Agreed. Imo, if it weren't for gerrymandering the Republican party in it's current state wouldn't exist. The far right would start with RINOs and drift left from there.
The circumstances aren't reversed. The circumstances are that the Republicans have unilaterally escalated the war on any type of progress in Washington, again, of their own accord. "Both sides do it is'm" is empirically not true in the last decdades- most of the steps taken by the Republicans are labeled as unprecedented (filbuster, holds, the entire McConnell/Bohener obstruction program etc) because they are without precedent from either side.. " Both sides do it" is not a valid argument, when only one side has done it. This becomes especially apparent when you have to make up hypothetical "would be's" to make "both sides do it" work.
Exactly, B-Bob. So many of those babbling the nonsense Bobby keeps repeating over and over and over again, as if by saying it enough times will make it true, which it does not, are so young that they can't recall the decades of the two parties working together to get things done for the good of the country. That many of the Senators, and I'll stick with them since the Senate is key to doing what has never been done before in the modern history of that body, refusing to even have hearings on a president's nominee to a SC vacancy, used to not only work together for the good of the country, but were often friends away from the chamber, like Scalia was with Ginsberg, for example. It's called comity. Bobby can look it up. Comity has been destroyed in Congress by the Republican Party in a conscious effort to do so. Today, if a Republican senator works for compromise and (gasp!) is even on friendly terms with members of the opposition away from the chamber, families getting together for a barbecue some weekend, or going hunting with a Democratic senator because they both enjoy doing so and enjoy each other's company, they are apt to earn a big target on their back during the next primary season. Vilified because they actually attempted to do the nations business by finding common ground, by compromising on legislation to actually get it passed. Vilified for working a deal that gets them, say, 60-70% of what they want, instead of doing nothing, holding out for 100%, which leads to gridlock, which they then accuse the Democrats of causing, something that causes Bobby's knee to violently jerk because, by God, "It's Obama's fault!" The country is in deep trouble. The economy is doing great, particularly compared to the rest of the developed world, unemployment has plummeted, we have the most powerful military on the planet, but Obama's time in office has "destroyed the country." Truth doesn't matter to them. Facts do not matter to them. All that matters is repeating, ad nauseum, the talking points of a leadership busy bending over to promote the extreme obstructionism and extreme policies of the radical minority of the party who control the primaries. Why? How does this happen? Because that minority are organized, extremely well funded, and actually vote, while the majority of Republicans, who are more moderate, wring their hands and stay home. After all, "They are all the same!" When they are clearly NOT all the same. The country is in deep trouble because the Republican Party refuses to conduct the nation's business and refuses to make the effort to take back control of their own party from a minority of extremists. Actions taken out of fear, not fear of President Obama, but out of fear of a minority within their own party. In my humble opinion.
If you'll recall, you were responding to this post: McConnell is saying that Obama appointing a Justice is not just politically unacceptable but actually undemocratic and somehow maybe extra-Constitutional. His statement is completely irrational and imo unAmerican. The will of the people regarding the appointment of Justices was expressed when Obama was elected. The will of the people regarding the advice and consent on Justice appointments was expressed when the Senators were elected. Everything is fine... so long as everyone does the jobs they were elected to do. There is nothing undemocratic or unConstitutional about Obama's fulfilling his Constitutional duty to appoint a Justice. And, he's expressed his willingness to do so. But, there is something unConstitutional for the Senate to refuse to fulfill their duties -- even if the 'fulfillment' would be a farce anyway. What McConnell said in staking out his position -- that an Obama appointment is a threat to the will of the people -- is a 1984-ish doublespeak because it would actually be the execution of the will of the people and not a threat at all. What McConnell is doing is in the name of protecting the will of the people is actually the threat to that will because it defies our Constitution. I think this is a good point. While I think refusing to hold hearings is wrong, they wouldn't have held sincere hearings anyway. Any hearing would have been a stage show to pretend like they were doing their job when they ultimately rejected an appointment. This way is cleaner. We know exactly where they stand. And no appointment gets stained by a mock trial. I still think what they're doing is wrong. But, this is another reminder that there is no accountability, ultimately, at the top. Congress can't really check the president in his domain. And the president can't really check Congress in their domain. Even elections are a poor mechanism for accountability.
What many of the conservatives mean by compromise is my way or the highway, bobby here is the perfect example of how they think.
Can we finally put to rest the notion that the republican party cares about the Constitution as some sort of sacred document?
LOL, I remember you saying that, I just don't believe you. No way you are this much of an Obama fanboy and you didn't vote for him.
People are getting lost in a bunch of details. The GOP has put out their bluff about not holding hearings on any candidate. That's up to them. It was their call, and they did it. Obama may put forward a middle/middle-right nominee to call their bluff. If he does that and they don't hold the hearings (which they have right to do) then the GOP will have to reap the consequences. The GOP is within their rights to not hold hearings, and... Obama is within his rights to put forward a candidate that is normally a sure thing... The Democrats are within their rights to point out that the GOP is playing games and being obstructionist games, and use that as an election year tactic.
Yes, and both sides would still be within their rights to make the same bluffs, call those bluffs, and use it as ammunition in the election battle. The only way it would change would be if one side decided not to make the initial bluff. If the GOP hadn't made the bluff, they could confirm the more conservative leaning nominee and taut what they did as proof that they were willing to stick to their guns and get that kind of person nominated by a Democrat. They could confirm somebody and claim victory if they hadn't made the idiotic bluff they made. They did, and now they face the repercussions if they play their usual obstructionist card and block any hearing at all. Of course if the situations were reversed and the Democrats decided to not hold a hearing, then the GOP would be free to nominate a left of center supreme court nominee and call that bluff. That's what could happen if the situations were reversed. But nobody should pretend like the GOP isn't doing more partisan blocking, and obstructionism than Democrats have when they were in charge. The GOP has set records with their obstructionist game plan.
What does that even mean? You have nothing. You have no substance to support the nonsense you repeat again and again, so you attack those who disagree with you.
There is a bright side to this whole will of the people thing. If a Democrat wins the Presidency they can appoint anyone they want and claim it's the will of the people then roast Republicans when they inevitably obstruct with a different line of BS.
FranchiseBlade - there is really not a bunch of details here and I think the tone of this is just a bluff is technically correct, but doesn't help to communicate that the nature of this is more than just a bluff. If we treat this as a simple everyday bluff, well then, the branches of government from now on can take extreme positions and the public would just accept it as ahhh, normal course of action. Maybe we are already there. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: he [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ...Judges of the supreme Court It didn't said Senate may optionally decided to not act. GOP, as a party, have actively decided to not do any part of their job related to SCJ appointment. Even if they change their mind later, that have never happened before and is a new precedent already. (reading back these statement, it's funny how the founders phrase much of everything in a framework of sincere working relationship between the branches of government, something that recent Congress continue to poo on with regular intervals).
Well then, a great big F*** Y** for calling me a liar when you don't have so much as a shred of evidence. I voted Johnson last time, will vote him this time, and will keep voting Libertarian until one of the major parties decides to actually do something about my pet issue.
Guys, put him on ignore. He is only spamming this board to get negative attention. Not worth anyone's time.
This is the key point. The Constitution does empower the Senate to make their own rules and they are a co-equal branch of government. That said it is clear that the executive is the one who nominates and by refusing categorically to have a hearing that is circumventing advice and consent by saying that the legislative isn't going to take up any candidates. While this might be Constitutional it clearly violates the spirit of separation of powers if the legislative branch can apriori refuse to consider any nominee. That is overstepping advice and consent.
