Discussion for article #232448
Well, this comes as no surprise
4 Likes
I say go for it. ALL nominees should be given an up or down vote.
Do away with the filibuster for legislation too.
7 Likes
Mr Scott - Ginsburg is a “she”.
. . .Democrats have urged the liberal Ginsburg to retire so that President Barack Obama would have the opportunity to appoint another justice before he leaves office."
3 Likes
Fine. But while you’re at it, amend the Constitution so that SCOTUS appointments are for 11 years, rather than lifetime, and that justices’ immediate families recuse themselves from the political process altogether. Given the highly political nature of today’s Court, we might as well recognize that justices are now nothing more than extensions of our Executive and Legislative branches, and that as long as “elections have consequences”, we might as well make it so that those consequences have expiration terms.
20 Likes
But Mr. Obama is a “he,” and that’s who the sentence is referring to. He’s the one leaving office in just under two years.
7 Likes
Scott is referring to Obama when he uses the pronoun “he”, not Justice Ginsburg.
1 Like
Please proceed, nutbags.
1 Like
Less than clear reporting, but something similar happened yesterday or day before. Sherrod Brown was referred as R-OH.
But it’s that pic of McConnell. It’s what I was dreading. Two years of that shiny face and the google eyes and the missing chin, and it’s no way to start a Saturday…
11 Likes
Going for my first cup of coffee right now, straight black.
3 Likes
“…The history of the Senate has been up-or-down votes…”
Then let’s vote on background checks for gun purchases. Let’s vote on cap and trade. Let’s vote on closing corporate loopholes. Let’s vote on higher wages. Let’s vote on immigration reform. Let’s vote on firing Scalia. Let’s vote on ending welfare for the Koch brothers.
Vote on pot, for God’s sake. Even your own constituents want that.
17 Likes
Translation: The GOP does not expect to hold their majority in the Senate after 2016 but they hold on to hopes that they can win the Oval Office. This move simply clears the way for a potential GOP Pres to slide their SCOTUS nominees through.
10 Likes
I’m glad Tom Coburn has been done away with since he single handedly stopped important legislation from even being debated by putting holds on them including legislation helping vets and the tragic rate of suicide among them.
9 Likes
Hmmm…either The Turtle is engaged in a massive hubris attack, believing that victories in the midterms are going to mean victories in presidential election years OR this is just unleashing Teh Crazy on SCOTUS appointments, which have usually been approved with less of TC than other debates. I’m going to guess the latter, but if it’s the former, then mwahahaha!
1 Like
That’s fine. Nix filibusters altogether and when the Dems take back the Senate in 2016 with President Clinton 2.0 you assholes won’t be able to filibuster a replacement for Scalia.
13 Likes
I see Mitch is overplaying his hand already.
8 Likes
Of course, this is another bait-and-switch ploy by Republicans, except on a grander scale than just double-crossing President Obama.
By making this move, they’re hoping to entice Justice Ginsburg to retire, under the pretense that the President will have his “best chance” of replacing her with another liberal.
Won’t happen.
Republicans want another conservative on the court. It’s the only national goal left for them that they can reasonably attain, if … big if… an opening comes up quick. They’re hoping everyone takes this bait and finds themselves begging the Republican Senate to approve a “not so bad” nominee a tad to the right of Roberts. (It could’a been worse.)
Which Republicans will reluctantly accept.
5 Likes
Let’s get rid of the filibuster, in its entirety. Its not in the Constitution. We got along fine without it until it was invented in the 20th century-- mostly to prevent civil rights legislation. It’s a perversion of democracy. It’s unnecessary to the protection of the Senate’s role as the “cooling saucer” to the House’s “hot coffee” of the legislative process. And it allow’s Senators to escape scrutiny of their crazy votes.
5 Likes
When it’s to their advantage…
The TeaPubs want to play nice with themselves.
1 Like
Maybe I’m missing something, but in what way is this surprising? It doesn’t do a damn thing for Republicans in terms of getting someone on the Court this session because Obama has to nominate someone first. I see two possible effects: 1. It’s a hedge against a Democratic majority in the next session, making it a bit politically harder for Democrats to re-institute it in 2 years; 2. It makes it look like Republicans are making a serious effort to end gridlock and govern without having to give up anything. So it’s a purely political power maneuver with no tangible legislative effect. Isn’t that what Republicans do?
4 Likes