|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dead. The maneuvering begins! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Obama has actually already stated he will appoint a nominee. Of course, with the Republicans in control of the senate, that will complicate matters for whomever he chooses. But barring him choosing someone completely unqualified, it will be difficult for them to utterly block the individual from becoming part of the Supreme Court.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
Republicans are arguing that waiting until the election would give the people a say, but of course, Democrats can point out that issue has been decided by Obama winning the last election. They already tried peddling that theme at the debate. One of the Republican candidates said that it had been 80 years since a Supreme Court nominee was put forth by a lame duck president. Yet the moderator brought up the fact that Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy in his final year in office. Regardless, the precedent (as they call it) is irrelevant. When a vacancy exists in the court, it is the responsibility of the president to fill that void. The election time frame should have no bearing on that. The only reason it is even a talking point is that Scalia was the strongest conservative voice in the court and the Republicans know the scales will swing left if Obama picks the successor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
Waiting for the next president leaves the court short handed for more than a year. The next president won't be inaugurated until Jan 20, and it seems inconceivable that the nomination process would take less than 30 days. Personally, I think the Republicans are just grandstanding. The very notion that they are going to simply not consider a nominee regardless is so blatantly partisan, that they even mentioned it on Fox News. If Obama is smart (and I believe he is), he will nominate a minority or a female justice. The two leading candidates are an Indian-American and a women, both of whom received a unanimous approval from the senate for their current appointments. If Obama puts one of those names forward and the senate simply dismisses it out of hand, the Democrats will beat them over the head with it for the remainder of the election.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
People go to the polls every year believing their candidate will make a significant and positive difference, but after more than two hundred years of presidential elections how often has this been true? Twice? 1860 and 1932? Sure, there are long term trends, but rarely are those trends displayed in any one election. For the most part it's a tiny jog to right, then a tiny nudge to the left. Which is why myself (and most people quite frankly) often consider their vote to simply be against 'the other guy'. Or gal. When I am voting for an individual, I am rarely doing so because they inspired me. I am merely looking at my options and choosing the lesser of two evils. Now in certain cases, the potential damage that a particular president can cause warrants my cynicism. Bush/Gore for example personifies to me why it is important to vote even if I am not overly enthused by the candidate. Al Gore wasn't renowned for his charisma. But the unmitigated disaster that was the Bush presidency makes me appreciate the fact that it would have made a huge difference had he not been elected. Not necessarily that Gore would have been the next Lincoln. But when I look at the outcome: the Bush tax cuts that exploded our debt and increased the disconnect between rich and poor. The Iraq war and its aftermath, destabilizing the entire Middle East. The response to hurricane Katrina. And a myriad of bad decisions culminating in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. When I list off the litany of things that occurred during the Bush presidency, even I am sometimes stunned by how many things come to mind. So in the end, politics is not pretty. Most of the candidates are egomaniacs with unfounded notions regarding their place in the universe. And frankly, most are not going to accomplish much of anything of note in their years in office. But the best way to frame it is look at the consequences of being complacent and having another Dubya become president. That is what keeps me going to the polls.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
I don't think Alito has anything to do with the Republican's intransigence here. I think it's just plain broken, incompetent Republican leadership afraid of the right-wingnut faction of their own party. Republicans are in a totally lose-lose situation. If they continue to deny even calling a hearing for this nominee, they appear obstructionist.If they move forward with a hearing but vote against confirmation, they appear partisan. If they call a hearing and confirm the nominee, they alienate their base. They are totally backed in a corner. Personally, I don't think they are being very forward looking. Obama put forth a moderate candidate in an effort to undo the gridlock. If the Repubs continue to obstruct, that will likely start to galvanize the left in lieu of the upcoming election, since Hillary can beat The Donald or Cruz over the head with this. If I were the Republicans, I would move forward with a hearing at least. And even still, a confirmation here actually would work out better for them. They must understand at this staqe that the presidential election is all but lost. And they are on the verge of losing the senate. If they continue to placate to their fringe, they risk a scenario whereby the next administration can nominate whomever they like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
The Senate isn't thinking tactically anymore. I think they are living in denial about what has transpired. And by being so strident about not accepting ANY nominee, they have backed themselves into a corner. It's a no win scenario no matter what they do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
What I would honestly love to see is the Senate continue to block the nominee and be stubborn all the way until the election. And then, Clinton gets elected and the Dems take over the Senate. At that point, I hope they nominate the most left-wing, unshaven Hippie justice they can find. Would be a nice, final F U to the Republican Senate who was bitterly uncompromising until the end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
Diomedes writes: What I would honestly love to see is the Senate continue to block the nominee and be stubborn all the way until the election. And then, Clinton gets elected and the Dems take over the Senate. At that point, I hope they nominate the most left-wing, unshaven Hippie justice they can find. Would be a nice, final F U to the Republican Senate who was bitterly uncompromising until the end. xongsmith writes:Or Hillary nominates Barack Hussein Obama.... NosyNed writes:To the GOP -- there's a difference? To to the GOP, yes, there is a difference. An ultra-left wing Hippie would at least be white. Nominating Obama would be tantamount to nominating one of the Black Panthers in their eyes. Come to think of it, that would be funnier.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024