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.

 

What might the Republicans be risking with their SCOTUS strategy?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I haven's seen this point addressed yet anywhere but it seems possible the Republicans might be making a strategic mistake by immediately announcing they are going to block any Obama nomination to replace Scalia.

It's possible that Obama will nominate a well qualified, uncontroversial moderate. That gives the Democrats until November to campaign against the Republicans as obstructionists.

Do the Republicans argue for seven months that the people should have a say about the next justice by who they elect as President? What if they lose? A new Democratic president could nominate a liberal justice and the Senate would have that argument hanging over their head. Assuming they don't lose control.

And there's no way of telling what kind of justice a loose cannon like Trump might nominate. Or Bernie Sanders.

The Republicans might be better off accepting an Obama nominee. They should have at least kept their options open.




posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
The stereotypes and stigmas of Republicans being "NOs" and "obstructionists" already exist.

Although the stakes are high with the SCOTUS because many Obama laws and Regulations are circulating in the courts.

Some are even important enough to have major impacts (both negative and positive) on the majority of Citizens, and some even have global impacts.

Maybe a better discussion is one about those pending impacts?




posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
My thoughts: its a move to pander to their "base". The problem with that: you have about 10-20% of the nation that represents the base DNC, and the same for the GOP. So they are making a drastic move to affect that 20% margin....

...but the middle 60-80% that represents the "moderates" (folks like most of us) doesn't see Obama as the devil incarnate. We think he may be a bad president to varying degrees, but we mostly also agree that Bush was about as bad all in all. We are less interested in those cults of personality, and more interested in the nation being run properly.

A "burn down the house" approach is going to backlash. The party is already in deep dook...and I can't swear that they will be putting up another candidate in 4 years at the rate of implosion.

Which is wonderful for me. Now if the DNC will follow suit before the next controlled opposition can be rolled out to fill the void.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

What are the odds Obama would actually do that though?

If he were to actually nominate someone that he were to consider a hard-right ideologue (read moderate to the rest of the country), the Senate would likely let that person through.

But I think the Senate is basically signalling that they are not letting him pack the court and upset the power balance. He has had two nominees, both in his preferred mold, and the power balance of the court has been maintained. Another of the same mold upsets the balance and skews the entire judicial branch hard left.

Let's try this thought exercise on:

You are looking at a President Cruz and he has one year left. Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies, and Cruz has the chance to a nominee that could give the court a 5 conservative, 3 liberal, 1 moderate balance. However, Cruz is facing a majority Democrat Senate.

Do you honestly expect the Demcrate to just roll over the confirm any appointee in the mold of a Scalia, Alito, or Thomas that Cruz sends their way, or would expect them to treat Cruz the way Tyler's Senate treated him over his attempts to pick appointees?

And if they did, would you be so upset about it?



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I doubt Obama will nominate a moderate, but who knows? Maybe he will find someone that's been endorsed by conservatives in the past, thus making them look like idiots if they oppose him now? Hopefully Obama's that smart.
edit on 15-2-2016 by CB328 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Obama would be wise to nominate a moderate.

Any moderate would be still ten times better than the right-wing radical Scalia and actually still very much favor the left



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Obama would be wise to nominate a moderate.

Any moderate would be still ten times better than the right-wing radical Scalia and actually still very much favor the left


And therein lies the point where we are in politics today. We need Justices that favor the Constitution and Original Intent, not Left or Right.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Willtell
Obama would be wise to nominate a moderate.

Any moderate would be still ten times better than the right-wing radical Scalia and actually still very much favor the left


And therein lies the point where we are in politics today. We need Justices that favor the Constitution and Original Intent, not Left or Right.


Which is what scalia did.

He interpreted the constitution as he believed the founders intended it to work.

None of this living document BS that Obama and CO. Like to believe.

I would bet money Obama throws Loretta Lynch out as his nomination.... Ugh!



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
In the entire 20th and 21st century the GOP has never voted (key point: voted) to not confirm a SCOTUS nominee, but the Democrats have done it several times. There have been several people of both parties who have withdrawn their name, or had their names withdrawn as storm clouds were rising, but before a vote. But only the Democrats have voted to NOT confirm. You can read about it here.

Now, here's what the GOP ought to do: Accept a nominee and hold off the vote for as long as possible. The longer they wait, the easier it is to do. Wait until AFTER the election. If the Dems win, vote on the Obama nominee. If the Dems lose, hold off on the vote until after the new president takes office.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
"Pack the Court" ... lol, that's funny.

The SCOTUS has been acknowledged for most of the last two decades to be on a 5/4 split with the Conservatives in control.

SO it's okay to "pack the court" as long as that trend continues? LOL.

I agree with several posters above. If Obama picks the best, most brillant JURIST who believes in and understands the CONSTITUTION then the Senate needs to overcome their distaste for anything Obama and do the right thing.

If he picks (and he won't) some far-left nut-job ... then they need to do their job and refuse to "consent" ... it's the way the system works.

The American people are not right or left. Most are in the Center. Every poll shows that the largest and fastest growing voting bloc is the INDEPENDENTS.

Pick the best person for the job and move on. Perhaps actually do some of the work of GOVERNING for a change.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Just crazy spitballing on my part, but what if they're going to stall long enough for it to play into the nomination for the rep convention. Bush or Rubio close in on Trump. With four of them still standing they offer Cruz SCOTUS nomination to endorse Bush/Rubio and tell Trump to take a hike. Maybe they offer Trump something, not sure there is anything he'd accept.

Not smart in my opinion, but both sides of the establishment are getting more desperate as their bases revolt.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I think the electorate is tired of the rights obstructionist BS, thus the amazing popularity of Bernie and his message.
edit on 15-2-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
In the entire 20th and 21st century the GOP has never voted (key point: voted) to not confirm a SCOTUS nominee, but the Democrats have done it several times. There have been several people of both parties who have withdrawn their name, or had their names withdrawn as storm clouds were rising, but before a vote. But only the Democrats have voted to NOT confirm. You can read about it here.


Could that be a simple matter of frequency? The Democrats controlled the Senate in the 20-21st Centuries about 60% of the time. (For 35 out of 57 Congresses, see Party Divisions of United States Congress

Further, can you tabulate how many times the Democratic Senate REFUSED to allow a vote to a Republican nominee? Or told the sitting President he should sit this one out and just wait for the next guy?

THAT would be an analogous comparison to the current situation.
edit on 15-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Format



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
It amazes me how much contempt the Republicans have for this President. It makes no sense to me. Frankly, this President has gotten a lot done considering all the opposition, road blocks and sabotage encountered on the right. I think it’s scandalous all the disrespect shown to a legitimately elected leader. From things I’ve read our image has suffered within the international community because of it. Personally, I think if Obama nominated William F. Buckley (if he was still alive) the GOP would reject him simply because Obama chose him. That’s just how irrational and hateful the GOP seems to me these days, and I know I’m not alone in this feeling.

Look, Article II Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states that the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Every President, regardless of party, gets their turn at it. So, it’s not a valid point to ask what the Dems would do if a Republican was the President. If both sides played that game, then no Justice would ever be selected and the Supreme Court would simply dissolve as they died off. Besides, the Republicans have had the reigns in the Supreme Court for a long time now. Fair play would dictate it’s about time to hand them over.

I think it’s time the Congress get off their high horse and start doing the job they were elected to do, and that they pledged a solemn oath to faithfully do. Most of America is fedup with the Congress politicizing EVERYTHING and would like for them to go to work. Our nation is falling behind.

Just my 2 cents...

PS: Regarding the title of this thread, I think the proper question to ask would be, “What might the People be risking with the Republican SCOTUS strategy?” Screw the party affiliation and how it affects them. There are a lot of currently pending issues on the court roster. How does it affect the PEOPLE?



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
If he picks (and he won't) some far-left nut-job ...


Kagan. Sotomayor. He already has. Twice.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: netbound
II think it’s time the Congress get off their high horse and start doing the job they were elected to do, and that they pledged a solemn oath to faithfully do.


Denying a far left loon justice would be one of the things they were elected to do. It'd be a nice change from whining that they need the Senate, then they need more elected GOP, then they need the Presidency...


Most of America is fedup with the Congress politicizing EVERYTHING and would like for them to go to work. Our nation is falling behind.


Most of America is fed up with DC politicizing everything and getting involved in their lives. Hence the popularity of Trump.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"Pack the Court" ... lol, that's funny.

The SCOTUS has been acknowledged for most of the last two decades to be on a 5/4 split with the Conservatives in control.

SO it's okay to "pack the court" as long as that trend continues? LOL.


Uh, it has never been 5-4 conservative. It's been (at best) 4-4 with Kennedy representing a very libertarian wild card vote most of the time. If the US had an entire SCOTUS of Anthony Kennedies, we'd have a much more Constitutional court.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
But Obama has to nominate a justice. That's what presidents do, and the congress eventually has to confirm. That's what congress does.

It always goes both ways, some presidents nominate a conservative justice and some a liberal justice. It keeps things even. sometimes the court leans a little liberal and sometimes a little conservative. It's what gives the US balance. Even if Obama nominates a liberal justice and he's confirmed, eventually we'll get another republican president who will nominate a conservative justice and the court will lean that way again. It's balance. It's what grownups would do.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Whatever the base of the Republican Party might be these days, one thing is certain: that base will not tolerate allowing Obama to name another Justice. McConnell has correctly viewed the terrain from his party's perspective and from his throne in the high castle of the establishment.

I think the Republican elite who are losing control even now, would rather have a Trump nominee for SCOTUS than let Obama add one drop more to his "legacy".



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: schuyler
In the entire 20th and 21st century the GOP has never voted (key point: voted) to not confirm a SCOTUS nominee, but the Democrats have done it several times. There have been several people of both parties who have withdrawn their name, or had their names withdrawn as storm clouds were rising, but before a vote. But only the Democrats have voted to NOT confirm. You can read about it here.


Could that be a simple matter of frequency? The Democrats controlled the Senate in the 20-21st Centuries about 60% of the time. (For 35 out of 57 Congresses, see Party Divisions of United States Congress

Further, can you tabulate how many times the Democratic Senate REFUSED to allow a vote to a Republican nominee? Or told the sitting President he should sit this one out and just wait for the next guy?

THAT would be an analogous comparison to the current situation.


If you'd like to do the legwork to tabulate the issues you raised, that would be great. What I pointed out happens to be factual. My solution is my opinion on what should happen THIS time.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join