Discussion for article #246124
It’s practically the definition of irony that the death of the “Originalist” Supreme is leading to right-wing groups whole-heartedly ignoring the basic parts of the Constitution requiring Advice and Consent from the Senate. What part of “no obligation to consider” meets Advice and Consent?
But I am glad that they are naked and open about their ambitions: In the old days, Republicans used dog whistles and whispered behind closed doors, making it hard to call them out for their atrocious behavior.
Now everyone can see exactly the games they are playing. Much easier to face that head-on.
71 Likes
The Senate does have an obligation to consider them. It pretty much says as much. It does not say sit on it. It does not matter what version of right they are going with in their minds. The Constitution does not say to let the job sit open for a year. And what does the court being balanced matter?
20 Likes
Two extremely conservative religious groups (yes, you too, Heritage) and a Libertarianish group control the Republican Party.
And the Republicans say they represent the mainstream “American People” every time they see a mic?
35 Likes
The next time one of these groups says we need to follow the Constitution they should be roundly laughed out of the room.
46 Likes
“Frankly, the real objection here is to Obama”
Gosh, what is it about Obama that is so objectionable? What could it be? What could it be? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?
57 Likes
It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it’s the situation: the fact that it’s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.
In other words, we’ll fight like Hell to keep our conservative edge. Our advantage died during a liberal administration and we’re not going to let a Democrat pick his replacement.
21 Likes
Generally Obama wins the brinksmanship games against the GOP. I have to say that I like his chances. He needs to get Bernie and Hillary to start weaving the SCOTUS nomination into their campaign message. They are a good vehicle for keeping the issue alive long after it loses it’s shininess for the media.
28 Likes
It would have been nice if, in their interviews with TPM, if TPM had pointed out that it is in the Constitution. There is no gray area here. It is plain and simple. So why do all media constantly fail to confront the GOP with unequivocal facts?! The continual kowtowing to the GOP by allowing them to create a meme that Obama should not nominate someone is vile.
36 Likes
I would expect nothing less from the scum that inhabit the fever swamp that is the Repulsive party and the thugs of right wing pressure groups.
Hopefully the American people will someday recognize that these groups must be destroyed.
Only when a Repulsive party decorates every lamp post in DC will we have true liberty.
7 Likes
So basicly these conservative groups are heading to the shreading machine carrying the constitution. They only revere the constitution when it favors their position. Let freedom ring only applies to conservatives. I don’t think the term hypocrite is a strong enough term to describe their actions. All the time saying the next president may be picking three new justices. Really focus’ ones attention on the importance of the next election.
19 Likes
And once again, the utter failure of the media to call the interviewee out for the dog whistle racism is quite apparent.
At a Tea Party rally on The Mall in Spring 2010, an activist, Johnny Johnson I beleive, a lawyer from Northern Virginia, was asked what he does not like about the President. He said “It’s not just because he is black.” (from Washington Post article)
23 Likes
“It’s the most honest,” Levey said. ”The very fact that people on our side feel very strongly that there shouldn’t be a hearing before we know the nominee is because it’s not really about the nominee.
Umm…my understanding is: nominee first, then hearings (or not). So you’re getting ahead of yourself there, Skippy. These people are so blinded by their hatred of Obama, or is it fear of where they may find themselves at the end of this process, that they’re reduced to incoherence. Well, actually it’s just another showcasing of their incoherence.
As for his “Frankly, the real objection here is to Obama.” We actually kinda knew that already. But, thanks for sharing.
37 Likes
It’s going to be fun to watch the GOP self-destruct. Again.
17 Likes
Well, to the GOTP the Constitution is NOT inviolate. It is “iffy”. As in “IF I agree…”. “IF I want it…”. “IF my donors say…”. See how that works?
7 Likes
Conservatives abandon the Constitution. As Regan said, Republican government is the problem.
8 Likes
It’s terribly generous of all these Conservative activists and Senators to hold the SCOTUS nomination open until President Clinton or President Sanders can fill it with the aid of a Democratic majority in the Senate, but I have to confess, I don’t quite understand their logic here.
I mean, you would think Republican Senators would want to hold hearings on the nominee while they still have a say in it. After all, with having to defend 24 Senate seats in this year’s election while the Democrats only need defend 10 pretty safe seats, they don’t have a very good chance of retaining the Senate in 2017.
27 Likes
The regressive republican party and it’s lemmings are what you’d call a Fascist Party! I used the link with colorful drawings, so the vast uneducated majority of the regressive right will be able to understand what they’ve openly become!
Here are the 14 Points of the regressive republican party!
3 Likes
So here’s the thing. If Hillary or Saunders wins will the republicans then say the new President should wait and let the next president decide? OK I know the answer is yes, but still they are such minority rule dick heads.
6 Likes
One of the great myths in this debate is the notion that the Supreme Court is currently “finely balanced”. It is nothing of this sort. Justice Kennedy votes on certain constitutional issues (mostly when privacy is concerned) with the four more or less liberal members of the court, but most of the time he is a reliable conservative vote. And Chief Justice Roberts has defected from the conservative line only twice in his entire tenure in a meaningful way, namely for the Obamacare decisions. In other words, the court is mostly staunchly conservative, with some liberal decisions every once in a while.
To replace Scalia with a liberal justice (and it will be difficult to find a more conservative one, so any replacement will be more liberal!) will of course change the composition of the court dramatically. The last time that happened was in 1991, and President GHW Bush did not hesitate to go from Thurgood Marshall, at that time clearly the most liberal member of the court, to Clarence Thomas, whose conservatism was obvious even then. So, please stop the whining.
28 Likes