Discussion: Judiciary GOPers Sign Letter Saying They Won't Hold Hearing For Obama Nom

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #246369

2

If the Republican Senate refuses to give a hearing to his nominee, I suggest the President take this to the Supreme Court.

16 Likes
3

“Our next President”: will be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Hah!

11 Likes
4

File it here.

8 Likes
5

And we should all sign the letter of legal suit against the treasonist obstructionists taking over our government and not performing their jobs as sworn to.

9 Likes
6

I guess The GOP senators really don’t want to hide behind a thin guise of democracy any more. They have been relying on Imperial Court Rulings for 20 years and giving that up is unthinkable.

18 Likes
7

After we lynch these guys on 01/20/2017, they will go to a special place in hell.

2 Likes
8

Did they really say “our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to PROTEST the will of the American people”, or is that a TPM typo?

9 Likes
9

I guess these times demand different tactics for dealing with your opposition. The old ways, as effective as they were, have fallen out of favor.

10 Likes
10

Every American now has standing to sue each signator of this letter for failure to discharge their lawful duty.

Edit: I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to make sense to me. Although I suppose that the constitution does not spell out the number of justices.

14 Likes
11

You have an obligation to advise and consent: the Constitution could not be any more clear on the matter.

It doesn’t say “immediately,” and it doesn’t say “eventually,” but it does say that this is what you shall do.

You don’t want a nominee? Fine - vote no. You have every right not to consent that way, but you have no justification for sitting in a corner and holding your breath like the two year-olds you and the rest of the GOP have become.
.

9 Likes
12

Then the GOP better pray they hold the senate, as HRC will have a mandate for a more liberal candidate than Obama currently has.

Can’t wait to see these chickens come home to roost in 2017.

9 Likes
13

They’ll refuse to hold hearings on whomever she nominates as well. Which will be followed by a screaming and kicking tantrum and a timeout.

3 Likes
14

The President may nominate judges of the Supreme Court.

BZZZT. The President SHALL nominate them.

And then having nominated them, the Senate is allowed to sit on its ass?

Everyone in the media should be asking these Senators:

  1. Where did you go to high school? Presumably it was not overseas.
  2. Do they teach civics there?
    a. Did that include the definition for “lame duck”?
3 Likes
15

Did they cc Iran?

5 Likes
16

" James Madison explained that the Constitution’s framers considered the Senate to be the great “anchor” of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to “cool” House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea."

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm

Note: It used to be that your poured hot tea into the saucer to cool, and then drank from the saucer. Really.

6 Likes
17

There’s something to that.
Where are our resident lawyers?

3 Likes
18

They don’t HAVE to do anything. What’s Obama going to do, sue them to force action? In what venue? I’m unaware of any method for the Executive to hold the Legislative in some form of contempt. It’s “Eff you” and done.

19

Seriously? Then this must be done. Everything has to be used to push back against these assholes.

1 Like
20

Congressional lynching…

and they’re proud to be a part of it.

Acid reflux hits all time high due to congressional recalcitrance. Big Pharma makes gazillions.

2 Likes