What incentive does the Senate have to hold those hearings? To do the president a solid? Worst case scenario Hillary is elected and they are right back where they are now with a less divisive president to work with.
Ha, this is the party that held the Constitution up like a Bible? The grand old party priorities: #1a All about me #1b Obstructing the other side #49 What Constitution ?
Because that's their job. The president puts forth a nominee and the Senate should debate it and vote the nominee down if they wish. I realize we live in a polarized environment but that's no excuse for just not doing your job. The Senate also routinely fails to pass critical legislation. That isn't excusable either. We seem to have become tolerant of our government bodies just ignoring their responsibilities. I'd say that's a problem.
Or the risk that they lose control of the Senate, see Hillary Clinton elected and a justice on the level of Ginsburg confirmed to replace Scalia when, at the moment, they could get an ideologically-moderate nominee who wouldn't swing the court too wildly in either direction.
Their job is deciding if they are going to hold the hearing at all. They are doing their job. There's nothing that guarantees a SC nominee to have a hearing at all. You do realize the exact same thing happens to bills in the Senate right? They aren't ignoring their responsibilities, they are doing everything they are required to do.
There's a very slim chance that they'll lose the senate, the Republicans could lose one or two seats, but they'll still have the majority.
Does it matter? Does it matter? Are you kidding? You are operating in an artificial construct you're created in your mind, where our political system and it's long, well established duties spelled out in the constitution become meaningless. You truly have no comprehension of what a big deal this is. If ignorance is bliss, you have to be one of the happiest people around. Do you seriously believe that I am "afraid" of a Republican being elected president? I have to laugh. I voted against Richard Nixon, I voted against Ronald Reagan, I voted against Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., and I am still here, doing very well indeed. You are taking ignorance to a new level. I am not afraid of a Republican president, despite the horrible possibilities coming from the GOP during this election cycle, nearly as much as I am afraid of the public attempt by the Republican leadership to destroy not only comity in our government, but the very foundations this government is built upon.
There is nothing that guarantees presidents the right to have their nominations considered. Nothing at all. Usually the president will work with congress and have some kind of working relationship that will allow things like that to run smoothly.....normally you don't have presidents like Obama though. When you are dealing with a divisive ideologue, things change. The Senate doesn't have to do anything for him at all and they are choosing not to.....just as their constituents want them to. Now sure, this will piss off fans of Obama, but those people really don't matter. They didn't vote for those Senators to begin with. I think letting Obama swing the SCOTUS to the left would be a dangerous thing, so they aren't even going to consider the possibility. I'm sure the next president, whoever it is, will learn from Obama's mistakes and work to build a much better relationship with congress.
That is unless the Senate majority leader declares upon their inauguration that the #1 priority is making sure that they're a one-term president. And I say that knowing that, because this can of worms was opened, the Democrats will be no better. We've instituted a political culture of obstinance and neither side is beneath doubling-down on this ****ty bet.
They are so good at accomplishing goals lol. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W-A09a_gHJc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Well if that were to happen, that president would have their work cut out for them....sort of like if a president got impeached. Of course past presidents have managed but this time we elected someone who was incapable or unwilling to repair the rift with congress and this is what you get. Elect bad presidents, get bad results.
Not really, we've had bad presidents in the past. We just usually have better presidents than that, or at least better politicians than that. People more willing to work with those who think differently.
Senators don't appoint Justices, so I don't see that it matters. The election of the president, who is tasked with making the appointment, is the relevant election. Constitution says Senate is to approve appointments. It looks to me like they are shirking their duties. I think so. If the Senate had entertained a nominee, Obama would have been incentivized to nominate a moderate who could gain confirmation in a short window. Republicans chose not to hedge and instead speculate on the presidential election: win and get an arch-conservative to hold status-quo, or lose and have Clinton eventually force a liberal through the process and flip the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I think we've seen that the electorate will not punish politicians for obstructionism. I think it'd be hilarious though if Obama sued the Senate for failing to execute on their Constitutional duties and see what the 4-4 Supreme Court has to say about whether they can refuse to consider a nominee.
It is. One troll to derail the thread. One troll to be the center of attention. One troll to change the tone of every subforum. One troll to rule them all.
We will have to wait and see here. The Republicans are aided by a well-oiled media network via radio and FoxNews; a network that pretty much determines the focus and direction of public political conversation. I pretty much expect Democrats to try (even though they have never demonstrated the ability to stick together like Republicans) but the key to this strategy is not folding in the face of public criticism and controlling the media narrative. Easy to do when FoxNews has your back on 99% of what your group does.
Yeah I think the Rovians have thrown precedent out the window. The GOP has instituted a revolution in the US government with absolute power is the goal. It's not new, it certainly dates back to Gingrich and Delay. The unholy alliance of Big Money, theocratic zealots, and unscrupulous ambition have left civility. compromise and statesmanship in their wake. It's not unlike the other one party systems in the world. The US is no longer uniquely democratic. With gerrymandering, bought politicians and public information, I don't see it changing in one or two election cycles. It would probably take a nationally charismatic leftist Christian to shame Americans back into cooperative democracy, but of course they would have no money and little publicity. Mr. Obama was able to overcome with sheer charisma and intellect.
