The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

This is a Big.  Effing.  Deal.

Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of natural causes today.  Constitutionally, it falls to the President to nominate a replacement, which must be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.

The chances of the currently-majority Republican Senate confirming a replacement Supreme Court justice that is nominated by outgoing President Obama is, shall we say, slim.  But this particular appointment holds more meaning than any other in recent history.

You may have noticed that the 9-member Supreme Court, over the last 2 decades or so, frequently hands down 5-4 decisions on controversial cases like Heller (gun control), Citizens United (campaign finance), NIFB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell (Obamacare), Obergefell (gay marriage), etc.  This is because for the last few decades, the Supreme Court has generally been composed of 4 liberal justices, 4 conservative justices, and one additional conservative justice who can sometimes be swayed on social issues (Anthony Kennedy).  Outgoing justices have generally timed their retirements to align with a President that would nominate a like-minded replacement.

This throws all of that out of whack.   Scalia was one of the reliably conservative justices; a liberal replacement could then switch many future decisions to 5-4 in favor of a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution.

Presuming the likely scenario of the GOP Senate refusing to confirm anyone for the rest of the year*, the November 2016 election will not only determine the next President and the makeup of the Senate, but will also determine whether the Supreme Court maintains its conservative majority or switches to a majority-liberal bench.

I know there's frequently talk about how "this is the most important election ever" and so forth, but in this case, it's really true: 2016 will be the most consequential election any of us are likely to see in our lifetimes.  American voters will essentially have the power to choose the direction of all three branches of government, simultaneously.

Florida voters in particular, take heed:  this is a really, REALLY big deal.

The odds on favorite to be his replacement seems to be Sri Srinivasan

The senate already voted on him in 2013 and he passed with a 97-0 vote. Rubio, Cruz, and McConnell voted in favor of him. If nominated going to be tough to run out the clock on a guy everyone has already vetted, voted on, and didn't have a single vote against him.

Condolences to Scalia's family, from all accounts he was a great person and family man.  However, I am glad he is no longer on the Supreme Court, as I disagreed with him on 90% of the important issues that the Court ruled on.

Given the way the Senate has behaved for the last (7) years they will most likely try to delay the nomination of the new Supreme until the next President takes office.  BUT, let's say Obama puts up a moderate jurist for nomination to the bench, and the Senate won't vote on him/her until after the election; then if Clinton or Sanders win the election they could be stuck with the new President nominating only far left leaning jurists, which would greatly hurt their causes.  Given the age of the current Justices, the next President will likely nominate two or three new Justices, so the Republicans may be better off confirming the nominee of Obama (if a moderate).  Not too mention it may help them in the elections to be able to say they weren't playing politics with the position.

The worst thing about politics isn't the difference of opinion but  how it pretty much exposes how everyone is a hypocrite.

 Sen. Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 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.

On Sunday, Schumer ripped Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as an "obstructionist" for vowing to block any Obama nominee to replace Scalia on the high court from receiving a Senate confirmation vote.

"When you go right off the bat and say, 'I don't care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,' that's not going to fly," Schumer said on ABC's "This Week."

Almost every single thing Democrats complain about and use for propaganda they are guilty of themselves just as the Rupublicans are just as guilty of the same thing. They both try and "justify" why it's OK for them to do things but if we are all being honest they are all guilty of the same things.

^^^ That's all well and good except for the fact that there were no vacancies on the court during that period. There is a bit of a difference between a politician trying to get some spotlight for a straw man position rather than politicians actually holding up the government.

And how does that change his hypocrisy? That was my point. That's about as blatant as it can get. 

Except that from 2005 forward, the Democrat Party's approach to handling Bush's 2nd term was to obstruct everything based on their own internal party memos.

The problem with politics is that when one party is in power, they do things the other party doesn't like. When the other party takes power, they do the things they didn't like when the other party was in power. And it escalates from there.

Democrats were obstructing Bush, Republicans complained. Now Republicans obstruct Obama because Democrats did it before... but Republicans have upped the ante on obstructing.

Schumer made this declaration in 2007. Now Republicans can obstruct nominations and point to what Schumer said in 2007, whether it was really exercised or not, the intent was there.

Maybe if the parties were interested in actually getting things done, the discord wouldn't continue escalating.

Obama should throw a wrench in the whole "politics as usual" meme and nominate a very moderate, middle of the road, non controversial judge that would put the Republicans in a position to have to accept him or her. It would be best for the country anyway so we're not beholden to two extremes.

But I doubt this will happen. He'll probably nominate an activist judge because the opportunity to take control of the Supreme Court from an ideological perspective is too good to pass up.

Sounds like he might nominate Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a former prosecutor who republicans actually kind of like. Not to mention she was already vetted and was approved by republicans to be in her current role. If they vote her down (or don't vote at all) it will hurt Republicans even more with Females and Minorities in upcoming presidential election if it comes off as Republicans giving a black female a raw deal.

You are comparing hypothetical Democratic obstruction of a hypothetical vacancy to actual Republican obstruction of an actual vacancy.

In point of fact, when there actually was a Supreme Court vacancy in the last year of a Republican president's term, the Democrats confirmed a successor; as was pointed out to Ted Cruz, Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, Reagan's last year.

Surely you jest.

As was stated above, Sri Srinivasan (a former clerk for Scalia) was confirmed 93-0.  Do you think the GOP would even consider confirming him for SCOTUS?  Any GOP Senator who voted to confirm him would definitely lose his/her next primary.

The obstruction isn't actual yet. It has been Mitch McConnell saying what they should do.

As far as I have seen, there has been no actual nominee.

Also, what does it matter? The intent was demonstrated by Schumer. He made an acceptable idea by even introducing it.

Thank you for making this statement of irrefutable fact.  ::)

You are correct to point out that there has been no nominee yet.  If/when there is, we will compare hypotheticals to actuals, which should be pretty easy since (again) Democrats actually confirmed Anthony Kennedy in the final year of a Republican president's second term.

I notice that although you seem to view my statement about Srinivasan with scorn, you did not address its accuracy.  Are you saying that you think Srinivasan would, in fact, be confirmed by the GOP Senate?  Perhaps it is your position that a judge who was confirmed 93-0 (including yes votes from both Cruz and Rubio) is "too extreme"?

It's pretty easy to say that Obama should nominate some Theoretical Unnamed Moderate and then laugh derisively when real, existing persons are cited.

I didn't realize Obama had already nominated someone or do Democrats hold the rites to "hypothetical".

You can always find an excuse as to why its OK for your folks to do anything yet you can't ever see why its OK for the other side to do the same thing ... thus immediately inserting yourself into the middle of the hypocritical conversation.

For the third time: Anthony Kennedy, a Justice on the current Supreme Court, was confirmed by Democrats in 1988, the final year of Reagan's presidency.  You're referring to things that Schumer said; I'm referring to votes that were actually cast.

Now, it's entirely possible that the Republicans will feel the same sense of duty to the Constitution that Democrats felt when they put Anthony Kennedy on the court.  But given that the thrust of your post was that they shouldn't even feel obligated to, I think we both agree that they won't.

I didn't meet your statement about Srinivasan with scorn. I was doing that to your penchant for giving your opinion as if it were irrefutable fact. Obviously that flew right over your head, as do many other things.

Chuck Grassley just said Republicans should consider any nominee seriously, campaign season or no campaign season. I believe he has more say than Mitch McConnell in these matters given his chairmanship.

In what way does Chuck Grassley have "more say" than Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell?  The Judiciary Committee can elect not to hold any hearings, or to hold as many hearings as they want, but the confirmation vote is taken by the full Senate.

So it comes to light that Senate Democrats in 1960 passed a resolution against election-year Supreme Court recess appointments. 48 Democrats voting “yea”, 33 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting “nay.” But today's Republicans are somehow bad people for wanting the same thing.

Don't get me wrong ... I completely see the hypocrisy of the Republicans in this whole thing.

You can make a case if the Republicans want to win the White House they should vote and approve a nominee now. It will then motivate the republican base to get out and vote and get in someone like Trump or Cruz who will say you need me in the White House to fix our party. Now, a few senators will lose elections and fall on the sword and take the fall. But the best chance to win the White House is to probably approve someone to the Supreme Court now.

If the opposite happens and republicans are just obstructionists to the highest level it actually makes the Democrats look strong and say, hey we are playing by the rules the republicans are being unreasonable and playing games of running out the clock, and not taking a vote (if that happens).

And honestly, if Clinton or Sanders wins the election, and the Senate goes back to the Democrats after the next election (two very possible not far fetched scenarios by looking at current polling and the map) a year from now you might be talking about Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama.

I think this could really back-fire on the Republicans if they play their cards wrong. This is going to be really interesting to follow.

I'm not sure why you continue to insist that "I definitely think we should [do thing]" and "I vote in favor of [doing thing]" are the same.

When typing the above, I had a strange feeling of deja vu, and suddenly I remembered why: under GOP Presidencies, Democrats have done their share of complaining about the debt limit.  But they haven't actually demanded political concessions in exchange for raising the debt limit; that particular strategy is a Tea Party invention.

So, here we are again.  GOP apologists take the empty threats of past Democrats, ignore their actual votes to the contrary, insist that said empty threats are the same as making good on them, and declare that saying otherwise is hypocrisy.

Let's be clear about what we are talking about, here: you are definitely not providing cover for the Republicans making empty threats about refusing to confirm a nominee in the final year... you are providing cover for the GOP actually doing so, which stands in stark contrast to what the Democrats did when the tables were turned.

So don't try to sell this fake bill of both-sides-do-it.  One side talking about doing it and the other side actually doing it is not "both sides do it."

P.S. "Recess appointments" are when Congress is in recess, and they bypass the confirmation process.  No one has proposed this, so I'm not sure why you even mentioned it in the first place.

It's very simple logic (unless you are a Dem apologist).

If you tell me that the next time I do something you are going to punch me in the face and then I punch you in the face the next time you do it, you shouldn't really be complaining that I just punched you in the face.

Well said.

It doesn't really matter what someone said once upon a time.

It's the president's job to nominate people for the court.  It's the senate's job to confirm that they're qualified.  Just because it's politically inconvenient for one ideology, it doesn't matter.

It really sucks for the GOP, because the timing of this screwed them.  Of course they don't want to lose their most conservative judge for someone more liberal, but their blocking this will cost them the election and probably more than that.

That party really is in shambles.  They brought this on themselves.  They have run on obstruction for so long with this Tea Party business that they've shut down their own party.  Now their only reasonable candidates are getting trounced and they're running a bunch of clowns at the top.

Actually, the whole design is another check and balance intended to be a long and messy process if not everyone is on board. It is the President's job to nominate, correct. It is the Senate's job to analyze the nominee. Correct. But they do not need to confirm that person and their criteria for being qualified may be different from the President's.

The conservative criteria tends to revolve around strict constitutionalism while the liberal criteria tends to revolve around open interpretation. So to a conservative, a judge who is going to use "loose" interpretation of the Constitution is not qualified.

There is nothing actually legally wrong with the Senate blocking a nominee. It is in their power to do so. It all comes down to how public perception passes judgment on the decision.


True. Luckily for them, the candidates on the other side are clowns as well. So the general election will most likely be a toss up until the very end and one or two events will decide it at the last minute.

^ I disagree with your assessment.  Otherwise, you would see history of voting against judges where you ideologically disagree, where you don't.  Generally, you see people qualified and without excessive baggage voted in, in large numbers by both parties.

I find Bernie to be completely authentic and not clown-ish at all .. you can disagree with what his policies are .. and i'm sure alot of people do .. but he doesn't mince words or play games with what he wants to do .. it's pretty up-front

Being authentic does not preclude you from being clownish. Ted Cruz seems pretty authentic and I consider the guy to be a monumental clown. Proposing trillions of dollars in new spending while countering that with tax increases that will do little to offset is pretty clownish when we are over $19 trillion in debt.

Recent history points to my assessment being fairly accurate. Democrats tried pretty hard to block Alito. Republicans have given quite a bit of push back against Obama's appointees.

Close.

If we both threaten to punch each other in the face and then you actually do it, you don't get to say, "Well, you said you would do it too!" and claim that both actions are equivalent.

So your cited evidence for the accuracy of your statement about stalwart ideological opposition is... a currently-serving Justice who was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Dems didn't have the votes to block Alito.  They voted against him, but he was confirmed.  It was just a showing.  I understand the GOP blow-harding about the risks, as long as they ultimately go through with it, holding their nose.  If not, they do it at their own peril.  Whatever.  ...it will be interesting.

Thank you for rebutting Spider's superfluous point. Can't wait for his next one.

Awesome.

Tell that to the person making the point that they are.

You're defending (or, rebutting counterarguments to) CF Dolfan's claims of "hypocrisy," but cries of hypocrisy don't make sense if we are talking about two different things.

Contrary to all the Democrats' talk about how they would not confirm any late-term Republican nominees, when actually faced with the choice they confirmed Kennedy anyway.  So unless the point being made by the GOP apologists here is that the Republicans should say that they will not confirm Obama's nominee and then go ahead and confirm him/her, there is no "hypocrisy" because there is no equivalency.

It is clearly hypocrisy because some Republicans are threatening to deploy a tactic that Democrats basically invented and have threatened to use as recently as the last time a Republican president sat in office. But now that Republicans are threatening to use it, those same Democrats (Schumer) are crying wolf.

Criticizing others for threatening to do something you threatened to do is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Your ideological bias would have to be so extreme as to see it otherwise, that your only recourse would be to come up with ridiculous arguments to deny that this is hypocrisy.

Clearly, that is the case here.

Threatening to do it is fine.  Democrats have also threatened to do it... and then capitulated anyway.
Actually doing it is another matter entirely.

So, to clarify your position: are you saying that the Republicans should threaten not to confirm an Obama nominee in an election year, or that they should actually not confirm said nominee?

I'm perfectly fine with the GOP threatening not to confirm an Obama nominee in an election year and then confirming him (exactly as the Democrats have done), so no hypocrisy there.

That's a mouth full of Greek salad. There was a point made about the Democrats hypocrisy about the Republican threats, when they themselves have done the same thing. Nothing else has happened, at this point the Republicans have done nothing more than the Democrats have done in the past. Now they're complaining about it. Yes that's hypocrisy at its finest. Other than those facts, what are you arguing about?

I don't dispute that it's hypocrisy, like Dan does.  Dems shouldn't do this crap either and it's hypocritical to ask a president not to carry out his/her duty because it's politically inconvenient or you at the time.  I think that what he assumes (and I do as well), that it was kinda empty threats and posturing for votes since the Dems were in no real position to stop the nomination.  ...and when faced with actually having the choice, they've followed up by nominating the appropriate people that they've disagreed with ideologically.

I get why the GOP needs to come out with this stance, in order to gain sympathy and votes for their conservative cause...rile up their base, so to speak.  But if they actually stop a president who was elected twice from putting someone qualified on the court for a year, they will pay for it dearly.

That's how the system is set up.  Justices will be appointed with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. It moderates the power of one branch of government by requiring the concurrence of the other branch. Which basically means that both branches have to agree. There is nothing wrong with not appointing a nominee. They are doing their job as it was designed, that's the whole point of how the system is set up. Don't think for one minute that if the role were reversed that it would play out any other way.

In 1988, the roles were reversed.
In the final year of his presidency (an election year), Republican President Ronald Reagan's nominee Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic Senate.
Anthony Kennedy is still on the Supreme Court today.

That's the point.

To be clear, if the Republicans do actually end up confirming an Obama nominee this year, then yes, all the (ultimately unfounded) criticism would be hypocritical.  The GOP's empty posturing (only to ultimately capitulate) will be no different than what Dems have done in the past.  In that scenario, I would agree with CF Dolfan that the complaining is hypocrisy.

But virtually everyone in the political sphere (including the GOP fans in this thread) believe that it's not just empty posturing, and that the Republicans fully intend to block Obama from filling the vacancy.  That's the difference between political rhetoric and action.

Yes, and it was their choice at the time to confirm. They had another choice available to them. It goes to Senate for a REASON, not a rubber stamp approval. That's how the system is set up, if you don't like it, petition your politicians and get it changed. It's called checks and balances, That's the point.

Third nominee.

You said, "Don't think for one minute that if the role were reversed that it would play out any other way. "
When the roles were reversed, it did play out another way (compared to what you are suggesting Republicans should do now).
Therefore, your statement is false.

It is obvious that all politicians have a choice on whether to confirm nominations, whether to vote on anything at all, or even whether to show up for work each day.  Likewise, citizens have the choice to criticize obstructionist politicians who shout loudly about how much they love the Constitution, even as they refuse to perform their constitutionally-prescribed duty when it becomes politically inconvenient.

Why are you bringing up something from almost 30 years ago? The political landscape was totally different back then. Right now, if the roles were exactly the same but reversed it would more than likely play out the same way.

If the constitution and government give them the power to confirm or deny the nominee, then how are they obstructionist? If their constitutionally-prescribed duty is to confirm or deny a nominee. And they choose to deny, how are they refusing to perform their duty? It's because liberals and people like you expect others to just conform to their point of view and beliefs. Rubber stamping a nominee just because the democrats criticize them would be the definition of not performing their duty.

It's because 10 min after the guy died the Republicans said they won't confirm anyone. They didn't even know who the nominee is and they just said "no" off the bat. That's not using the power they have in the way it was intended.

Well put.

Who the nominee is literally doesn't matter; the Republicans do not intend to allow Obama to replace the vacancy, period.

They're just acting consistently with everything else related to Obama, so, no surprise.

When either Clinton or Sanders wins the upcoming Presidential election, I wonder if the GOP will stonewall the appointment for the next 4 years... ;)

If, and I say if, they don't confirm an Obama nominee, then they are using the power that they were given. How was that power intended to be used? Explain to me in easy layman's terms how they are breaking any rules.

It is also not "breaking any rules" for them to refuse to show up to work altogether.  There is no part of the Constitution that demands that a Senator or Representative show up for work each day; any member of Congress is perfectly entitled to refuse to vote on anything at all.

No rules or laws broken? Well then that sort of make your side of the "obstruction" argument a moot point. You and the other liberals can bitch and moan about it, that's fine. However, if you don't like the rules and laws on the books. Then by all means, make it your personal crusade to change them. In the event that the so called "obstruction" actually happens, the Republicans may pay for it in the elections. However, that is a whole other conversation beyond the scope of this one.

When you say before the process starts and 10 min after the guy dies you won't confirm anyone ever until we get a new president...that is breaking the rules.  And if you want to say well "technically" they haven't broken the rules, the are telling you up front they are about to break it. So they gave off the warning shot.

It's just lack of class and character. Comes off very poorly. And I don't identify with either party, I vote for the best people. But it's a real turn-off to see things like that.

Yes, lets get technical. Democrats and liberals have a unique talent for gas-lighting, so you have to get technical and set down facts. Now, either they are breaking a rule or they are not. It's pretty black and white. If they are breaking a written rule or law, then you have a valid argument. If they are not, well then it seems to me you just disagree with what they are doing because it doesn't fit the political agenda that you are aligned with.

As far as lack of class and character, haha. They are politicians, 99% of them are scum. The Democrats are no better than Republicans, they pull the same type of shenanigans. I can pretty much guarantee that if the shoe was on the other foot, most of the liberals on this site would be arguing the opposite of what they are now.

Perception is greater than reality most times in this world. And with the republicans knee jerk reaction and statements right after the death of the good judge stating that nobody will get confirmed as long as Obama is president , in the eyes of many they have already broken the rule even if "technically" they haven't.  Republicans are losing the PR battle on this one and are coming off looking poorly.

You clearly disagree and are a right wing zealot, which is fine. But for many Americans like myself who don't belong to either party, I'm just telling you how it looks. Step outside of the republican bubble and take a big-picture view of this situation and I bet your opinion changes.  And I'm a John Kasich supporter saying this!

Republican? Zealot? That's funny. As you, I don't belong to either party. Good god man, I just called 99% of the politicians scum.

Yes, lets get a big picture of the situation for a second. Let's say the republicans do indeed deny an Obama nominee. And we both agree that they haven't actually broken any rules, but it doesn't "look" good to the general voting public. And in the election, the Republicans pay dearly and Hillary is elected POTUS. A person who has "technically" broken rules and done something wrong is rewarded.

Yes, you are correct. Perception is greater than reality, and that's the problem. But that only holds true for a very large percentage of the population that cannot think for themselves. People that vote on perceptions over reality are the reason this country is in the sad shape that it's in.

Replace the word "Obama" with the word "Trump"...would Dems still have the same issue, or would it be "okay?"

No, replace it with "Cruz". I bet it would be "okay" with the Dems to "obstruct" in that case. ;)

Again, why play with hypotheticals?  Replace "Obama" with "Reagan" and the answer is that the Democrats DID confirm the nominee.

At no point did I call for Republicans to be arrested or impeached, so you're arguing a point not made.

It is perfectly legal for the Republicans to intentionally sabotage our government for their own political gain.  I never claimed otherwise.  Similarly, it is perfectly legal for them to, say, advocate for the repeal of the 13th Amendment and a return to slavery.

Just because something is not illegal, that doesn't make it a good idea.

Okay, you don't want to play the hypothetical game and instead use an example from 30 years ago...got it.   ::)

No, you're saying that they're doing something wrong? Wrong according to who? You? democrats? Liberals and lefties? (ie the enemy) Go figure, say it ain't so ???

There you go being a drama queen again. No one is obstructing or sabotaging anything. Simply playing politics like ALL politicians do. Don't play so naive.

Not a good idea like leaving leftovers in the fridge for over a week? Or not a good idea like having "Top Secret" government info on a private unsecured hacked server?

I'm a registered Republican (first time I can actually say that) and I agree. I understand because all of the media immediately brought it up, as did everyone else, but it was poorly played by many Republicans. There was no way they were going to look good doing that to anyone except their base.

No reason to patty-cake it. Obama isn't pandering to the Republicans. He has no intention of picking someone the Republicans want. Obviously I don't know that for sure but based on his history of never doing it before the likelihood isn't even slim.

If they do stonewall nominations until the next Democrat is president, then they're running the risk that next one up  nominates Obama for the court.

Getting kind of cocky like Cam. And we see how it worked out for him, hahaha.

Yes, I'm willing to use a real-world example that exists; one that involves a Justice that is currently sitting on the Supreme Court.  And guess who voted to confirm that Justice to the Supreme Court in an election year?  That's right: Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader who is currently insisting that such an action is unthinkable.

So let's not pretend that confirmation of a SCOTUS Justice in an election year is some sort of crazy idea from ancient history, relegated to the age of telegrams and stagecoaches.  Anthony Kennedy is still on the Supreme Court now.

not cocky .. but i do appreciate really good irony when its in the offing

I'm out.  If you want to just hold on to a 30 year example like nothing has changed in that period of time and keep repeating yourself, then I have nothing else to discuss with you.

Hahaha, this is how Democrats and liberals operate. They twist, spin, gas-light, and use irrational arguments until you just say fuck it and give up. Most normal people don't have time to keep going round and round. They make it their mission in life to prove themselves right, they get off on it.

For example, they will use something from 30 years ago as the basis of an argument. I don't know about anyone else, but 30 years ago the only thing I was worried about was smoking pot, drinking alcohol, and getting some pussy. Needless to say, although I still like those things, they aren't primary concerns for me in life. In other words, things have drastically changed in the past 30 years. The world has drastically changed. I wouldn't worry about it too much Tenshot, these people will argue with anyone, about anything, until the day they die no matter how irrational they sound.

For example, see next post.

::) Says someone basing his argument on an example from a time before the internet, before most people had PCs, before cell phones. A time when TVs were the size of a washing machine and you could actually find a pay phone.

I guess if we were currently in the 1980s, then a person like you would be using an example from the 1950s. A time when TVs and washing machines were just getting popular and cars were the size of SUVs. Stop playing silly child games Spider.

Oh and by the way, although on the decline, telegrams were still used in the 80s and were common place. So yes, your argument is relegated to the age telegrams!

The Cold War was still going on.  The USSR was still a country.  But he's right, it's an apples to apples comparison... ::) ::) ::)

The reason why he's using that example is because it was probably the last time this actual event has occurred. Some of the politicians that were around back then are probably also here today. So while it was 30 years ago, not too much might have changed since you have some of the same players. I mean, this particular scenario is also not something that happens constantly, so going back to something in fairly recent memory (politics wise) isn't an unfair example.

New report out last night is Obama might nominate the Nevada Governor who is an Hispanic Republican. So he will give the Republicans a Republican person. Only thing with this guy is he is Pro-Life and a moderate Republican. Sort of throwing an olive branch out that, hey I will give you a Republican but he is a moderate one who has some views that agree with me. So if the Republicans vote down one of their own fellow Republicans, then that's on them.

I get that.  I just don't think it's a viable example because politics change a lot in 30 years, contrary to what he might believe.

When your primary objection is that a Justice that is currently sitting on the Supreme Court is too far back in history to count, sorry, you get no sympathy from me.

As for the argument that politics have changed: of course they have! The Republicans are the ones changing them!  The United States of America coming two days away from defaulting on its debt obligations (and complete financial catastrophe) was also not something that happened 30 years ago, but here we are.  The record amount of filibusters by the 2009-2015 GOP Senate minority is called a "record" because it had never happened before.

Example of what exactly? What happened 30 years ago doesn't dictate what would happen today, nor should it. I have no doubt that the Democrats of "today" would pull this same shit and spin it. Just like they do with gun control and many other things.

At the end of the day, none of this discussion really matters. The Republicans gained seats in the Senate and are under no obligation to confirm. Just like Obama can veto a bill without cause, so can the Senate vote against confirmation of any/all of Obama's nominations. That's called checks and balances, that's the whole point of how it's set up. Don't like it, vote them out or go to Cuba.

1st, I don't need your sympathy friend.
2nd, you're all over the place. 
3rd, for such a simple comment I made, your reading comprehension is very poor
4th, I said I was out, why am I even commenting on this still?
5th, potato

Anyone who believes that only one party is affecting a change on politics clearly believes that the tooth fairy was living dollar bills under his pillow.

The problem with politics is that one party does it and the other party does it worse. Then the party that did it first is criticizing the other party for doing what they did. And back and forth it goes and it gets worse and worse.

It takes two to tango, unless you're deranged enough to tango by yourself while sniffing on that dollar you think the tooth fairy left you...

Anyone who argues that only one party is bad is really a lost cause. They have no concept of reality.

+1

One of the major problems with the media and their abdication of responsibility to journalism is this false narrative of both sides are at fault.  It simply is not the case (or, if you prefer, is not the case to the same degree).

At the national level, Republicans have purged liberals and moderates from their party.  There is no Republican equivalent of the Blue Dog Democrats (Democrats who identify as conservative), nor is there a Republican equivalent of the New Democrat Coalition (Democrats who identify as moderate).  At the national level, GOP politicians are in a perpetual race to prove that they are more conservative than their fellow Republicans.

You are falling into the same trap that the media participates in: you are attempting to appear objective by claiming that both sides are at fault.  The problem is that objectivity and neutrality are not the same thing; it is a disservice to both journalism and reality to simply say, "Well, the Democrats say that SCOTUS justices have previously been confirmed in election years, and the Republicans say that they have not, so I guess there's no way to know for sure and you'll just have to choose your side."

I understand the allure of trying to be above the fray but at some point you have to call it as you see it.  Simply saying "both sides do it!" enables brinksmanship and extremism.

There are no conservative Democrats or very few and non effective if any. I changed my affiliation this year from Democrat to Republican after voting primarily Republican the last 10 years or so.  Lieberman was the last major guy I looked at in the party who I could relate with. Prior to that I voted almost strictly Democratic since the 80's. 

It cracks me up because I know you're not stupid but when you try and pretend you believe something as silly as "it all the Republican's fault" and Democrats are just trying to do the right thing then I have to at least question it. I guess the biggest question is are you that ignorant or just love arguing that much?

We have a President that constantly purposely causing segregation and conflict. Even in death he uses it as a chance to slap the Republicans by not attending their greatest ally on the Supreme Courts death. If not in death then when do you try bi-partisanship? 

Interesting. The Republican Party's nominee always seems to wind up being a RHINO. Meanwhile, the Democrat Party nominated the most progressive candidate in 2008 and are on the verge of nominating a socialist in 2016, but the Republican Party is more extreme?

There are more RHINOs in the Senate than Blue Dog Democrats. In fact, how many Blue Dogs are actually left? The guy from West Virginia and who else?

Hint: there is no tooth fairy.

I'm sure the rebuttal will be that Lieberman is to the right of Ted Cruz or something...


You're officially being a racist, extremist Tea Party Republican by expressing this opinion. Knock it off before we sick those open-minded liberal college students on you.

Well, when your party has made the word "moderate" an epithet, anyone to the left of Ted Cruz is a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only).

I'm not saying the Republicans are extreme because Ted Cruz exists; it makes sense that extreme conservatives would be members of the Republican Party.  I'm saying they are extreme because they have eliminated self-identifying (<--- this part is important) liberals and moderates at the national level, while the Democrats still have proud self-identifying moderates and conservatives in their party.

The self-identifying part is important because it tells you how these politicians campaign to their voters.  In other words, there are DC Democrats who win Democratic primaries by promising to be moderate or conservative; in contrast, all DC Republicans win their primaries by promising to be conservative, and that's it.  This is the sign of a monolithic party.

There is no such thing as a self-identifying RINO; RINO is an insult that conservatives launch at other Republicans that they don't consider conservative enough.  So for you to say that the Senate has a bunch of RINOs (when those Senators, if asked, would insist that they are VERY conservative) is just you perpetuating the exact kind of extremism I'm referring to.

It's pretty difficult to be "effective" when you're in the Congressional minority.  What would you expect conservative Democrats to accomplish, exactly?

I'm not sure "conservative prefers Republicans over Democrats" is a surprising development, and Lieberman, the "last major Democrat you could relate with" gave a speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention supporting the GOP candidate for President.  I don't think it's unreasonable for the Democratic Party to expect their members not to campaign for Republican Presidential candidates.

This isn't the first time I've mentioned that Washington has purged all Republicans who are unwilling to shout that they are Very Conservative, and I'm still waiting for someone to provide a response other than "Well, I still don't think Republicans are conservative enough!"

I'll say it again:  where is the Republican equivalent of the Blue Dogs?  Where is the Republican equivalent of the New Democrats?  Where are the Rockefeller Republicans?  They don't exist, because they have all been purged.

The current version of the GOP thinks John McCain and Mitt Romney were barely-disguised leftists, so of course you think Obama is destructive!  The entire point is that the GOP has been sucked in a mad dash to the right, in a quest to eliminate all insufficiently-pure RINOs.

Interesting...I thought we had a president that was trying to bring people together. Perhaps you can cite a few examples of his all-encompassing "segregation and conflict" plan?


While you're at it, could you point to the section of the constitution, or the president's job description that says the president is supposed to attend the funeral of every Washington DC politician or judge?  I personally hate funerals, and have a hard time forcing myself to go to funerals for cousins, uncles and other extended family members.

Or as a certain Republican Vice President would spell - p-o-t-a-t-o-e

Just to give a complete picture of the historical facts: since 1980, sitting Presidents have attended roughly half of the funerals for Supreme Court justices.  Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice in U.S. history, rated exactly the same treatment as Scalia: a VP appearance.

Now, one might be inclined to object that Scalia was a sitting justice, which changes everything.  The last sitting justice to die was Rehnquist in 2005; George W. Bush attended.  The last sitting justice to die before that was Robert Jackson in 1954.  And back in that age of comity and national unity, before our current era of divisive partisanship... President Eisenhower sent some flowers.

I believe this is the point where protesters insist anything that happened before 2000 is too old to count, or something.

Seriously? Have you had your head buried in the sand?

What was his public opinion on Trayvon Martin, Maichael Brown, Blacl Lives Matter, the Baltimore riots, his silence on the police killings and the latest is his rejection to honor justice Scalia. He never steps in to calm things but he will pubicly support those "who look like my son" and are on the wrong side of law. Add in to the fact that he is more concerned with not calling a Muslim extremist a Muslim extremist than he is in whether or not law abiding citizens can continue to ecertsise the 2nd ammendment. Poitics is wone thing but it's no secret why 65% of Americans think race relations have gotten worse under Obama's reign and is getting worse.

The same place in the Constitutioin that requires a President to have show some sort of decorum while in office. It is just assumed a President should be above the fray of the millions of want to be politicians who spout ignorance on the web. 

Seriously...have you had your head buried up the Tea Party's backside?

It seems that what you desire from Democratic President Obama is a Republican President that will turn a blind eye to the problems black people (and poor people) complain about, or that will resolutely defend "Second Amendment Rights" on the day of yet another mass shooting.

If Obama is "causing segregation and conflict" by being a liberal President, then I'm happy to see him do it.  While I'm sure that it would reduce a lot of conflict (from your perspective) if Obama were to simply parrot conservative talking points, I'll have to disagree on the subject.

On a related note, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you don't believe the current calls in the Republican Presidential primary for a complete ban on Muslims and widespread deportation of immigrant families are causing any "segregation and conflict" at all.

Who's he helping by encouraging blacks to rally, fight and riot for causes that are wrong? I desire a president who stands for truth. As much as George Zimmerman may be trash, the police department did what they should have done and Zimmerman's trial and the Dept. of Justice's investigation proved that. The same thing happened in Ferguson where he went above vocal sentiment and even sent people to the funeral. Not once did the president tell the black community not to overreact or that they were wrong yet he continued to justify hatred towards the police by his statements.

I'm not a Trump fan other than the fact he made it OK not to be politically correct.  I've been behind Rubio for years. In fact although as a Christian I agree with most of Cruz's ideas I think he would be more of a divider than we need. You have to be flexible and willing to compromise and he is more similar to Obama but in conservative fashion ... and nobody needs that either.
 
I'm all for blacks being treated fairly just I as I am for Muslims being treated fairly but I can tell you one thing. If middle aged white Christian men are threatening public safety in the form of terrorism I'd expect you and everyone else would take a second look at me when meeting me. That's just common sense. I've been a young white trash teenager who was looked at differently. I've had the police visit my house and ask me to come to the station for questioning because a girl who I used to visit's neighborhood had a rash of break-ins. I understand both sides and yet I still keep my hands on the steering wheel when I get pulled over and answer yes sir and no sir because this police officer doesn't know me from Ted Bundy.

What I don't think people understand is that if you get rid of the Al and Jesse arguments of nothing and actually focused on issues where blacks really are discriminated against then most people, black or white, would easily back the causes. The police officer in South Carolina who shot the guy in the back running away was quickly vilified by everyone. Unfortunately more times than not the call to violence isn't justified and is more likely just a reason to loot and give Jesse and Al more money.

If people really wanted to have the rest of society interested in helping blacks then they would
1) quit calling themselves "African" American and automatically separating themselves from the people they complain about being separated from
2) quit rallying behind idiots like Al, Jesse, and violence condoning groups like Black Lives Matter
3) allow the justice system to work and then attack the system after it has proven not to work

^^^ Let's be honest CF, he has not encouraged riots. He may show support for a cause but he has never supported people rioting. You make some good points but starting with fallacy doesn't help your case.

Some of his quotes on the topic:

“nothing of significance, nothing of benefit results from destructive acts.”

“I’ve never seen a civil rights law or a health care bill or an immigration bill result because a car got burned,”

“I have no sympathy at all for destroying your own communities. But for the overwhelming majority of people who just feel frustrated and pain, because they get a sense that maybe some communities aren't treated fairly or some individuals aren't seen as worthy as others, I understand that,”

"There is never an excuse for violence against police or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism and looting,"

"I join Michael's parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully,"

I agree that Obama has not in any way incited riots. I'm not a fan of the guy but let's tone it down a bit with the hyperbole.

That being said, for whatever reason and for whoever is to blame, his presidency was supposed to unite this nation and instead it seems further divided. Along racial lines and along ideological lines. He fell short of his promises to be post partisan (in fact, he has been hyper-partisan) and post racial (in fact, he has injected himself into racial issues in a way that does not demonstrate objectivity).

I get that the opposition party is going to *gasp* oppose him. That's how democracy typically works. And there are certainly elements on the right that are going to try to pull further right, just like elements on the left are going to do the same. But I seem to recall previous presidents such as Reagan and Clinton having to deal with the opposition party in Congress and accomplishing things.

And before you say that Obama gets it worse than Clinton... remember... Clinton was IMPEACHED by the Republicans. Clinton, however, had an ability to get Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole (and John Kasich for that matter) in a room and get something done. And he was able to get it done while the Republicans were spending a ton of resources to get him out of office.

I have seen no evidence from Obama that he has the same capability.

Cruz can't even determine how Obama has inflamed racial tension after having said Obama has inflamed racial tension. It's just a blanket statement that he can't even support.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/ted-cruz-obama-racial-tensions-election-2016/

Who cares about Cruz? He's a wacko and I'm sure he isn't going to win the nomination.

Again, that's like, your opinion, man.

You and I have had the exact same disagreements on this forum about the exact same subjects, so it should not be surprising to you that a liberal president should approach these situations from at least a marginally liberal position of "These people may have some legitimate grievances, but let's avoid violence and protest peacefully."

The conservative position is that these black protesters were wrong and should sit down and shut up.  You basically just want Obama to be a Republican President.

And what would you say if armed black protesters (or armed Muslims) forcibly took over federal property for over a month?

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6pm6gv75zZM/hqdefault.jpg)

Please give me an example of conservatives supporting an issue where blacks really are discriminated against.

Even in the case of the SC officer shooting Walter Scott in the back, conservatives everywhere insist (as always) that that was just one bad apple and certainly not indicative of some sort of widespread discrimination against blacks by cops.

How many hundreds of years do black people need to wait for the justice system to work before they can start attacking it?

I completely agree with that. I only brought up Cruz because CF DolFan said he agrees with some of what he says and repeated the same line that Cruz did where he is more of a divider. I figured if he might have heard that from Cruz then he should see how bad of a statement it is when Cruz can't support it. 'Tis all.

Well from a partisan standpoint, he is a divider. I think he has been the president least willing to compromise with the opposite side of the aisle in my lifetime.

I can't remember the last time the leader of the Senate opposition party said that his "number one priority" was to make sure the current President served only one term.

So perhaps the reason why Obama has been the "least willing to compromise with the opposite side of the aisle" is because the opposite side of the aisle has traditionally not set out to oppose the President at any cost.

So his leadership style is to be as petty as those that have less power than him.

That's not leadership.

Again, we had a president being actively impeached by the opposition party negotiating with the opposition party. These politicians all trash each other and then go to dinner or rub elbows at events. Well, the ones that don't have thin skin that is...

If Obama had gotten a blowjob from an intern, they would have tried to impeach him, too.  It's not like they like Obama more than Clinton.

I'd be happy to cite all sorts of metrics about the historic levels of obstruction Obama has faced from the GOP, but I doubt it's necessary; I think conservatives would just say that Obama has faced more obstruction than any prior president because he deserves it (whereas, say, Dubya did not).

You've already proven that you're quite adept at making superfluous points. No need to continue the trend. You win that competition... by a mile.

Bottom line, maybe he wasn't cut out for the job of president because he wasn't cut out to deal with people who would *gasp* have a different opinion or even have the audacity to obstruct him.

He promised to be a post partisan, post racial president. He did not succeed. Whatever the reasons or excuses you want to put up about opposition and obstruction... we are more partisan and more divided along racial lines. Period.

And he should share the responsibility in this failure. He sure did his fair share of gloating when he had both houses of Congress on his side. It's not surprising the Republicans came back with a vengeance when they took the House.

You use the word obstruction like they are doing something wrong. It's only wrong because you don't agree with it. It about checks and balances. That's how the system works.


It seems that what you desire is a Republican congress that will do whatever a Democratic President wants. Otherwise you start throwing words like obstruct and sabotage around. It seems to me that Obama is trying to obstruct and sabotage the 2nd amendment. It seems to me that Obama is trying to obstruct and sabotage our immigration laws.

I said Cruz would be more of a divider like Obama. I don't see either one wanting to bring people together. they have their opinion and do not compromise. Regardless of if I may agree with Cruz and his Biblical interpretations I don't think you can govern with such a black and white hand. there is a reason while Cruz has friends in congress yet no one will publicly support him.   

My pastor ... who happens to be one of Obama's spiritual advisers is a hard core conservative but yet he will work with anyone. He was one of Bush's as well. He teaches to find common ground and work from there instead of standing back and pointing out your differences.

How many times has he come out against the 50 or so police officers who were shot, run over or beaten to death last year? He certainly came out to support Trayvon and Michael. 9 more police officers this year alone. His silence is heard by everyone who wants to hear it.

“They put their lives on the line for our safety. Targeting police officers is completely unacceptable — an affront to civilized society.”

"heroes because that's what they are."

"Too often, law enforcement gets scapegoated for the broader failures of our society and criminal justice system,"

“And the family of fellow officers he joined in the NYPD and across the country deserve our gratitude and our prayers not just today but every day. They’ve got a tough job.”

You will have a better time convincing me that President Obama was actually born in Kenya or that he is a Muslim, or even that he replaced the American flag on AF1 with his "O" logo (yes I know people who believed this) than you will convincing me that he is actively supporting riots or cop killings

And since your want to dig up shit from 30 years ago and think it's relevant. Apparently your vice president and Obama's right hand man thinks that the president should not name a Supreme Court nominee to fill any vacancy during an election year until after the election is completed and that if the president did name a pick during an election year, the Judiciary Committee should “seriously consider” not having hearings until after the campaign is over and that this was “fair to the nominee and essential to the process”.

Video included for your viewing pleasure. Hypocrisy at its finest!

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/22/flashback-biden-said-senate-should-not-confirm-scotus-pick-during-election-season/ (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/22/flashback-biden-said-senate-should-not-confirm-scotus-pick-during-election-season/)

The people who are complaining about how partisan and racial Obama's America has become are almost entirely people who never voted for him in the first place.  Their hollow cries of unfulfilled campaign promises fall on deaf ears.

And that's fine.  But don't scream at your Republican politicians that compromise with Obama is SURRENDER and insist that they must take every avenue to block him, then turn around and complain about how "divisive" Obama has been.

Already asked and answered; both parties have said in the past that no one should be nominated, and (importantly) there was no nominee when Biden (and later, Schumer) made those statements.

But when there actually WAS a nominee, the Democrats confirmed him in an election year.  So I would be happy to accept empty political bluster followed by an election-year confirmation by the GOP... exactly as the Democrats did.  No hypocrisy at all.

Truth? Logic? Do you really think that shit is gonna fly around here?  ;)

This thread has certainly gone off on a tangent...

It's politics. What would you expect?  ;D

I'm pretty sure Obama tried compromising with Republicans plenty in his first term. He initially wanted a universal healthcare system, then he went to a single payer system like expanded medicare, Then finally "compromised" with republicans and proposed a Republican plan for healthcare that heavily benefited the private sector insurance companies. And he still got no votes from Republicans and then got taken to court 589 times after the law was passed.

2nd term obama is the give no fucks obama. It's obvious he tried already to compromise and that bit him hard, so he's learned his lesson.

I agree with Fau's assessment; Obama's first term consisted primarily of him trying to prove that he could be "bipartisan" and having his hand slapped away repeatedly by Republicans.  His second term has been much more realistic in terms of dealing with the opposition.