Recess appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court?

[thaiboxerken]

If there is no law against what the GOP is doing in this case, there should be.

The GOP should understand that what goes around comes around.

Actually, they know better than that. They know that the Democratic party, as a whole, tends not to use the same unethical tactics that the Republicans do. Integrity is the weakness of liberals and progressives, and the cons are more than willing to exploit it. The Democrats will not even come close to being the obstructionist party that the Republicans have been to Obama the last eight years. Democrats will not bring up surprise bills when they have power. The damned libruls will not use their power to sew more power like the conservatives do. Yes, there are some exceptions, but on the whole, Republicans are shameless in how they abuse and use power while Democrats want to do the right thing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You can't make a law. The role is defined by the constitution. Heck, the law specifying the size of the court is likely unconstitutional.

This post is nonsense. Laws have been created in this country since inception.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This post is nonsense. Laws have been created in this country since inception.

Fine. You can't pass a law that would survive judicial review.

 

[uke2se]

Actually, they know better than that. They know that the Democratic party, as a whole, tends not to use the same unethical tactics that the Republicans do. Integrity is the weakness of liberals and progressives, and the cons are more than willing to exploit it. The Democrats will not even come close to being the obstructionist party that the Republicans have been to Obama the last eight years. Democrats will not bring up surprise bills when they have power. The damned libruls will not use their power to sew more power like the conservatives do. Yes, there are some exceptions, but on the whole, Republicans are shameless in how they abuse and use power while Democrats want to do the right thing.

Then it's time to change. The GOP has demonstrated that they have no intention of playing by any rules that aren't expressly written down, and in some cases, not even then. The Democrats need to get ugly, wrest Power away from these critters, and then legislate away these gaps in the rules to prevent a new generation of unscrupulous critters from abusing them.

The Democrats need to get mean, and soon. For the good of all.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Then it's time to change. The GOP has demonstrated that they have no intention of playing by any rules that aren't expressly written down, and in some cases, not even then. The Democrats need to get ugly, wrest Power away from these critters, and then legislate away these gaps in the rules to prevent a new generation of unscrupulous critters from abusing them.

The Democrats need to get mean, and soon. For the good of all.

I agree, but I don't think it will happen.

 

[sunmaster14]

When Democrats lose elections, they always consider the power gained by the other side as illegitimate. That's why they want the SCOTUS to declare the Republican Senate's "obstructionism" (in their opinion only of course) unconstitutional. Or they want President Obama to appoint a new justice anyway, using some half-assed "loophole" which isn't even a loophole. The obvious (and constitutional) solution to the Republican Senate's "obstructionism" is to elect more Democratic Senators. But they can't do that I guess because the American people are irredeemably stupid and deplorable.

 

[theprestige]

Sounds like you're demanding that Obama be a good American while the GOP can be traitors.

Just pointing out that Obama campaigned on the promise of carrying the scorpion safely across the river.

 

[phiwum]

Just pointing out that Obama campaigned on the promise of carrying the scorpion safely across the river.

Sorry, but are you calling your own side the scorpion?

 

[uke2se]

Sorry, but are you calling your own side the scorpion?

It's actually a good analogy. Democrats need to learn from it. It's in the GOP's nature to **** you over. You can't work with them. You need to work to get rid of them.

 

[phiwum]

It's actually a good analogy. Democrats need to learn from it. It's in the GOP's nature to **** you over. You can't work with them. You need to work to get rid of them.

I'm not thrilled with Republicans' lack of principles these days, but I don't care to lump them all together. Some Republicans are, I assume, decent persons.

 

[Dumb All Over]

5-minute window of opportunity approaching at the top of the hour. Does he have the balls?

 

[phiwum]

5-minute window of opportunity approaching at the top of the hour. Does he have the balls?

I should think that it would be a bad deal to do this, wouldn't you?

The Republicans behaved very badly by refusing to consider Garland. I don't think that it would be appropriate for Obama to behave similarly badly.

 

[Dumb All Over]

I should think that it would be a bad deal to do this, wouldn't you?

The Republicans behaved very badly by refusing to consider Garland. I don't think that it would be appropriate for Obama to behave similarly badly.

In this thread's poll, we'll put you down as a "no" then.

 

[logger]

I should think that it would be a bad deal to do this, wouldn't you?

The Republicans behaved very badly by refusing to consider Garland. I don't think that it would be appropriate for Obama to behave similarly badly.

Interesting to call it bad behavior. That to me can only be said if one doesn't understand the stakes. It me it was pure hard nose politics because the outcome could have been a disaster for our side.

 

[logger]

It's actually a good analogy. Democrats need to learn from it. It's in the GOP's nature to **** you over. You can't work with them. You need to work to get rid of them.

I've said the same thing about dems. Welcome to partisanship. May the best side win!

 

[logger]

When Democrats lose elections, they always consider the power gained by the other side as illegitimate. That's why they want the SCOTUS to declare the Republican Senate's "obstructionism" (in their opinion only of course) unconstitutional. Or they want President Obama to appoint a new justice anyway, using some half-assed "loophole" which isn't even a loophole. The obvious (and constitutional) solution to the Republican Senate's "obstructionism" is to elect more Democratic Senators. But they can't do that I guess because the American people are irredeemably stupid and deplorable.

They also scream bipartisanship. They don't seem to know what to do now since they have zero power and a republican who is willing to meet them on their level.

 

[sunmaster14]

I should think that it would be a bad deal to do this, wouldn't you?

The Republicans behaved very badly by refusing to consider Garland. I don't think that it would be appropriate for Obama to behave similarly badly.

It would not have been similarly badly. Not even close. Although I didn't agree with the Republican strategy (particularly because they didn't give themselves the option of approving Garland if it looked like Hillary would win), it was well within the bounds of acceptable political maneuvering. There was even precedent (established by the current Vice-President himself when he was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) for "letting the voters" decide in a Presidential election year.

Making a recess appointment, or, worse, trying to confirm his nominee using the fleeting majority of Democrats in the Senate (since more Democrats are staying in their seats than Republicans), would be beyond the pale in my opinion.

 

[Dumb All Over]

The moment has come and gone. The window of opportunity has closed shut.

Barack Hussein Obama officially has no balls.

 

[sunmaster14]

They also scream bipartisanship. They don't seem to know what to do now since they have zero power and a republican who is willing to meet them on their level.

I'm endlessly fascinated by the Democrats' apparent belief that Republicans are more ruthless than Democrats are. I think the reverse is obviously true. And there is good reason for it. Democrats substitute political ideology for religion, and so their partisan fervor is greater. I suppose it is part of being ruthless to accuse your opponents of being ruthless while being far more ruthless yourself.

Already, the Democrats are declaring war on the President-Elect. The Senate minority leader is already committing himself to slow-walking Trump's cabinet appointments and trying to obstruct him anyway he can. The Republicans didn't do this to Obama. Never did actually, despite Democrats' insincere (or perhaps delusional) claims to the contrary.

 

[logger]

The moment has come and gone. The window of opportunity has closed shut.

Barack Hussein Obama officially has no balls.

I'm endlessly fascinated by the Democrats' apparent belief that Republicans are more ruthless than Democrats are. I think the reverse is obviously true. And there is good reason for it. Democrats substitute political ideology for religion, and so their partisan fervor is greater. I suppose it is part of being ruthless to accuse your opponents of being ruthless while being far more ruthless yourself.

Already, the Democrats are declaring war on the President-Elect. The Senate minority leader is already committing himself to slow-walking Trump's cabinet appointments and trying to obstruct him anyway he can. The Republicans didn't do this to Obama. Never did actually, despite Democrats' insincere (or perhaps delusional) claims to the contrary.

Agreed!