He is probably right. Which kind of defeats the whole point of the supreme court. The justices basically vote like D or R. Which makes the whole lifetime appointment thing kind of a farce.
If the founding fathers are conscious in their graves, they are probably downloading p*rn like everyone else.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Fresh from <a href="https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley">@ChuckGrassley</a>: The Senate Judiciary Committee WILL NOT hold hearings on SCOTUS nominee: <a href="https://t.co/TVzJBVEKLs">pic.twitter.com/TVzJBVEKLs</a></p>— Jason Noble (@jasonnobleDMR) <a href="https://twitter.com/jasonnobleDMR/status/702204163241992193">February 23, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
"Born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people" That's rich. Last time I checked, the President was elected by the American people.
I'm pretty sure the Senators were too but I'll have to check again because it's been a lot time since I last checked.
Interesting and very cynical, anti-Constitution gamble here. They could very well end up with a more liberal justice now, if Hillary or Bernie get elected and the DEMs gain seats in the Senate. Verrrry interesting.
So they pissed on the Constitution and you are happy about it. The president hasn't even nominated someone and the Republican leadership is already refusing to do their constitutional duty. Instead of happy, you should be ashamed. Obama will still nominate a highly qualified person for the empty seat, and Republican obstructionism will become even more of an issue next Fall. Count on it.
There's nothing anti-Constitution about it.....and you probably know it. Worst case scenario for them, they have to deal with another liberal president and they'll still have veto power over anyone they nominate.
This will be the most momentous kicking of the can this congress will be remembered for. they'll get every ounce of what they have coming in November.
That's what they are hoping for. They were elected to keep the president in check and they've done so without backing down. That'll play really well with their constituents.
Well, you can keep hoping for that, but IMO it's fairly unlikely with the race having fewer and fewer candidates. Anyway, we'll see what happens in the next set of polls that come out.
Obama should nominate Mitch McConnell. LOL. By declaring that they wouldn't even hold a hearing, they are maximizing their self-inflicted wounds. They could have let him nominate, held sham hearings, and said "not conservative enough for the American people. better luck next administration!" Same end result, though slightly more work. That is totally politically superior, satisfying their constituents and at least looking, to non-partisans, like they take their responsibilities and the constitution seriously.
False equivalency. The "American people" elected Barack Obama in a national election in 2012. Residents of individual states elected their senators in 2014. I didn't get a chance to vote for Mitch McConnell, so why should I pretend that his actions are in any way a reflection of my will, the people of California, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Oregon or any other state that voted for President Obama's reelection?
Nah, Hill needs to re-nominate Obama's choice. You can't let them get away with this sh-t. It would set a terrible precedent.
The thing is, the base is so stirred up by the talk radio, the internet and people like Ted Cruz that they are convinced of two things: 1) Whoever Obama would appoint would be a radical liberal trying to destroy America 2) If the weak RINOs held a hearing then there would be a huge risk that so many of those softies who have given Obama "everything he wanted" would cave and confirm. The establishment feels like it would be a political hit if they even agreed to have hearings. It would be seen as another betrayal.
