Discussion for article #246152
Derp.
3 Likes
Not real big on understanding process, are they?
12 Likes
sometimes unclear rhetoric
Aw, it’s still embryonic widdle baby hate…
1 Like
appealing to the position that Obama has a constitutional responsibility to try and fill Scalia’s seat.
It’s not a position. It’s the Constitution.
14 Likes
So let’s have a hearing to determine if the candidate is worthy only to not actually deem the candidate worthy or unworthy by voting on him/her. That makes perfect sense.
What’s the next angle this will take? First, no hearings at all. Second, have the hearing, but don’t vote. Third…?
9 Likes
What candidate would be stupid enough to go through that all of that? GOP grandstanding and insults are not worth anybody’s time. Lisa, Lisa, Lisa… get on one side or the other.
4 Likes
Well, Senator Murkowski, that is the minimum requirement set forth in the Constitution. Are you suggesting the Senate hold the usual hearings, say in the next six weeks for example … but then possibly never actually take a vote? Try it. See how well the nation takes to those (non)actions. Also, if you guys tried that, I’d suggest never putting the Senate in recess all the rest of this year … even during the summer when you fools like to go home and crow about your accomplishments … or over any of the various holidays.
5 Likes
SUCH BS. These nimrods are trying to twist themselves into pretzels by insisting they are ‘NOT screwing with the Constitution’ but BY GOD, they don’t think the President has the ‘right’ to appoint anyone. Show some guts you idiots. One side or the other.
4 Likes
Murk (n) – 1. darkness or thick mist that makes it difficult to see
2 Likes
“I do believe that the nominee should get a hearing,” Murkowski said, according to a report in the Alaska Dispatch News. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that that ends up in a vote. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether or not this individual, based on their record … should be named to the highest court in the land.”
Well yah… This is pretty much the way it’s supposed to go.
Amazing that this has become newsworthy but i guess it’s notable when a GOTP congress critter says something rational from outside the bubble.
3 Likes
I have to disagree @Sooner. I don’t think going the entire way through holding a hearing and then not allowing an up or down vote sounds rational at all. I doubt the Republicans could explain that. The problem is Obama will nominate a rational choice and they won’t be able to explain their way out of it.
7 Likes
That was a well constructed comment. As I parse it she said a hearing should be held but that if that hearing resulted in a judgment of unsuitability that nominee should not be advanced. That’s exactly as its supposed to go. Except you’re supposed to go into that hearing with an open mind and not a predetermination. Best effort yet to pervert the intentions of the Founders.
Her mention of a “vote” was pretty murky so I discounted that. Any hearing would be followed by a vote, I think that’s a certainty.
As I’ve posted on another thread Obama does not need to nominate a hard line progressive, a reasonable swing vote is light years ahead of where we were with Scalia on the court.
3 Likes
Nothing more than political masturbation!
Without the orgasm!
1 Like
I think it is a certainty. It think she’s advocating that it not be.
1 Like
Remember back in 1986, when Ronald Reagan nominated ultra-conservative Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court and the Democrats used every trick in the book to prevent him from getting a hearing or receiving a vote?
Neither do I; Scalia was approved 98-0.
Republicans loved Scalia so much, apparently, that they believe no one else is entitled to the same courtesies that he received.
5 Likes
Possibly being Murkykowski?
3 Likes
Thank you Senator Murkowski, but we all know how The Constitution works. What you “believe” is irrelevant.
2 Likes
Why the hell would you give a hearing if you aren’t going to vote??? So very stupid…
2 Likes