Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

That Obstruction You See …

Boilerman
Boilerman
Feb 16, 2016
2:53am
Block User
Here's the naked truth. Everyone knows that if the situation were reversed, the Libs would obstruct. We're finally getting is ugly as you guys, and you don't like it. Tough luck.
billryan
billryan
Feb 16, 2016
2:55am
Block User
I like how you think you are part of the equation.
alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Feb 16, 2016
3:16am
Block User
"Can't we all just get along?"
hoops2
hoops2
Feb 16, 2016
5:26am
Block User
I don't recall any president saying that if congress doesn't pass the laws he wants he will just issue exec orders

In addition to exec orders obama also issues. Presidential memos which have the same force as an exec order. When you combine the 2 Obama is way out in front of other presidents.

Boilerman
Boilerman
Feb 16, 2016
9:06am
Block User
Billy whines when I point out that the Democrats started this ugliness, but that's the truth. The GOP is now going to act as Obama and friends have. Whine if you like. I would have prefered that government worked as it was set up to, but unfortunately Obama and friends have changed the rules.
forkushV
forkushV
Feb 16, 2016
9:22am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Billy whines when I point out that the Democrats started this ugliness, but that's the truth. The GOP is now going to act as Obama and friends have. Whine if you like. I would have prefered that government worked as it was set up to, but unfortunately Obama and friends have changed the rules.
Wanna bet?



billryan
billryan
Feb 16, 2016
1:34pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: jatki99
Of course there won't. The Huff post? C'mon.


You can read the direct quotes. Mitch MooConnell is already saying Republicans won't fulfill their Constitutional duty and confirm a replacement. Must be nice to announce you are not going to do your job for the next year and still draw a pay check.


I think it should be up to the next pres. for the nomination.
If the Dems had majority with a sitting rep. president and the elections were around the corner, you know as well as everyone else there'd be no way in hell anyone got confirmed to the SC now...
The last time it happened was in the election year of 1988. President Reagan's nominee, Anthony Kennedy, was confirmed on February 3, 1988, 97-0.

Kind of an ironic example. Kennedy was not Reagan's first choice. His first choice (strict constitutionalist Bork) was rejected 58-42 by the Senate after months of partisan wrangling.

The Senate should vote on every Obama nomination after due diligence. If they reject the candidate they ARE doing their job. Their job is not to rubber stamp an appointment if they have issues with him or her. It's President Obama's job to appoint someone who will pass Senate muster.

In this environment that might even mean consulting with the Senate Judiciary Committee and working with Republicans to find another Anthony Kennedy who might be acceptable to both. It's called Advice and Consent of the Senate. If the advice part doesn't happen this time it's unlikely the consent will either. Come on President Obama...Reach out to Republicans and work together to select a new Supreme!


We are in complete agreement. The Senate should vote on the nominee. If they find a reason that the person isn't qualified, they vote no. The framers on the Constitution intended the Senate's role in these cases to insure a President didn't nominate his cousin or his personal lawyer. They were intended to determine if the nominee was qualified, not if they passed a political limits test. It's laid out in the very Federalist Papers conservative love to quote.
The Presidents duties include naming Judges. The Senate's duties include giving the nominee a hearing and a vote. Voting no is their prerogative. Obstruction is not.
malibber2
malibber2
Feb 16, 2016
2:51pm
Block User
Republicans are starting cave. Obama is probably going to nominate someone that has already been approved via a prior appointment, so Republicans are going to have go through another around of looking foolish, obstructing, petulant and hypocritical if they don’t approve him or her.
alanleroyII
alanleroyII
Feb 16, 2016
5:53pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Republicans are starting cave. Obama is probably going to nominate someone that has already been approved via a prior appointment, so Republicans are going to have go through another around of looking foolish, obstructing, petulant and hypocritical if they don’t approve him or her.
Being approved at another job is no guarantee of consent to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Bork. for example, was approved by unanimous vote of the Senate as a Federal Judge....and then rejected by the Senate as a Supreme.

forkushV
forkushV
Feb 16, 2016
7:48pm
Block User
“The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate.” Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

I am in complete agreement with him. However, it doesn't appear that the senator agrees with himself anymore.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now