It's not. The "American people" elected every single senator. The people spoke and gave the Republicans control back over the House and Senate after seeing Obama for a few years. They've added to that in every election since. The people want divided government, hell one of the best ways to get elected last cycle was to say you were going to stand up to Obama. That's what the people wanted, that's what they got. Now I know people like you will whine and cry about those Senators doing what they ran on doing, but your opinion doesn't matter as much as the opinion of the American people. That was the story for me when they elected a Democrat controlled congress. Sometimes the American people disagree with individual citizens, and that's okay. You supported Obama's election and were with the "people" then so you can't whine that the "people" are against you now. Well....you can, and probably will so I probably should say that you "shouldn't" whine now.
Do you understand how Senate elections work? I suspect not. Please tell me more though, about the House's role in the judicial nomination & confirmation process.
Of course I understand how Senate elections work, are you trying to suggest that the people didn't elect them? I get that you are upset about the Obama not getting his way, but don't be ridiculous.
Actually, the American people chose Obama in 2012 (and left him with a Democratic Senate). In the only election since then - 2014 - only 33% of America voted for the Senate, so no, America did not vote for a GOP Senate.
With all due respect, bull ****. Give me a modern example of the opposition party refusing to even hold hearings on a sitting president's nomination to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Thanks in advance.
Do you understand how Senate elections work? I suspect not. Please tell me more though, about the House's role in the judicial nomination & confirmation process.
SMH, yes, only 33% voted for the senate that was up that election but it was in an election that the Democrats got destroyed. They lost 9 senate seats in 2014 and 13 more house seats than they had already lost. The people have voted for divided government since 2010 and in 2014 voted to completely oust the Democrats from control over any part of congress. Like it or not, that was the people speaking and as Obama so eloquently said, "elections have consequences"
LOL, I don't think you understand what he was saying - only roughly 1/3 of the Senate was up for election, not 33% turnout. Do you understand how Senate elections work? I suspect not. Please tell me more though, about the House's role in the judicial nomination & confirmation process.
Actions have consequences, as well. I'm still waiting for an example of a modern United States Senate refusing to even conduct hearings on a president's nominee for a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Yes, you imbecile, of course I understand that. I also understand that you are throwing a temper tantrum because Obama isn't getting his way. It's going to be okay kiddo. Elections have consequences, deal with them.
And the consequence of the 2012 election is that the American people expected the executive brand to fulfill its constitutional duties and nominate a new justice without Congress pulling a move that has never been done before. In an earlier post, you floated the idea of further Congressional obstructionism if a Democrat wins this year's presidential election. Would you really be fine with one half of one third of our government crippling the ability of the other two branches to do their jobs?
Obviously not. But now you do. Please tell me more though, about the House's role in the judicial nomination & confirmation process.
The executive can still nominate if they like.....you do understand that the legislative branch, specifically the Senate, can choose to not go with that right? The whole idea of checks and balances is so that no one branch can get too powerful, that if they don't work together it won't work at all. This style of government isn't intended to be efficient, it's supposed to be difficult. I do fully expect Democrats to whine about this, but I doubt it does them any good. The Republicans in congress are just doing what they ran on doing. The people who elected them elected them to do exactly what they are doing. I know you'd like the SCOTUS to swing to the left, but have you ever considered that opinion might be a minority opinion?
Are you deliberately obtuse? I find it difficult to believe that you actually buy the crap you are posting. Again, show me a modern example of the United States Senate refusing to even conduct hearings on a president's nominee for a vacancy on the Supreme Court. I'm still waiting.
Again, does it matter? They are well within their rights to not hold the hearings. You probably can't fine a modern example of when a president was so incredibly divisive that Congress would take this tone with them either. There's a reason why you don't act like Obama has as president, this is it. When you are divisive, your political rivals won't work with you and you can't get anything done without that. Honestly though, would it really matter if they held the meetings and rejected every single one of his candidates? Are you so afraid that the American people will elect a Republican president? If you were really confident in Hillary winning the presidency then you shouldn't care about this as it would take care of itself. I think you know that there's a solid chance that the Republicans win the presidency after Trump goes down in flames and they nominate a conservative justice to keep the court pretty much where it was. Honestly, that's really what this is about.
At this point, I'd rather have the Supreme Court function outside of the political whims of an intransigent, historically-unprecedented Senate. If the whole idea of checks and balances is to prevent one branch from becoming too powerful, how do you justify the tactics of one-half of one-third of our government daring the executive branch to not do its job and forcing the judicial branch to, likely, issue 4-4 rulings on a number of critical cases? How would you justify the Senate not even holding hearings on a potential nominee like Sri Srinivasan who was confirmed 97-0 in 2013? What could've possibly changed their opinion about his qualifications other than the desire to enter into a political pissing match?
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W-A09a_gHJc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Yep. The most divisive modern president surely was welcomed into office with good intentions and bonhomie.
