4 ms·
Won't they be under an awful lot of pressure considering it will be obvious they are obstructing normal business?
by aklemm 11y ago
Won't they be under an awful lot of pressure considering it will be obvious they are obstructing normal business?
- sbarre 11y agoDid you forget the /s tag at the end there?
- aklemm 11y agoHah, good point. But I guess the idea is that this is a major issue that will be in the spotlight. Tons of scrutiny and no way to cover what might be their obvious motives to avoid an appointment. The circumstances are extra-ordinary.
- hwstar 11y agoNo. Look what happened when Bush was president, and the democrats stalled the election of supreme court justices. The republicans control 53 senate seats, and can refuse to confirm any justice till they know the outcome of the presidential election. If Trump wins, they'll stall until he takes office. If Sanders or Clinton wins, then they will grudgingly confirm who Obama chooses with some limits.
- LargeWu 11y agoTo be fair, one of those was Harriet Miers, who was eminently unqualified for the position, and 100% deserved to be blocked.
- myko 11y agoAnother key point: the Democrats didn't say going into the nomination that no matter who Bush nominates they will reject. They were prepared to debate and decide on the nomination based on the merits of the nominee, not a blanket statement saying "we will not agree to anything, ever" - which is how the GOP has behaved during the Obama administration.
- cowsandmilk 11y agouhhhh... might want to check your facts on that one. Both Roberts and Alito went through on timelines similar to judges nominated by Reagan, H.W., and Clinton. The only nomination from Bush that faced extreme opposition was that of Harriet Miers, and that was from conservatives, not the democrats.
- scruple 11y agoI'm merely speculating as to why the Judge who was quoted said what he said. But, yes, of course. 10 months is a long time to stall a nomination. I don't know of any precedent in this situation.
- PKop 11y agoI said this above, but I'll repeat: if they do not reject, their Republican base will revolt and not vote in the upcoming election. They will absolutely be expected to reject and oppose until Obama is out of office. There are 2 sides in the political game, remember. And since supreme court nominations are so important, and this changes the balance, voters will demand they reject his nominees.
- ethbro 11y agoI don't know. Given the timetable and the fact that neither the Republican Party or voters can say who will win the presidential election, it seems like there would be room for a qualified, centrist candidate. Especially if Sanders and Trump stay in the race. Better the devil candidate you know, etc etc
- hackuser 11y ago> if they do not reject, their Republican base will revolt and not vote in the upcoming election. The upcoming election is a general election; they need to appeal to more than their base. In the past year the Republicans in Congress have been trying to shed their obstructionist, irresponsible reputation as the party that shuts down government, holds the solvency of the U.S. hostage, etc.
- 13thLetter 11y agoI wish them good luck with that, considering that the reputation of the GOP as uniquely obstructive in comparison with previous Congresses is purely a construction of media propaganda and is therefore not going to be overturned merely by their good behavior. (A Democratic Senate slow-rolled or blocked innumerable Bush judicial nominees, some for several years, and the Democratic Congress shut down the government several times under Reagan. Both sides have the power to do these things, and have exercised them freely in the past, and somehow the world continued to turn.)
- hackuser 11y ago> the reputation of the GOP as uniquely obstructive in comparison with previous Congresses is purely a construction of media propaganda I'm pretty sure that's not the case. For example, I know the recent GOP Senators used dramatically more fillibusters than anyone before. Also, I'm pretty that some basic fiscal issues like raising the debt limit weren't politicized before recently. > somehow the world continued to turn I think this is a dangerous belief. Actions, especially by the U.S. Senate, have serious consequences for millions to billions of people. The world merely continuing to turn is not a standard; there are serious problems in the world that need to be addressed well, or human welfare in the U.S. and elsewhere will suffer greatly.
- SturgeonsLaw 11y agoThis has been one of the most obstructionist congresses in recent history, far from being under pressure, I would call it business as usual for them.