Filibusters of bills in the Senate were not anything new or different 9 years ago from the normal business of the Senate, though the volume has dramatically picked up. Saying the next president should pick the nominee is NOT normal course of business. No incoming President has had a USSC vacancy to fill when they entered office in 150+ years. Every vacancy in an election year has gotten a hearing and a vote.
Poor Bobby, constantly having to play the straw man card to not look utterly incompetent in discussion.
The Democrats have brought this upon themselves. In 2006 they had the deck stacked against the Republicans, but they blew it right off the bat (immediately). By 2010, whatever got them elected went rotten.
This is what everything comes down to. A very classic question of whether inaction qualifies as action itself. He (the President) shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...Judges of the supreme Court. But the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper... This excerpt from the constitution empowers the president to make appointments pending advice and consent from the senate. The current senate is refusing to advise or give consent or non consent. This is where they get in very shaky constitutional waters. If this was a court of law (and not public opinion) then Senators would have never challenged whether the president has the right to make appointments which (if he didn't) would exempt them from advising on the appointment. The problem is that the constitution is very very clear that the president has that power and they must advise and approve (or disapprove) of the candidate. To refuse the 2nd half of that line you must deny the 1st. The leverage is political pressure on republican senators that are facing reelection this November. It's also working since two of the GOP picket crossers are up for reelection. I bet $1000 there will be a high-school LD topic in the next few years about this.
No, Deckard is discussing how, for the first time in history, the Senate is refusing to even have hearings or a vote. Nobody is saying Merrick should be rubber-stamp approved, they are saying the Senate should have hearings and a vote, as they have for every other SCOTUS nominee in the history of this country. The misunderstanding is yours. Nobody is saying that the Senate should just confirm anyone who Obama nominates. We are saying they should have hearings and a vote, as they have for every other SCOTUS nominee in our history.
"They" have never withheld hearings and votes from SCOTUS nominees. That is unprecedented and you're acting as if it is SOP for the Senate. It isn't.
It has never happened before in history for a SCOTUS nominee. That would qualify as something "irregular."
Reid was using agenda control for bills under consideration. He didn't refuse to even have hearings for a SCOTUS nominee. That hasn't ever happened before now.
Thanks Crackpot Rojo - if only the Democrats could get the time machine that is being stored at Area 51 and get Obama elected in 2006 and also kill Scalia....THEY BROUGHT IT UPON THEMSELVES
SMH, it's different issues but doing the exact same thing. How is this hard to understand? Oh, because partisanship.
One is SOP, agenda control, used in most legislatures on the planet regularly. The other has never been done in the history of our country. How is this hard to understand? Oh, because partisanship (on your part, not mine).
It's just SOP, agenda control, used on something that it hasn't been used on in the past. There's no difference in denying a vote on a bill and denying a vote on a SCOTUS nominee. It's the exact same mechanism and the ONLY reason you have a problem with it is partisanship. Reverse the scenario and you'd be fine with it.
You guys keep quoting Bobby "the great" as he continues his bizarre trip on his own personal merry-go-round. All I can say is that you have far more patience than I do. After several attempts to get him to understand how the Senate works when a Supreme Court seat becomes vacant, the history of the Senate with regard to this issue, which has come up again and again and again since the country began, and after having to read his sad, pathetic posts treating members here who are old enough to have voted against Nixon and Reagan, who watched the Kennedy/Nixon debate live from his living room (that would be me) as if they are children "who simply don't understand how the Senate works," I had had enough time wasted with an immature ideologue. An immature ideologue that seems more interested in his own strange view of American political history than in intelligently discussing an unprecedented act by a Republican Senate Majority Leader. An act never before taken by any Senate Majority Leader from any party since this country began. An act at odds with that document that should be most dear to us all, our constitution. A document Bobby "the great" clearly doesn't understand, just has he possesses an obviously limited knowledge of our political history. Bobby "the great" keeps repeating his odd dismissive attitude towards those who disagree with him on this topic and continues to repeat his strange view of history, history that he doesn't understand. It is sad. My patience simply came to an end. One only has to view my posts in response to Bobby "the great" to see that I made numerous efforts to engage in a discussion about this with him. The rest of you still trying to converse with this fellow about the current vacancy on the Supreme Court must have more patience than I do, and I have a hell of a lot. I wish you luck. You need it.
Your shortcomings are your own, don't try and blame them on others. I understand that you are blinded by partisanship on this issue and you are making yourself look foolish. It's okay. I don't really hold it against you. Most people are incapable of being objective when it comes to politics.
They will be held accountable by the voters in the coming election cycles. And, by "held accountable" I mean 'allowed to do whatever the hell they want.' I'm over this non-hearing. It doesn't matter. The Senate will hold hearings and approve a Justice by the end of 2017 -- fulfilling their duty in a slow and pretty inept way, but fulfilling it. The Constitution says they should provide advice and consent, but not how quickly or on what basis. They'll do their job eventually. I vote against my Senators every chance I get, but they get elected anyway and impunity abounds. That's the system we have. So, Obama has set his strategy and McConnell his counter-strategy. They are both bets on how to manipulate me and the rest of the electorate as well as the organs of power to maximize the influence of their own party. Both strategies carry risks. We'll see who wins and who loses. I am comforted by the thought, at least, that Justices so far have been respectable and capable people worthy of the responsibility put on them (even if they sometimes fail), and that nominations continue this trend and there is no reason to think we'll have a Trump phenomenon develop in this branch of government. I'm comfortable with Garland. If Clinton nominates someone else, I'm sure that person will also be highly qualified. Cruz likewise will pick someone very capable, even if I disagree with everything that person stands for. Trump -- who knows, but hopefully even a Republican Senate would block a nomination who is not qualified regardless of partisan allegiance. So long as these Justices continue to be high quality, I don't really care if they are liberal or conservative.
