• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

logger said:
The left is sure going to howl, I love it!!
Click to expand...
Yes, we will point out the fact that that the GOP scum in the Congress are unprecedented in their obstruction.

If the GOP scum are smart they will allow Obama to fill the seat with someone relatively moderate (ie a little to the left of Anthony Kennedy).

But they probably are not that smart. They will probably block any nomination. Then they lose the election and the next President nominates someone to the left of Obama’s nominee.

Alternatively, the American people turn out to be extremely stupid and put a Republican in the WH. And Democrats decide that turnabout is fair play and refuse to allow any more right wing scum on the Supreme Court.
 
Loss Leader said:
Maybe McConnell thinks Obama was born in office, like Simba in The Lion King.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it's a calculated campaign tactic. I have little doubt the Republicans will use this to motivate their base in the upcoming election. It's one thing to make a general statement the SCOTUS appointments are on the line, it's another to have a position actually up for an appointment.
 
ehcks said:
Your typo is actually correct here. Obama does not have to successfully appoint a nominee. According to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution

....by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


But what about positions that are for life?

Steve S
 
foophil said:
Quite a few I believe. 34 total. 24 are Republican seats and 10 Democrat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016

Democrats will likely pick up more seats overall, but will it be enough to take the Senate again like in 2008? Probably too soon to tell. I think it'll depend on who the presidential nominees are. I can't imagine Hillary drawing major crowds of voters like Obama did, but then again, if Cruz is running against her, it'll probably pull out every Democrat that has a pulse in order to be sure that nutjob doesn't win whether they like Hillary or not. Large turnouts overall tend to favor the Democrats.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how each side spins this to the media. The problem for Republicans is that their wait-and-see approach is not the principled stance; if a liberal on the court died in February of 2008, Republicans would be all in favor of Bush choosing a successor (and the Democrats would have to grasp for a reason to oppose). Republicans have already made their first mistake vowing to oppose a nominee Obama has not even named.

Since, as you say, 24 of the Senate seats are Republican, they have something else to lose. In terms of presidential nominees, Cruz would be a disaster. On the Democratic side, the election stakes just got even bigger -- GOP obstructionism could mean replacing the most conservative of justices -- AND a man in his seventies just abruptly died (of apparently natural causes). This will give Hillary supporters more ammunition. Not only is Sanders a weaker candidate in the general election (forget what the polls say right now), there's a better chance he could keel over, which is the exact same argument Obama supporters made against the then-slightly younger John McCain.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Reprehensible why? Scalia was homophobe, said it was fine for Bush to order indefinite detention by calling it a WAR on terrorism, like I said upstream, said it was fine to execute an innocent person as long as the person had due process.

Those are reprehensible, not someone refusing to pander to a dead guy for some implied social tradition.
Click to expand...

Reprehensible yes. But also the appropriate interpretation of the Constitution.
 
Tony Stark said:
Yes, we will point out the fact that that the GOP scum in the Congress are unprecedented in their obstruction.

If the GOP scum are smart they will allow Obama to fill the seat with someone relatively moderate (ie a little to the left of Anthony Kennedy).

But they probably are not that smart. They will probably block any nomination. Then they lose the election and the next President nominates someone to the left of Obama’s nominee.

Alternatively, the American people turn out to be extremely stupid and put a Republican in the WH. And Democrats decide that turnabout is fair play and refuse to allow any more right wing scum on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
If the GOP were smart they'd get rid of the filibuster and over ride every veto this ********** puts forth.
 
Cain said:
It will be interesting to see how each side spins this to the media. The problem for Republicans is that their wait-and-see approach is not the principled stance; if a liberal on the court died in February of 2008, Republicans would be all in favor of Bush choosing a successor (and the Democrats would have to grasp for a reason to oppose). Republicans have already made their first mistake vowing to oppose a nominee Obama has not even named.

Since, as you say, 24 of the Senate seats are Republican, they have something else to lose. In terms of presidential nominees, Cruz would be a disaster. On the Democratic side, the election stakes just got even bigger -- GOP obstructionism could mean replacing the most conservative of justices -- AND a man in his seventies just abruptly died (of apparently natural causes). This will give Hillary supporters more ammunition. Not only is Sanders a weaker candidate in the general election (forget what the polls say right now), there's a better chance he could keel over, which is the exact same argument Obama supporters made against the then-slightly younger John McCain.
Click to expand...
You don't think this is going to be a motivating factor for every republican and conservative democrat to vote? The next presidency is going to either preserve the union or set up a liberal disaster that cannot be recovered from.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Pretty sure it's a calculated campaign tactic. I have little doubt the Republicans will use this to motivate their base in the upcoming election. It's one thing to make a general statement the SCOTUS appointments are on the line, it's another to have a position actually up for an appointment.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're touching on an important point. I think this will prove to be a Pyrrhic victory for Democrats. Sure, the witch is dead, so to speak, but the balance of power on the Supreme Court is in jeopardy for the first time in decades. The last President to have an opportunity to replace a Supreme Court Justice of the opposing ideology was Bush 41 (George H. W. Bush). He got to replace two liberal ones, but he screwed up and nominated one replacement who was as liberal as the predecessor (i.e. Souter).

The threat to the status quo is a much bigger motivator to those who have more to lose (i.e. conservatives) than to those who have more to gain (i.e. liberals). You can be sure that this will turn out the Republican base for the election, if the Senate chooses to delay approval until next year (which I think it will).
 
logger said:
If the GOP were smart they'd get rid of the filibuster and over ride every veto this ********** puts forth.
Click to expand...

Mitch McConnell is apparently smarter than you since he understands the fact that Obama would gladly veto every right wing bill that comes across his desk and that Republicans lack the votes (in both the Senate and the House) to override his veto.
 
logger said:
You don't think this is going to be a motivating factor for every republican and conservative democrat to vote? The next presidency is going to either preserve the union or set up a liberal disaster that cannot be recovered from.
Click to expand...

Higher turnout typically hurts Republicans, who usually perform better in off-year elections.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I'm pretty sure the Republicans think they have the political capital to not act on any nomination before the election (and then before the end of Obama's term). Since they control the Senate, they can slow down the process to a crawl, but still move it along, and then just have a vote at the end which the nominee loses, and then the process starts over. I think it's the right thing to do
Click to expand...

How is it that government not functioning due to ideology and obstructionism became the right thing to do?
 
Look for Obama to cry racism as those rascally republicans block his loser nominee. The divider in chief will pull all the stops to get this done.
 
Wayward son said:
How is it that government not functioning due to ideology and obstructionism became the right thing to do?
Click to expand...

And I absolutely guarantee that if some Republican piece of garbage becomes President they would start crying if the Democrats obstruct them. In fact they have already laughably cried about Harry Reid using the filibuster. Even though Obama would still veto those bills.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
Look for Obama to cry racism as those rascally republicans block his loser nominee. The divider in chief will pull all the stops to get this done.
Click to expand...

Explain how Republicans will not be obstructionists garage if the block a qualified nominee for the longest time ever. Then explain why Senate Democrats should allow President Ted Cruz to replace Scalia with his pick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom