Discussion for article #246154
I don’t expect the GOTP to act responsibly, ever. I expect them to act like what they’ve become…petulant children.
IMHO Obama can nominate a moderate who is acceptable to both parties and see this person confirmed. We don’t need a progressive at this point. Replacing an ideologue like Scalia with even a reliable swing vote puts us way ahead of where we were.
13 Likes
If we don’t replace the President, that means Obama gets to stay right? I fail to see the problem there.
11 Likes
Which the GOP would gladly do if they don’t win the White House.
When Clinton took office,they immediately set off on a quest to overturn the will of the people expressed in two elections by trying to impeach and oust him on personal matters.
When Obama took office, they immediately set off on a quest to obstruct literally everything he attempted, no matter how minor, in order to make him a “1 term president”, and failing that, continued to reflexively obstruct everything he does…again, completely ignoring the will of the people.
So yeah, I feel pretty safe in saying that the GOP would be fine and dandy with not replacing the President if a Democrat wins again.
16 Likes
The Vice-President is correct.
9 Likes
"To leave the seat vacant at this critical moment in American history is a little bit like saying, 'God forbid something happen to the President and the vice president, we're not going to fill the presidency for another year and a half,'" Biden said.
I agree with him of course, but a more cogent argument would have been if the vice presidency became vacant and Congress refused to consider the new prospective vice president whom the president would nominate per the Twenty-fifth Amendment. That would be particularly egregious in a situation like the current one, in which the Speaker of the House (next in line after the vice president) is from the other party.
As I recall, Speaker Carl Albert was greatly concerned that he might become president during the period between Spiro Agnew’s resignation and Gerald Ford’s swearing-in and between Nixon’s resignation (when the vice presidency became vacant as a result of Ford’s ascension to the presidency) and Nelson Rockefeller’s swearing-in. Albert felt that a Democrat’s succeeding to the presidency would be counter to the results of the 1972 election.
5 Likes
Considering that the GOP’s goal since day one has been to neuter President Obama (politically if not literally), the only way they’d replace a sitting Democratic President was if they could figure out how to seat one of theirs.
Constitution be damned with this crowd - it’s all about tribalism and the naked exercise of power at this point.
3 Likes
“absolutely, thoroughly irresponsible.”
Turtlepitude…
3 Likes
So, listen up peoples! Vote down ticket!
4 Likes
GOP: None of Obama’s nominee are acceptable to us. We have put in hard work with Voter Suppression, Gerrymandering and usual Foxing. Rewards will be ours when any of current cream of crop presidential candidates are elected POTUS in Nov and nominates a pure right winger like Scalia.
4 Likes
this is a BIG win opportunity. obstruct away.
5 Likes
I’ve always believed that Rs believe the White House belongs to a white male R only, and also believe that the way treated both forceful Democratic presidents Clinton and Obama who from the start of their administrations were assured and charismatic presences, which Carter was not, only means that they seek payback for Nixon having been forced to resign. Feminists are beginning to dread the treatment a first woman president will receive at the hands of her opponents. We also believe Clinton is up to it, but it will be a nasty eight years.
5 Likes
No, if something happened to President Obama and you, Mr. Vice President, Republicans would be all too happy to replace the two of you, as Republicans are currently third and fourth in the line of succession.
1 Like
I agree.
Holding hearings and turning down a nominee is one thing.
Refusal to hold hearings before a nomination is made is very different.
I have to believe this will be a big turn off to independent, centrist voters.
They’ve neutered the RNC and strategic thinking has gone down the toilet.
2 Likes
Keep it simple. The Constitution plainly directs the President to nominate Supreme Court Judges.
It is an obligation imposed on him by the Constitution.
2 Likes
Wellllll… I certainly agree with VP Biden’s sentiment, but the loss of a President would automatically trigger the elevation of the Vice-President (or Speaker of the House, God forbid) without so much as a by-your-leave from anyone. Now, if the VP passed away, which is why I can see VP Biden not using this analogy, then the process becomes more cumbersome. Holding the VP spot vacant would be utterly unconscionable, just like our SCOTUS vacancy. Thoughts?
That’s easy. Republicans would insist that the President nominate a Republican, perhaps Paul Ryan, as he’s already third in line, for the VP slot. They’d say that the President should do it in the name of bipartisanship.
Their backup plan would be to suggest that the President step down and allow the public to decide next November. Paul Ryan could fill in in the interim.
1 Like
Perhaps an Olympia Snowe nomination would create a little agita for our Republican bretheren.
1 Like
"There are plenty of judges who are on high courts already who have have unanimous support of the Republicans."
Uh … Joe … You’re lettin’ yer cards show —
So far polling doesn’t support that.