Cracks form in the Republican wall against having hearings and holding a vote.

your link is as dead as your brain.

of course as I have said all along, it wouldn't surprise me if the shit brain RINOs caved like the little craven whores they are.
 
Jarod said:
Looks like the leadership got out ahead of those with the power.
Click to expand...


Not really. Grassley can't call a floor vote. Personally, I believe that the GOP is making tactical mistakes.

1) They spoke up too soon after Scalia's death
2) They should have said "We would be happy to review any COMPETENT nominee Obama puts forward"

And that is it. They can review and keep rejecting for the full year. That is how I would have played it. Have the hearings. Hold the vote. Reject.

Next nominee. Have hearings. Hold a vote. Reject

Next nominee. Have hearings. Hold a vote. Reject

Rinse. Wash. Repeat until November
 
I Love America said:
Not really. Grassley can't call a floor vote. Personally, I believe that the GOP is making tactical mistakes.

1) They spoke up too soon after Scalia's death
2) They should have said "We would be happy to review any COMPETENT nominee Obama puts forward"

And that is it. They can review and keep rejecting for the full year. That is how I would have played it. Have the hearings. Hold the vote. Reject.

Next nominee. Have hearings. Hold a vote. Reject

Next nominee. Have hearings. Hold a vote. Reject

Rinse. Wash. Repeat until November
Click to expand...

That would have been the smart way to do it, but they blew their wad.. showed their hand, and it makes the type of play you suggest all that much harder now.

As long as they hold a vote, I am okay with it. In order to uphold the Constitution they need to hold a vote.

McConnell ejaculated early by getting all excited and jumping up and shouting that they wont even hold hearings on any nominee.
 
Jarod said:
That would have been the smart way to do it, but they blew their wad.. showed their hand, and it makes the type of play you suggest all that much harder now.

As long as they hold a vote, I am okay with it. In order to uphold the Constitution they need to hold a vote.

McConnell ejaculated early by getting all excited and jumping up and shouting that they wont even hold hearings on any nominee.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says they have to hold a vote and when. It only says "Advise and Consent".

Technically telling the President not to nominate is giving Advice. Not holding a vote is explicitly not giving consent. But, there is nothing in the US Constitution that says they have to have a vote in a given time frame. Now you are putting your wishes into the mix and not the text of the Constitution.

Maybe if the democrat party hadn't drawn first blood with Bork, we wouldn't be here today. But, this is how these things go
 
Jarod said:
That would have been the smart way to do it, but they blew their wad.. showed their hand, and it makes the type of play you suggest all that much harder now.

As long as they hold a vote, I am okay with it. In order to uphold the Constitution they need to hold a vote.

McConnell ejaculated early by getting all excited and jumping up and shouting that they wont even hold hearings on any nominee.
Click to expand...

You called that one!

Scalia's body wasn't even cold yet and hate filled partisan Righties were ALREADY shrieking that they wanted Obama to let his successor nominate the next SC Justice.

Then we get Cruz announcing he wouldn't let ANY Obama nomination come up for a vote, and it becomes clear how Senate Republicans let their partisan hate for Obama determine their actions.
 
I Love America said:
Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says they have to hold a vote and when. It only says "Advise and Consent".

Technically telling the President not to nominate is giving Advice. Not holding a vote is explicitly not giving consent. But, there is nothing in the US Constitution that says they have to have a vote in a given time frame. Now you are putting your wishes into the mix and not the text of the Constitution.

Maybe if the democrat party hadn't drawn first blood with Bork, we wouldn't be here today. But, this is how these things go
Click to expand...

Yeah, you go right on spinning the clearly partisan comments from McConnell, Cruz and the other Senators.

ROFL!
 
I Love America said:
Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says they have to hold a vote and when. It only says "Advise and Consent".

Technically telling the President not to nominate is giving Advice. Not holding a vote is explicitly not giving consent. But, there is nothing in the US Constitution that says they have to have a vote in a given time frame. Now you are putting your wishes into the mix and not the text of the Constitution.

Maybe if the democrat party hadn't drawn first blood with Bork, we wouldn't be here today. But, this is how these things go
Click to expand...

You are being silly about the advise and consent argument. The spirit of the Constitution should be clear to any statesman that a vote is required without unnecessary delay.

I understand your Bork argument, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Waaah, they did something bad 20 years ago, is not a valid argument to me.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You called that one!

Scalia's body wasn't even cold yet and hate filled partisan Righties were ALREADY shrieking that they wanted Obama to let his successor nominate the next SC Justice.

Then we get Cruz announcing he wouldn't let ANY Obama nomination come up for a vote, and it becomes clear how Senate Republicans let their partisan hate for Obama determine their actions.
Click to expand...

El Oh El. You think this is partisan hate for Obama? So if Scalia died when say a Joe Biden was President you'd think they'd have no problem with Biden's selection?

How closely do you actually follow politics?
 
Jarod said:
You are being silly about the advise and consent argument. The spirit of the Constitution should be clear to any statesman that a vote is required without unnecessary delay.

I understand your Bork argument, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Waaah, they did something bad 20 years ago, is not a valid argument to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well. I don't give a shit about "two wrongs don't make a right" anymore. I used to. I used to think "we are better than the dems". But, it doesn't work. They don't play by any rules. So I say fuck it. Beat them at their own game.

Again. Nothing says they have to hold a vote in a given time frame. Like I said, let Obama nominate whoever he wants. That is his constitutional prerogative, then I would just vote every single one of them down. I would just say "he/she doesn't have the judicial temperament I am looking for" and call it a day.

As I keep saying, it is all a moot point because McCuntell will cave like he has caved the last two years. So you are wringing your hands over nothing. McCuntell will make token noises about trying to block Obama, but when the actual rubber hits the road he will say "there is nothing we can do".

My prediction is that McCuntell will work a back room deal with Obummer. They will block a vote on a nominee and mount a token resistance until after the election. Then once the results are in, McCuntell will call a vote and confirm whoever Obama really wants and not have to worry about paying the political price from the right. Of course that will mean all out war and he can kiss his majority goodbye because the last remaining conservatives would turn their back for good on that ultimate betrayal.
 
Jarod said:
You are being silly about the advise and consent argument. The spirit of the Constitution should be clear to any statesman that a vote is required without unnecessary delay.

I understand your Bork argument, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Waaah, they did something bad 20 years ago, is not a valid argument to me.
Click to expand...

Sure it's not a valid argument in your eyes when you stand to be the beneficiary today.
 
cawacko said:
El Oh El. You think this is partisan hate for Obama? So if Scalia died when say a Joe Biden was President you'd think they'd have no problem with Biden's selection?

How closely do you actually follow politics?
Click to expand...

The grey dog is me. The little yip yip fucker is Zipperhead

DogHumpGifGreyDog.gif
 
Jarod said:
You are being silly about the advise and consent argument. The spirit of the Constitution should be clear to any statesman that a vote is required without unnecessary delay.

I understand your Bork argument, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Waaah, they did something bad 20 years ago, is not a valid argument to me.
Click to expand...

Well, the constitution is a living organism; so, the spirit of the constitution is likewise malleable enough it can be used to fill whatever need the republican Senate deems neccessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top