate Obama. They always have. They always will. The republicans always has and will continue to fight Obama tooth and nail in regard to anything and everything. If Obama were to say that he agrees with every single Tea Party republican agenda and was willing to sign on to anything they wanted, they would reject it because Obama supported it. If Obama himself were to agree to repeal Obama care, the Tea Party republican would fight tooth and nail to keep Obama care in place. The Tea Party republicans would turn on a dime for the sole purpose to oppose Obama on anything and everything.

1 Reply

The Supreme Court vacancy, a minefield for Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know