The Supreme Court vacancy, a minefield for Republicans

Just as Dems did respond to Bush and will respond to a President Rubio or Trump. The country is as divided as it has ever been. It's to some extent unfortunate, but inevitable when opinions about what is right for the nation are so polarized, and politicians in both parties exploit division for their personal interests.

I disagree. The dems have demonstrated no such degree of hatred. I'm saying no degree, but the current party that has usurped the republican party have set the bar so high I doubt anyone will be able to surpass it anytime soon.

And I'm sure there are conservatives who disagree too. It's not surprising.

You made the statement, please clarify then.

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

What did you mean then?

"Might appeal" to doesn't mean makes the act one of the choices by the group acting.


Arresting a black man for a crime might appeal to the Tea party buffoons and racist idiots doesn't mean the police acted because they were Tea party buffoons or racist. While those certainly can be reasons, they are not exclusively the only reasons nor does it mean the act was done solely to achieve that approval.

While I generally understand the, well, 'need' to pick out some points that may give a bit of good press to the recently deceased, with Scalia I think the only good thing you can say is that he loved his family.

Words to the effect that he was 'brilliant', a 'legal titan', a jurist of 'wisdom, scholarship, and technical brilliance' is enough to sicken me when all he did on the Court was to make the United States less equal, less judicious, more corporate, and very much less humane.

The Dems opposition to Bush doesn't come anywhere near the same level of opposition to Obama. Especially in regard to the Tea Party republicans, who by the way have hijacked and taken over the republican party. The Tea Party has polarized our country's ability to govern greater than any other time in modern history. The closest level of polarization by the Tea Party republicans would be Newt Gingrich's and the republican congress in the early/mid 1990s. Although Newt Gingrich's congress was clearly polarizing our government, he was no where near the level of polarization of the republican Tea Party. Let's be clear of what I mean as polarizing. Polarization is one party refuses to compromise with the other party. Polarization is also when both party refuses to compromise with each other. Polarization is also when one party refuses to have a fair give and take when negotiating compromises.

Remember there are times that polarization can clearly be one-sided. I believe the Tea Party republican has been the primary reason our government has been so polarizing throughout Obama's nearly 8 years in office. Each time Obama tried to compromise by moving to the right, the Tea Party republicans would always move the goal post even further to the right. That's the one issue I had regarding Obama. It seemed like he never learned his lesson. The Tea Party does not want to compromise. They want everthing. Anything short of getting everything they want will be dead on arrival.

What is your evidence that Republicans would oppose Obama if he tried to implement their own platform?

Well there's "Obamacare" which started with a republican...

I think the very thought of compromising with a black man is just too much for them.

You probably have something there.

Ding ding ding! We have a winnah!

In 1993 republicans and conservative groups were proposing alternative plans to Bill and Hillary Clinton Healthcare Reform. Conservative groups who embraced these alternate plans included both the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. One of those plans was (Health Equity And Access Reform Today Act Of 1993). This bill never got voted on. The point man for this bill was republican Senator John Chafee from Rhode Island. Other republican sponsors to this bill included then Minority Leader Bob Dole from Kansas, Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah, Charles Grassley from Iowa, Richard Lugar from Indiana, as well as 13 other republican senators along with 2 dems sponsors.

Features included in this 1993 republican bill were
1. An individual mandate
2. Creating of Purchasing Pools
3. Standardizing benefits
4. Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance
5. A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition

I don't know whether or not this is identical to Obamacare. If it isn't identical, it's pretty darn close to being identical. I guess Obamacare was okay in 1993. I guess Obamacare was also okay when Mitt Romney passed it in Massachusetts. Obamacare is okay, just as long it didn't come from Obama..

But shooting themselves in the foot dosent seem to hurt their reelection chances. Can any of you explain that, I sure as hell cant figure it out. A republican house that will stay republican for 10 more years minimum.

gerrymandering

I think this ridiculous comment is excellent evidence that you have no understanding of the Tea Party at all.

Well, I disagree and I doubt either of us is prepared to produce a truly comprehensive, factual analysis that compares the efforts of Democrats to oppose Republican presidents and those of Republicans opposing Dems.

I think they are equally "bad" or "good" (depending on your point of view).

We can see a pretty decent factual analysis of the Senate in the filibuster and how many times it has been invoked.

Another decent factual analysis would be judge nominations, confirmations and length of time of open judgeships.

I'm with you. It's pretty damn confusing when we have gridlock in congress, and they continue to get reelected.

So present them