He's doing the same thing Biden said he would do years ago. Do you also think Biden is a piece of ****? This is just politics. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0
Excellent idea. The people's future voice must take priority. In 2017, when the people voice is heard, the 2019 people's voice must again take priority. And so on. This is a roadmap for how Congress can spread its greatness to other body of governments. Just excellent.
The proper procedure to decide the qualifications of Garland is to have a vote, as we have done for hundreds of years. So why are they not voting on him? Because the Republican leadership knows he has a good chance of being approved.
I'm putting you on ignore, Bobby. I don't want to, but attempting to have a discussion with you is clearly a waste of my time. You have been told repeatedly that what McConnell is doing is the first time in history that a President's Supreme Court nomination to fill a vacant seat will not even receive a hearing. Repeatedly. Every time you are told that, by me or someone else, you respond with the same unadulterated bull****. That McConnell is simply doing his job. That the rest of us simply don't know what we are talking about. I'm done talking circles around you. I have better things to do, like attempting to have conversations with people who actually listen and think, something you are obviously unable to do, at least not here. Goodbye.
Again, they aren't required to put it for a vote....so saying "proper procedure" is factually inaccurate. It would be the "proper procedure" if and only if they were moving forward with it. They can just choose to not move forward with it, which is what they are currently doing and that's also proper. There is nothing irregular about the Senate Majority Leader choosing to not hold a vote on something. It happens all the time, the only reason why Democratic partisans are making a big deal about it is because they aren't getting their way. While the temper tantrum is kind of funny, it's mostly just sad. The same Democratic partisans whining now would be applauding the move if things were reversed and you'd have Republican partisans doing the whining. You crazy kids really are 2 sides of the same coin.
The New York Times had an interesting profile of McConnell immediately after Justice Scalia's death. Why is Mitch McConnell Picking This Fight?
SMH, well feel free to stomp your feet and hold your breath if you like. I get WHY you are throwing this temper tantrum, it's just that I don't agree with it. You don't like the way government works....awesome. It changes literally nothing.
Look, I remember when Republican partisans threw a very similar temper tantrum when Harry Reid refused votes while Senate Majority Leader....it was no different than the temper tantrum Democratic partisans are throwing right now.
The problem is that the senate is not denying to consent to the nomination. They are denying levying any opinion at all and those are not the same thing. Their objection isn't based on if this is a nomination is one they approve of. They are objecting because they believe the president lacks the proper authority (or right) to present anyone for consideration with less than a year in his 4 year term. There is 0 debate that this objection is not compliant with the letter of the law. However, the "spirit of the law" is what the republicans are trying to define. I think the Senate is within their rights to hold a hearing and to vote against the candidate on whatever grounds they want. However, to not hold a hearing is to reject their responsibility to approve or reject the candidate. Funny enough, clarification as to what action is required of the senate could inevitably end up going to the Supreme Court. The Constitution: It is very clear that the power (authority, right etc) rests with the US president to make these appointments which is the core of what the senate is challenging.
Especially considering that Republicans have hinted that they'll confirm Merrick Garland if a Democrat wins the presidency. This opposition is so transparently political and craven that they may wind up with a much more liberal justice who will do much more damage to conservative issues than holding hearings, and voting on, a moderate nominee now.
I want my elected officials to do their ****ing job and work to make society better. Mitch McConnell is the figure head of corrupt and do nothing congress, who is more concerned with doing anything in his power to make government completely inept, for his own selfish reasons. Did Biden announce on day one of a republican president's term that he was going to do everything in his power to make that president one term, then essentially shut down the government for 8 years? If not, then no, I don't think Biden is a piece of ****.
What they are doing is withholding or delaying their advice and consent, which is required to put someone on the bench, which they are well within their rights to do. You can argue that what they are doing is dickish, much like when a bill gets to the Senate and never gets a vote, but it's how the Senate works. I just think far too many people are responding emotionally to something that happens all the time in the Senate....even if it hasn't happened with a SCOTUS nominee before. The president came into this with no leverage whatsoever and did nothing that would entice the Senate to act right now and so they aren't acting right now. Shouldn't surprise or outrage anyone looking at this dispassionately and objectively.
Then you should be happy, that's what they are doing.....even if you don't seem to understand what their job is because what they are doing isn't something you agree with. I know if the situation were reversed you'd have a completely different opinion.
There is nothing in the Constitution about about Parties or Party hierarchy or parties having the right to disrupt the process of advise and consent. By not debating and voting on the nominee, the Senate is defying the business of government. They should be held accountable by the voters.
And I'm sure 9 years ago when Harry Reid was preventing debate and votes on bills that would make it to the Senate, you had a completely different view of it and didn't see it as "defying the business of government".....if you are old enough and impartial enough you've seen this exact thing play out time and time again on different issues and you've seen people end up on different sides of the issue based solely on party affiliation. Somehow people still get outraged about things that they've cheered people in their party for when the shoe is on the other foot. Ridiculous.
I seem to remember a sitting President in 2009 who said the following: "Elections have consequences". Indeed. Its just that the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections have consequences too. And one consequence of those elections mean Republicans aren't gonna give this guy a vote. Unfortunate for this nominee and of course those who dislike the results of these elections. Politics as usual. Nothing new here.
I hope setting new extreme precedent is not politics as usual. But it does feel that way with this and the last Congress.
