Another Republican loudly expressing how unfit he is for public office. Congress has every right to do it’s constitutional obligations, one of which is to vote on not just the supreme court nominee of the President, but every court nominee (among others). This is an easy one, Paul Ryan can do his job, or he can quit and let someone who does want to do the job we’re paying him to do.
“I told our members this morning to always strive to live up to our highest ideals, to uphold those principles in the Constitution on which we swear every two years that we will defend.”
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, December 2015.
“Unless there’s an election year. With an incumbent Democrat. And we don’t wanna.”
Same guy, today.
Congress (the Senate, specifically) can vote “no” on a candidate all they want. Says so right there in the document, under “advise and consent.” But there’s nothing there about “unless” anything. You’d think a man in a leadership role, who swore an oath, would know that.
1 Like
Actually, in the way he worded it is correct. The Senate does not have to confirm the guy, but in order to do that the nominee should be voted on. The argument now is the question of if the person would even be allowed to go through the process.
The GOP can vote down whomever they want and could just filibuster the whole thing and make it dead on arrival. But it is still doing what they are supposed to be doing. CONGRESS, however, does not have a role. Only half of Congress does, the House has no power here at all. Other than making noise.
I think their main goal now should be to pass an Amendment that says the president has no power in their final year in office and call it a day.
1 Like
Ah, I do see weakening in their argument. Before, no need for Obama to even put forth a candidate. Now, and that was fast after some Pubbie reflection, Ryan is correctly and really saying the Senate (notice he said Congress which is factually incorrect btw) has the right to reject, meaning not confirm, any SC nominee. Interesting how fast they are changing their tune, given a few days.
This will still not get them off the hook as Reid will make passionate pleas, Obama will blast them weekly, Democratic Senate hopefuls will have tons of ammo to bury swing state current Republican Senators with and the press will raise a big stink as well. Well, the press will play this as usual (both sides do it) but even mentioning it is a win for us…and a loss for the Pubbies. Thank you Scalia!
If the shoe were on the other foot Ryan wouldn’t hesitate to nominate someone immediately. He is becoming a partisan hack, not a constituionalist.
And we have every right to fire the congresspeople who are essentially on the public dole, i.e., not working worth a damn. Let’s start this Fall.
1 Like
“Paul Ryan: Congress Has ‘Every Right’ To Not Confirm SCOTUS Nominee”
And the public has every right to judge your justifications for such obstruction to be wanting, Plutocrat Pauly. Moreover, Obama has every right to use the bully pulpit to convince them to do so and Dems and liberals everywhere certainly have every right…nay, obligation…to take you to the fucking mat for it.
2 Likes
Paul, aren’t you out of you league, boy?
Stick to your own playground and get your team ready to handle their responsibilities.
YES, Congress (GOP) Has ‘Every Right’ To Not Confirm SCOTUS Nominee
- of course if they are total intransigent partisan thugs - they may delight their strident minority of the population base - and they also may end up earning the animosity of the very large majority of the population that is not aligned behind them … and this crap might propel Hilary Clinton to a real large scale victory - and maybe even a reclaiming of the Senate … now if that happens… well let’s just say there will be hell to pay … Obama might be measured and nuanced and statesman like even if he was in a position of overwhelming strength … Ah… but Hilary … that will be different.
Of course they do. Dismissing ANY nominee that Obama nominates before he even mentions a name, is Exhibit A for GOP obstruction for obstruction’s sake.
2 Likes
Only Democratic presidents. GOP presidents’ terms go on beyond 8 years, unless they did a lot of stupid things in their last years. Then, their successor, it he happens to be a Democrat, is to blame for it. Like the way Obama was blamed for the economic conditions in 2008 and Katrina.
2 Likes
FIFY
1 Like
Pure doublespeak. The question is not whether Congress has the right to not confirm someone, but whether he agrees with McConnell that they have the right to say they won’t confirm anyone.
Obama is going to kick the GOP’s ass again, and enjoy every minute of it. I will enjoy it, too.
There’s a difference between failing to confirm and refusing to hold confirmation hearings. There is precedent for failing to confirm (Robert Bork). Refusing to do their jobs by not holding hearings is obstruction, plain and simple.
By all accounts, Scalia, Scalia’s wife, and Scalia’s doctor knew he was in poor health. If Ryan, McConnell and the rest of the GOP had been doing their jobs, they would have known this might happen and prepared for it. Instead, the children were allowed to shoot off their mouths and proclaim they had every right to hold their breaths and stomp their feet because the black Democrat was going to get to pick another Supreme Court Justice (“It’s Not Fair!!!”).
At this point, even if McConnell were to schedule confirmation hearings and the Senate failed to confirm, no sane person will believe it was for cause. They said they would obstruct (“delay, delay, delay”), everything they do will be seen as such. And every Democratic candidate will hold them accountable for it.
2 Likes
I’m sorry, is anyone supposed to be surprised that this little piece of shit is saying this?
this statement is disturbing on many different levels.
The #SupremeCourt is not an extension of the White House. Congress, as an equal branch, has every right NOT to confirm someone.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. As long as we’re talking about obvious stuff, how about this - you aren’t in the senate, so nobody gives a good goddamn what you think about SC nominations.
With fine print: “This amendment shall expire not later than Jan 20, 2017.”
No, Ayn-Boy, Congress doesn’t have the right to not confirm a SCOTUS nominee. The Senate, which, last time I checked was not your pond, had that right. You really don’t have any more say in this than I do, dickweasel.