Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Nah... it needs to be a rock-solid conservative imo, otherwise, the GOP Senate should simply say "Nein".

Right, which is proof that the system isn't working as intended, something you celebrate. God forbid we have a moderate jurist with that is non-ideological. The entire country might fething collapse.

Just for argument's sake, what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot? If a Rubio, Cruz, or Trump were on the way out with a Democrat controlled Senate, would the Democrats be doing anything different than the Republicans are doing now? You bet your arse they wouldn't. They'd be doing the EXACT same thing. So all this indignation at the Republicans is just sour grapes.

Except this exact same thing DID happen, with Reagan, with Kennedy, and he was confirmed 97-0.

 d-usa wrote:
They have everything to lose.

- "they appoint justices" is always a talking point in elections, but knowing that Cruz will appoint a direct representative of his theologically influenced view of the constitution will hurt them during the election.

- "they approve justices" is a bad thing for the very vulnerable senate seats that the GOP is trying to keep this election.
- the lower courts are packed with Obama appointments, and they are going to rule against every decision from the conservative district judges that will be "affirmed" by the SCOTUS due to the tie because they won't affect the liberal circuits.
- they have a huge bargaining chip right now to force concessions from Obama in order for him to get another appointment.

This is the GOP Senate version of being able to win the Super Bowl and deciding to go with the pass play instead of running it.

 whembly wrote:

I'm actually not so certain that this Senate *could* successfully block an Obama appointee to be honest.

That's nice, but "could" and "should" are different words with very different meanings. Your argument, assuming you aren't deliberately moving the goalposts, hinges on "should".

 whembly wrote:

However, recognize that this senate has nothing to lose to hold out till November.

You mean aside from proving that Republicans are obstructionist?

 whembly wrote:
But, not Bork.

Right, which again indicates more that there was a specific problem with Bork as a nominee, then an organized partisan bloc dedicated to blocking ANY nominee in an election year. So, the exact opposite of what the GOP is now presumably going to do, as requested by the current GOP front-runners.

They refuse to confirm so-and-so in an up and down vote, that's fair. If there is no vote for ANY nominee, they won't even consider any nominee, that's different and ridiculous.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I ain't reframing gak as anytime an ideological opponent of yours tries to make a point, you want to gak on it on a very schadenboner style. It's about *you* framing a rather one-side conversation about how gakky conservative ideas and generally anything Republicans doing *stuff*.

No Whembly, that's what you're trying to do, except it's "if the Democrats do it, it's bad but it's okay if Republicans do it because Obama." Unlike you, I don't have a team other than honesty which is why I'm holding you accountable to the stupid gak that spills out of your keyboard.

Imma call BS on that Scooty, go ahead and keep protesting that.

Case in point: you repeated an exact claim from Breitbart with video "proof" to back it up that, when you actually listen to it, says nothing that you were claiming. However, because you automatically assume that because someone tells you that you're wrong, they've obviously on the other "team" and agree with the exact opposite.

You're wrong. Schumer was laying the ground to oppose any Bush nomination EIGHTEEN MONTHS before the end of his term.

The only difference that we could quibble over is that Schumer left a tiny sliver open to the idea if Bush nominated someone more agreeable for the Democrat. But if you were politically aware at that time, there would be not fething chance that Senate would approve any Bush's potential nominee, regardless of how reasonable that pick would be.

So, let me say this again, but with feelings: I. DO. NOT. READ. THAT. HORSEGAK. SITE. NAMED. BREIBART.

Whew... glad we got that cleared up.. eh?

I'm not claiming that Schumer was in the right in his comments, I'm telling you that your (repeated) characterization of them is wrong. Just like you were wrong when you repeated the National Report and Ted Cruz's claim about "NOT appointing justices in an election year."

Dude... I said I was wrong.

How about you admit that you were wrong in saying:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The President has a constitutional obligation to nominate a qualified person to fill the seat left vacant by Justice Scalia's passing just like Congress has the constitutional obligation to to confirm that nomination. In case you and the people you vote for have forgotten, that's how this system works.

There's no Constitutional obligation to "confirm" that nomination. The Senate can tell Obama to "go pound sand" if that want to, and it'd STILL Constitutionally Kosher™.

Nah... it needs to be a rock-solid conservative imo, otherwise, the GOP Senate should simply say "Nein".

Right, which is proof that the system isn't working as intended, something you celebrate. God forbid we have a moderate jurist with that is non-ideological. The entire country might fething collapse.

I sincerely believe that we'd be fools to expect Obama to nominate a moderate. Kegan and Sotomeyer were labeled as such...

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Except this exact same thing DID happen, with Reagan, with Kennedy, and he was confirmed 97-0.

But, not Bork.

- Bork was nominated on 7/1/87
- Senate Democrats gave their reasons for why they don't like Bork.
- The Senate Judiciary Committee had confirmation hearings.
- The Senate Judiciary Committee voted against him on 10/6/87
- The full Senate voted against him on 10/23/87 with a 42-58 vote and 6 Republicans voting against him as well.

The whole process took 121 days (my math might be off for a couple days).

I for one look forward to being educated on how opposing a particular nominee, holding committee hearings and voting on the committee level, and then proceeding with a vote of the full senate, and striking down a Justice nomination in 121 days (followed up by hearings of another Justice who withdrew due to drug use, and followed up by the approval of Kennedy after 65(?) days) is exactly like opposing every hypothetical nomination that Obama could possible put forward and going on record that there will be no hearings and no votes for the next year.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, not Bork.

Right, which again indicates more that there was a specific problem with Bork as a nominee, then an organized partisan bloc dedicated to blocking ANY nominee in an election year. So, the exact opposite of what the GOP is now presumably going to do, as requested by the current GOP front-runners.

They refuse to confirm so-and-so in an up and down vote, that's fair. If there is no vote for ANY nominee, they won't even consider any nominee, that's different and ridiculous.

I disagree. (obviously)

They can refuse to schedule a vote as it's their sole prerogative. The ball is in Obama's court... to nominate someone that's agreeable to the GOP Senate.

Evidently Scooty will jump in and describe me as the Mouth of RightWingers are something...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Except this exact same thing DID happen, with Reagan, with Kennedy, and he was confirmed 97-0.

But, not Bork.

- Bork was nominated on 7/1/87
- Senate Democrats gave their reasons for why they don't like Bork.
- The Senate Judiciary Committee had confirmation hearings.
- The Senate Judiciary Committee voted against him on 10/6/87
- The full Senate voted against him on 10/23/87 with a 42-58 vote and 6 Republicans voting against him as well.

The whole process took 121 days (my math might be off for a couple days).

I for one look forward to being educated on how opposing a particular nominee, holding committee hearings and voting on the committee level, and then proceeding with a vote of the full senate, and striking down a Justice nomination in 121 days (followed up by hearings of another Justice who withdrew due to drug use, and followed up by the approval of Kennedy after 65(?) days) is exactly like opposing every hypothetical nomination that Obama could possible put forward and going on record that there will be no hearings and no votes for the next year.

Again...

Obama needs to nominate someone who would be agreeable for the GOP Senate.

There's no need to go through all that if Obama nominates another Sotomeyer/Kegan.

 whembly wrote:
The ball is in Obama's court... to nominate someone that's agreeable to the GOP Senate.

That person doesn't exist according to the Senators that have already spoken, including Republicans serving on the judiciary committee and the majority leadership of the Senate.

There is of course a difference between "we will not consider anybody that Obama might nominate and will not hold any hearings or votes until the next president is elected" and "we will not consider [Nominee Whoever]" or, you know, holding hearings and actually voting on someone.

Because the leadership knows that as soon as they have hearings there will be a face attached to the cause. It's easier to oppose hypotheticals than it is to oppose the guy that had 97 in favor a few years ago, or the gal supported by lobbyist groups with a ton of money.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Again...

Obama needs to nominate someone who would be agreeable for the GOP Senate.

There's no need to go through all that if Obama nominates another Sotomeyer/Kegan.

There is still a need, because even the guy opposed by all the Democrats in 87, which you hold as the example of why we need to do this now, had hearings and was voted down and was given reasons as to WHY he was voted down and a suitable replacement was able to be nominated and confirmed.

That's the "advise" part of "advise and consent".

They can be the first Senate to refuse to do their job altogether for a year, and reap the damage from that, or they can realize that they have a very powerful bargaining chip and use it to their advantage.

 d-usa wrote:

They can be the first Senate to refuse to do their job altogether for a year, and reap the damage from that, or they can realize that they have a very powerful bargaining chip and use it to their advantage.

I'd argue that not scheduling a hearing, in opposition to a nomination, *is* doing their job.

But, strategically, yeah this is a missing opportunity and it remains to be seen if they'll suffer any damage.

 whembly wrote:

Absolutely, they "should"... I don't don't have any confidence that'll happen.

Are you trying to be sarcastic, or do you honestly believe that the Senate should block an Obama appointee?

 whembly wrote:

Meaningless.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant being obstructionist plays well with significant parts of the GOP base.

We seem to have moved on from talking about his death to talking about politics in a nasty, nasty often toeing rule 1 fashion. We have a thread full of just that kind of argument that this can be directed to now...but if it continues warnings will start to be issued.