Scalia dead

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Except isn't not for the same reasons. Schumer was saying that Bush was appointing ideologues, so he was opposed to confirming any Bush nominee because he felt the SC was right-wing enough already.

McConnell, et al, are spinning a song and dance about the Constitution and the will of the voters (which, the voters expressed their will in 2008 and 2012), rather than just being honest and saying they only want a right-winger on the SC.

It's a false comparison. Schumer, at least, was being honest. The GOP is not.

And they're just morons in how they handled this. Here's how they could have done it:
"Absolutely, he should nominate whoever he sees fit. He is the President, after all."
(Then, just vote down any candidate, with whatever reason they come up with. Now, they've already shown their hand and they look obstructionist, as usual)

It's for the same reason. Schumer didn't want another Conservative on the court. The republicans obviously don't want some left-winger replacing Scalia. The republicans have come up with an excuse to oppose any Obama nominee, the excuse being that this is an election year and the next President should appoint the next Justice. They obviously wouldn't be saying that if the current President was a Republican. We all know that. Their reason for opposing is the same reason that Schumer opposed. That's not exactly a secret.

The republican posturing may not necessarily be a bad idea. They may be sending Obama a message that he better nominate a moderate, if he wants any chance to have the nominee approved. I doubt Obama will do this. He's not big on compromise. It may come down to who he thinks the next President will be. If he thinks the next President will be a democrat, then he can play hardball. But if he thinks the next President will be a Republican, then he is better off getting a moderate on the bench right now, rather than having Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or whoever putting a right-winger on the Court.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's for the same reason. Schumer didn't want another Conservative on the court. The republicans obviously don't want some left-winger replacing Scalia. The republicans have come up with an excuse to oppose any Obama nominee, the excuse being that this is an election year and the next President should appoint the next Justice. They obviously wouldn't be saying that if the current President was a Republican. We all know that. Their reason for opposing is the same reason that Schumer opposed. That's not exactly a secret.

The republican posturing may not necessarily be a bad idea. They may be sending Obama a message that he better nominate a moderate, if he wants any chance to have the nominee approved. I doubt Obama will do this. He's not big on compromise. It may come down to who he thinks the next President will be. If he thinks the next President will be a democrat, then he can play hardball. But if he thinks the next President will be a Republican, then he is better off getting a moderate on the bench right now, rather than having Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or whoever putting a right-winger on the Court.

The GOP has already said they will reject ANY (Let me repeat that) ANY nominee he sends to them. ANY. So they're refusing to do their job (from what I hear about Rubio, that's already par for the course for him, of course).

Seeing as how the GOP idea of "compromise" is "Give us what we want or the economy gets it," I fully support Obama's refusal to "compromise."

He tried to work with them, the first few years. Now, I think he is officially out of f*cks to give.

I myself, would love to see Clinton or Sanders get in and, as their first decision, nominate Obama to the SC. Either one would be fine, although, with Mr., the Court would actually get a moderate. Dunno with the Mrs. The pyrotechnics from the GOP would be worth it. Popcorn futures all around!

[GenuineRisk]

Follow up: because I like to google the stuff that gets posted here, I googled the details of Schumer's 2007 speech and, oh, shock of shocks, the site linked to above didn't give the full story:

""We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts of Justice Ginsburg replaced by another Alito. Given the track of this President and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.""

From the article (which includes a link to the actual video):

"What Schumer actually said was that Senate Democrats had been hoodwinked by President Bush's first two Supreme Court picks - Roberts and Alito. They'd accepted assurances that they were mainstream conservative judges who would operate with the precedents and decisions of the Rehnquist Court but hadn't. (Certainly, the experience since 2007 has more than ratified this perception.) Schumer said Democrats should try to block any future Bush nominees unless they could prove that they were 'in the mainstream' and would abide by precedent."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...-actually-said

And I remember all the press about how moderate Roberts was and what total BS that turned out to be. As for Alito- well, I think his decisions probably sound better in the original German.

So yeah. TOTALLY not the same circumstance as what we're seeing today.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Follow up: because I like to google the stuff that gets posted here, I googled the details of Schumer's 2007 speech and, oh, shock of shocks, the site linked to above didn't give the full story:

""We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts of Justice Ginsburg replaced by another Alito. Given the track of this President and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.""

From the article (which includes a link to the actual video):

"What Schumer actually said was that Senate Democrats had been hoodwinked by President Bush's first two Supreme Court picks - Roberts and Alito. They'd accepted assurances that they were mainstream conservative judges who would operate with the precedents and decisions of the Rehnquist Court but hadn't. (Certainly, the experience since 2007 has more than ratified this perception.) Schumer said Democrats should try to block any future Bush nominees unless they could prove that they were 'in the mainstream' and would abide by precedent."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...-actually-said

And I remember all the press about how moderate Roberts was and what total BS that turned out to be. As for Alito- well, I think his decisions probably sound better in the original German.

So yeah. TOTALLY not the same circumstance as what we're seeing today.

and as i had said before, to joey, a hypothetical situation isn't at all the same as what we have now.
but, i saw that grassley is already walking back his comments. i'd imagine it has something to do with the info coming out that many americans think a justice should be named, and seated.
why shouldn't one be? because of something that schumer said?

i have seen nothing, from anyone, that gives an actual reason why there should be a delay. certainly nothing constitutionally based-and what other basis is there?

the gop has already shut down, or threatened to shut down the federal government several times. their continual threats are ridiculous, and certainly not endearing. that's not how our system is supposed to work.