It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says American People Should "Have a Voice"

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I'd love to see McConnell and the Republican Senate make it clear that they care about the political power of their party, not the best interests of the American people. Especially right now, when the People are obviously roused over Politics as Usual.

And in terms of "the will of the People" Obama's confidence rating maybe 47% but Congresses is around 11% if not in the single digits by now ... as far as "the will of the People" Obama seems to have the clear mandate, by any measure.

Of course, that's McConnell sputtering partisan BS that he probably wishes he had waited at least a day or so for ... maybe until after Scalia's body was cold at least ...




posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

As I said earlier, this is a problem for McConnell and the Senate no matter what they do. On one hand, as you say, they run the risk of being viewed as obstructionist by moderates and independents. On the other hand, their conservative base is already in full scale revolt against the party establishment for repeatedly selling them out. If they support an Obama nominee, that may intensify the backlash the GOP establishment is already experiencing and lose the election anyway if conservatives stay home.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
It would be a real shame if the Republican's votes were split in the fall, between right-wingers and moderates.

A real shame.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It would be a real shame if the party split!! which I do see as a possibility still. This would not be that good for the country either. another reason why I kind of hope that the nominee is a old fashioned moderate conservative. maybe it will diffuse the situation. then again, maybe the hard right wing of the party will manage to obstruct even an old fashioned moderate conservative. if that happens, well, the party needs to split anyways!



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

It would be a real shame if the party split!! which I do see as a possibility still. This would not be that good for the country either. another reason why I kind of hope that the nominee is a old fashioned moderate conservative. maybe it will diffuse the situation. then again, maybe the hard right wing of the party will manage to obstruct even an old fashioned moderate conservative. if that happens, well, the party needs to split anyways!



I hold a different opinion in the absolute sense regarding political parties. They should have been forbidden in the Constitution. There is nothing good or worthwhile about political parties. President Washington was absolutely correct in this.

If they fight Obama on this they will lose in November. So perhaps I should be hoping that they do ... if I were a pure partisan. I'm not. I've chosen a side between the lest horrible of terrible options. I would love to be able to vote my conscience.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It would be a real shame if the Republican's votes were split in the fall, between right-wingers and moderates.

A real shame.


Uh-huh ... I can just feel the faux sympathy oozing out of that post.

I think you missed the "/sarc" label there.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Interesting to note that they did fight President Johnson over an appointee for 9 months or so in a similar fashion and Nixon got the appointment.

Funny how back then, Democrats also agreed that a lame duck president had no business appointing a SCOTUS nominee and fought Johnson on the issue too.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   


Nothing in the Constitution says they HAVE to appoint someone right away.


What is this crap? Obama has the right to appoint who he wants when he wants, he is the damn president and there is nothing that requires him to delay.

The Republicans should just shut up and do their jobs for once.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't actually like the two party system either, wish it would dissolve, but well, I kind of think that a one party system would be even worse. so, I do hope that the republican party can keep their crap together long enough for some other parties to get strong enough to replace them. of course they could try to change the system a little so that those weaker parties had at least a chance, but they won't do that because they know that at this point there are many who are really quite fed up with both parties..



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Interesting to note that they did fight President Johnson over an appointee for 9 months or so in a similar fashion and Nixon got the appointment.

Funny how back then, Democrats also agreed that a lame duck president had no business appointing a SCOTUS nominee and fought Johnson on the issue too.


Was that nomination that was contested for Chief Justice? Was it because the Senate didn't find the Candidate (already on the Court) suitable, not that they blocked very nomination Johnson made?

Is Chief Justice of the United States a bit different position than an Associate Justice?

Also, is it 1968? or 2016?

Funny how Republicans can remember the past perfectly except when they can't or it doesn't suit their agendas.

Further, as usual, you're not stating the facts:



In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the President failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years.


Not to mention:




And in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas, who was already sitting as an Associate Justice, to succeed Chief Justice Earl Warren, but the Fortas nomination was the target of a bipartisan filibuster – principally in reaction to the Warren Court’s liberalism and ethical questions about Fortas, although objections were certainly also made that it was inappropriate to fill the seat in an election year. That filibuster prompted Homer Thornberry, whom Johnson nominated to succeed Fortas as an Associate Justice, to withdraw his name from consideration in October 1968, because there was no vacancy to fill. Moreover, the failure to confirm Fortas as the Chief Justice did not leave the Court short a Justice, because Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.


From the SCOTUS Blog - the Blog of the Supreme Court of the United States
edit on 14-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Politics make me sick



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I certainly wouldn't advocate for a one-party system ... let's try NO-PARTY.

Individuals run on their own merits not their adherence to a party platform, and the People choose the best candidates for the job.
edit on 14-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Of course Obama should appoint a candidate for Supreme Court.

What brain cells are people using?

More nonsense from the Right.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

each of the justices are set over groups of lower courts, which they kind of look after. I really don't know how much work this entails, but with one of the seats not filled his workload in that area will have to be spread out over the rest of the justices.

the court now risks the possibility of not being able to come up with a majority decision. when this happens, the lower court's decision will stand. the court decided which cases they were going to hear based on their merits, so I assume that each case deserves a decision by the supreme court because that lower decision was questionable in some way. to have the court come up in a tie and thus default to the lower court opinion isn't justice.

so I have to ask, just how does sitting there and telling them american people that we just ain't going to appoint any of obama's nominees really doing the best thing for the american people. I can see them rejecting a far left wacko judge, but I get the impression that whoever, whatever obama comes up with will be rejected in hopes that they can put in a far right wacko president who can then put in a far right wacko judge! like someone already mentioned, the justice system is like an anchor, holding us to the past so we don't fly out into the future too quickly. we don't need far left or far right anythings in it.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It would be a real shame if the Republican's votes were split in the fall, between right-wingers and moderates.

A real shame.


Uh-huh ... I can just feel the faux sympathy oozing out of that post.

I think you missed the "/sarc" label there.


Oh I would hate for the Republican party to shatter into splinters, Kets.

Who would I argue with then?



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



Nothing in the Constitution says they HAVE to appoint someone right away.


What is this crap? Obama has the right to appoint who he wants when he wants, he is the damn president and there is nothing that requires him to delay.

The Republicans should just shut up and do their jobs for once.


I know, right?

Why the republicans aren't just obeying their leader is beyond me.

I say off with their heads.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

You mean like the Democrats did when Robert Bork was nominated?

I remember how that appointment went. It even created a whole new word - bork which is used as a verb and means to scuttle a nomination.

So, in the spirit of things, the Republicans have every right to do their elected job and bork ever Obama appointee until the will of the people can be reflected. If they want an Obama-style appointee, they'll elect Hillary or Bernie and then we'll likely get the same people or very similar justices with similar judicial philosophies. If the people DON'T want anymore Obama-style appointees, then they elect someone else and we'll see whom that president has in mind for his judicial preference.

At worst, things are held up at SCOTUS level for 9 months or so.

The world will hardly end.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

they won't be held up though... they will go on, a bit handicapped, and like I said, the cases risk being defaulted back to the last appellant decision. which probably will mean that the little sisters will lose by default.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

If the senate refuses until the summer then Obama can just make a recess appointment. That would be exciting.

The lower courts ruling wouldn't necessarily stand, according to SCOTUS Blog:

There is historical precedent for this circumstance that points to the Court ordering the cases reargued once a new Justice is confirmed.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The people have a voice. They elected Obama. Twice.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Sounds to me like McConnell just accidentally let the cat out of the bag that TPTB already know who the next president of the United States is going to be.

Um... oops.




Hint: it obviously won't be a democrat



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join