Monday, February 15, 2016

Rotate

I left the rude part off the title. This post is about filibuster of Supreme Court nomination and about frustration with members of Republican party.

This piece by Evan Harris writing for ABC news is circulating. First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process

Notice there is no race specified. No sex specified and not even an affiliation, simply the first president in history, not the first black, not the first woman, not the first gay, not the first Latino or anything, the first person who filibustered a Supreme Court nomination and then later became president. He joined a group led by John Kerry to filibuster Alito. They failed but they still filibustered. And he still became president. But now he will have otherwise.

UnAmerican, unconstitutional, and according to NYT certainly racist.
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."
Why are Republicans so polite? So maddeningly conservatively polite? This is where you say go fuck yourself, and mean it.

6 comments:

Methadras said...

Why are Republicans so polite? So maddeningly conservatively polite? This is where you say go fuck yourself, and mean it.

GOP'ers in the Senate want comity and they'll break their backs to show it and bend forward to give it. Just so as long as they get their cocktail invitations. It's all smiles and obsequious deference.

Notice how Democrats are so enraged that McConnell would say that he won't take up any nominee that Obama brings forward. Especially that piece of dog shit, Harry Reid, the very Senate Majority Leader at one time that stymied and held up nominees all the time. Why, he's appalled. He's indignant. Lulz from all of them. Seriously, the kabuki theater here is laughable. Truly.

Jim in St Louis said...

The President has the constitutional power granted to him to nominate new justices whenever there is a vacancy, along with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Why this crap that it is somehow conservative to block that process? The conservative position should be- 'I hope the President sends us someone good'

If Obama nominates another Sotomeyer type then the GOP Senate would be entirely within its functions to hold hearings, debate, vote and reject. And to repeat that until the President sends someone who can get that consent.

I dislike that McConnell has said that the Senate would not take up any nominee- It is the left that plays b.s. games, not the conservatives.

Jim in St Louis said...

...Too funny...that Alexrod story going around matched what I was trying to say.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

It may be nearly impossible to deny Obama his nominee. There simply is too much time left in his term.

Filibusters are mostly strategic negotiating maneuvering. Obama has the upper hand.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

There is also the inconvenience of Ted Cruz, the guy most adept to lead the blockade happens to be the least liked in the senate. He also happens to running for president himself. The two roles rife with the appearance of rank partisanship.

Having little to no experience sussesfully blocking Obama, in nearly 8 years, I'm afraid they are not confident enough to sustain the certain to come withering attacks from an emboldened White House, regardless recent republican victories at the polls.

I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

Rabel said...

"I think that the Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," then-Sen. Obama said.

Let's give the man some credit for consistency. He's still using that argument when things don't go his way.