Obama FILIBUSTERED Alito – Now Wants His Supreme Court Nominee Appointed.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Feb 14, 2016.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,304
    Likes Received:
    784
    Back in 2006, while in the Senate, Barack Obama joined 24 other Democrats to try to filibuster the nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito. It was a case of pure partisanship, posturing and brinksmanship, ABC News is reporting.
    On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on “This Week” that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”

    So when the Senate takes up any possible Supreme Court nominee brought forward by Barack Obama, perhaps they should remember the old adage that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Obama would be the first president since Ronald Reagan to fill three seats on the court. But Senate Republicans made clear they would not make it easy for him, arguing that with just 11 months left in office, he should leave the choice to the winner of the November general election.

    With 54 seats in the Senate, Republicans have the power to block the confirmation of any nomination sent by Obama if they stick together.

    “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

    http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...preme-court-nominee-appointed-i-dont-think-so
     
  2. plain_n_simple

    plain_n_simple
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,887
    Likes Received:
    5
    Wow this changed things and actually got my attention. So, the Presidents man will be locked in the Senate so this isn't gonna happen while he is Prez. I know the court rolls on with 8, but what if, and this is a big what if (God forbid) two or three more pass away in the next 8 months? How would that effect the power scenario of O'Bama declaring martial law for whatever other reason? Insignificant?
     
  3. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    That was the middle of a Presidential term. Who cares if folks filibuster if they don't think someone is qualified? That's what politicians do. But this foolishness about filibustering any nominee just because you don't think the current President has the right to nominate anyone is childish.
     
  4. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    Senate republicans will approve whoever Obama nominates. Period.
     
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/s...ny-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283


    Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee


    Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be inaugurated.

    "We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in prepared remarks to the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal organization.

    Schumer cited ideological reasons for the delay.
     
  6. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    Then he should expect the same treatment at 11 months. But the President should still make his nomination and the do-nothing GOP led obstructionist Senate will do or not do whatever it will.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,620
    Likes Received:
    158
    The more I think on this topic the more convinced it is almost assuredly a win-win situation for Obama. Very likely it is a win-win situation for the Democrats. There is a very slight chance it is a win situation for the GOP.

    Time will tell.
     
  8. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    266
    We could run with a 7 member court, just don't count Ruth Bader Ginsburg's vote any time she falls asleep during a hearing.
    Tongue
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220

    I agree CTB. The GOP is gonna likely get the ugly end of the stick from this no matter what they do now.

    If they had just waited for Obama to nominate someone and THEN filibustered, it could have been presented as them staking out a position based upon the GOP's politically "conservative" ideology.

    But now, because they are summarily stupid and angry about anything associated with President Obama, they are gonna look like the childish, obstructionists they attested to being at the beginning of his first term and throughout the second term.

    I'm thinking they are gonna pay a price because if Trump or Cruz become the nominee, they will be in danger of possibly losing the Senate and President Clinton, The Second, will get to nominate a justice who they really don't like, and can't do anything to block.

    This is all about politicking for their seats in the Senate.
     
  10. Rolfe

    Rolfe
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,295
    Likes Received:
    391
    For someone who complains about the amount of political comments on this site, Zaac sure seems to talk politics a lot.

    *laugh*
     
  11. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    Every so many months the same comment is made.:rolleyes: And every so many months I repeat that I don't have a problem with politics. I have a problem with folks, specifically Christians acting like, based upon their comments and actions, that their politics are more important to them than loving Christ and other people out of their love for Christ.

    It's become the default position of a lot of Christians in the GOP.
     
  12. Rolfe

    Rolfe
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,295
    Likes Received:
    391
    I challenge you to cite one example, with quotes, indicating that attitude on this site.
     
  13. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,113
    Likes Received:
    219
  14. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    You can challenge all you want. I've seen what I've seen. Ain't no sense in trying to deny the nasty personalities that have been on this board.

    You obviously think otherwise. [​IMG]
     
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,304
    Likes Received:
    784
    Ever since he joined he has been asked to many times to count to provide evidence for his claims. He always refuses to do so. I have never seen him provide evidence of any of his smears of others.
     
  16. Rolfe

    Rolfe
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,295
    Likes Received:
    391
    He will not because he cannot.
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,304
    Likes Received:
    784
    Well in another thread he has claimed that Romney is ok with murdering adults. I have no idea what that means but I am waiting for evidence of that.
     
  18. Rolfe

    Rolfe
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,295
    Likes Received:
    391
    I thought that you would at least try to do better than that...
     
  19. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    Why? You like those before you wouldn't do anything but attempt to make your case for why what I say I see isn't what you see.

    I'm saving us some time.

    Moving on.
     
  20. Rolfe

    Rolfe
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,295
    Likes Received:
    391
    Nope. It is because you cannot provide evidence. Deny all you like and make your excuses. It is all hot air expended trying to save face.
     

Share This Page

Loading...