Another Brick in the Wall

-->
Obama Administration

So Senate Republicans have declared they will not consider any Obama Supreme Court nominee, and they will be very careful to not recess for the rest of the year. They aren’t even going to go through the motions.

So if another Democrat moves into the White House in January, what will be their excuse then?

See also Charles Pierce and John Cole.

Share Button
19 Comments

19 Comments

  1. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 23, 2016 @11:20 pm

    If it’s Hillary, and the Dem’s don’t control the Senate the Constitutional originalist GOP loons will say that when the Constitution was passed, women weren’t even allowed to vote, so how can a woman name a Supreme Court Justice?
    They’ll say they have to wait until a man is President. A Republican male President – or a GOP woman, since the word “consistency” is not in their vocabulary.

    As for Bernie, I don’t know. They’ll think of something. They’ll probably have to eliminate saying the Founding Fathers based the USA on Judeo-Christian principles, eliminate the former, and just keep the latter.

    I’ve been saying here and at other sites that the GOP Senators may allow Obama to replace liberal justices – as they reluctantly did – but will do any and every thing they can to prevent him from replacing a conservative one.

    It didn’t take Nostradamus to deep that coming!

  2. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 23, 2016 @11:42 pm

    Steve M., at nomoreister. blogspot.com, writes that McConnell has already said that if a Dem wins, the Republican treasonous traitors will STILL not allow the new president to replace Scalia.

    I think the “Cold Civil War” will now heat-up to near the boiling point soon after thus years election.

  3. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 23, 2016 @11:42 pm

    nomoremister.blogspot.com

  4. Doug  •  Feb 24, 2016 @12:04 am

    I think there’s a huge strategic error in the decision to refuse to have hearings. It would have had some pretense of legitimacy to hold hearings and then vote down the nominee, even if Obama proposed Jesus Christ. This is probably a case of the leadership making sure that no republican has the opportunity to defect.

    There is precedent. The 17th president of the US (a Southern Democrat) was acquitted by one vote in the Senate when seven republicans broke ranks to vote not guilty. And things were a mite polarized – Andrew Johnson replaced Abraham Lincoln after the assassination. Things were still a bit tense.

    Ignoring that the GOP leadership is completely wrong, and their actions are without precedent, they have no choice. If Obama selects a qualified candidate and it goes up for a general vote, there’s a good chance there will be enough defections for a confirmation. That’s almost game over because the demographics are shifting against the GOP electorally, and they hope against hope to be able to stack the court and maintain policies through the court that they can’t continue through obstruction.

    They have enacted a loosing strategy, but it’s the only strategy that’s not surrender.

  5. Tom_b  •  Feb 24, 2016 @1:43 am

    I think Obama will prevail. If the GOP continues holding its collective breath and displaying brazen dereliction of duty for all the world to see, then Obama should simply fill the seat using an executive order. The action, most likely unconstitutional, will get kicked up to the Supreme Court, where a 4-4 split might give the Prez a win. Maybe he could even get an actual liberal through that way.

  6. paradoctor  •  Feb 24, 2016 @7:50 pm

    They will say that no Democrat can be a legitimate President because mumble mumble mumble. If it’s Hillary, then mumble mumble mumble equals misogyny. If it’s Bernie, them mumble mumble mumble equals anti-Semitism.

    There, answered it for you.

    And as for a 4-4 Supreme Court, they say that rule of law is optional because mumble mumble mumble.

  7. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 24, 2016 @7:58 pm

    Paradoctor,
    Mumble, mumble, mumble…

    Where’s Dick Tracy when you need him? 😉

  8. paradoctor  •  Feb 24, 2016 @8:31 pm

    And when you ask them to clarify, they will explain that up is down, war is peace, slavery is freedom and ignorance is wisdom.

  9. uncledad  •  Feb 24, 2016 @9:36 pm

    “So if another Democrat moves into the White House in January, what will be their excuse then”

    They certainly don’t want a democrat tipping the balance of the court but if need be at least it won’t be that colored fella!

    “even if Obama proposed Jesus Christ”

    I agree but maybe Ronnie Raygun!

  10. Doug  •  Feb 24, 2016 @11:13 pm

    I’m reading that Move-On is preparing an ad which features a president in his final year demanding that the Congress act on his USSC nomination. This will be fun because the president is Ronald Reagan.

    You hear crap about how the democrats abused Bork, but that’s phony. Bork got hearings and he got voted on. The problem is fundamental – there might be republicans who would NOT vote to deny a qualified nominee. The decision to not hold hearings is intended to prevent a possible confirmation that could happen against McConnell’s instructions.The possibility of a rogue republican seems unthinkable to progressives, but I’m inclined to think McConnell has counted noses and blocking the hearing is the ONLY way he can be certain to block the nomination.

  11. paradoctor  •  Feb 25, 2016 @12:16 am

    Republican judicial obstruction proves that originalism, like Scalia, is dead.

  12. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 25, 2016 @10:19 am

    Paradoctor,
    The only reasons for “Originalism,” were/are to remind women that they couldn’t and shouldn’t vote, and that at best, a Nigrah male is only worth 3/5th’s of a white man.

    They couldn’stream N*GGER and C*NT no more, so the good ol’ boys had to have them that could do some book larnin’, come up wid sum knew turms!
    How “original…”

  13. deadhouse_gates  •  Feb 26, 2016 @3:51 pm

    “So if another Democrat moves into the White House in January, what will be their excuse then?”

    If the winning Democrat carries fewer than 25 states, they’ll say the majority of states sent a clear message that the American people don’t want President Clinton shoving an extremist judge down their throats. If President Sanders carries at least 25 states we’ll hear that Sanders only won in 650 counties, whereas Trump won 2400 counties carrying the real American heartland, not just isolated urban areas.

    If the Democratic nominee gets fewer votes than Obama they’ll say that obviously the American people no longer trust the Democrats. If the nominee gets more votes than Obama did, well what clearer sign of electoral fraud could you ask for? The Republican party isn’t going let the Clintons and their dirty tricks (Black Panthers seen near polling place!!) get away with stacking the court.

    If the Republicans maintain their control of the Senate then it’s there, in the upper house responsible for advising and consenting that the will of the people is to be divined. Unless they lose the Senate, in which case it will be determined that the operative elections were in the House. By re-electing a Republican House the American voters said loud and clear, that they want the President to work with the opposition party so here is a list of people from which President Sanders may choose .

    I can hear the excuses already, mostly late at night while I’m trying to sleep. It’s kind of a problem actually.

  14. maha  •  Feb 26, 2016 @4:17 pm

    deadhouse: If there’s a Democratic President and at least 60 Democratic senators (or, at least 60 senators willing to vote for cloture to force a vote), then it doesn’t matter if the House is all Republicans. The House doesn’t get a say on Supreme Court appointments. All it takes is a simple majority of senators to confirm.

  15. uncledad  •  Feb 26, 2016 @4:56 pm

    “The House doesn’t get a say on Supreme Court appointments”

    I think deadhouse’s point was that the rules do not matter, neither does the will of the people. I believe his point is the republicants will spin any election result as proof that the “American People” don’t want a liberal man or woman tipping the balance of the court?

  16. maha  •  Feb 26, 2016 @10:20 pm

    If there’s a Dem president and a 60-vote majority to prevent a filibuster, it doesn’t matter what the Republicans spin.

  17. joanr16  •  Feb 26, 2016 @5:21 pm

    Yeah, I haven’t seen a Black Panther in a long long time– near a polling place or anywhere else. I have seen a Dead Yellow Poodle on the presumptive GOP nominee’s head, though. It’s going to take a lot of Republican spin to fix their mess, that much is certain.

  18. uncledad  •  Feb 26, 2016 @7:52 pm

    “It’s going to take a lot of Republican spin to fix their mess, that much is certain”

    Yes Joan but for that and pretty much only that they are eminently qualified!

  19. deadhouse_gates  •  Feb 29, 2016 @3:26 pm

    “If there’s a Dem president and a 60-vote majority to prevent a filibuster, it doesn’t matter what the Republicans spin.”

    This is true. It is also irrelevant as I don’t see 14 senate seats the dems can flip in the 2016 map*. I’d love to be wrong on this, but I think we’ll all be hearing republican spin on why they can not possibly confirm whoever a democratic president nominates for years to come.

    * 5 or 6? sure. Maybe a Clinton/Sanders landslide of historic proportions would put another 5 or so into play. But a net of 14 isn’t happening, not in 2016



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile