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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Nails Republicans For Hyper-Partisan Reversal On Supreme Court Nominees

page: 1
120
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+38 more 
posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Obama Nails Republicans For Hyper-Partisan Reversal On Supreme Court Nominees

Believe it or not I'm NOT a Democrat. Hell, until a year or two ago I didn't even consider myself liberal. Though the ever shifting political spectrum to the right thanks to the Republicans has made me a liberal. Oh well. It matters little because I DO support the Democrats now. And what Obama is calling the Republicans out for in this article represents one of the core reasons why that is the case. This is an issue that predates Trump too. Republican obstructionism. This is unacceptable.

Something that is kind of going under the radar recently is that a few Republicans have started to voice opinions that if Hillary Clinton is elected the President (which is pretty much guaranteed) they won't move on any Supreme Court vacancies saying they will leave a spot open for four more years. This has gotten me a bit peeved recently and I would have brought it up sooner but I've been a bit worn out on politics lately, but what Obama literally hits a home run here in this speech with how he condemns the Republicans and their anti-Constitutional precedents they are setting.


Speaking at a rally for Hillary Clinton in North Carolina, the president pointed the finger at that battleground state’s Sen. Richard Burr. Obama chided Burr, who is fighting for his own re-election, over his recent vow to leave the high court short-handed for four more years if Clinton wins next week.

“Some are saying they won’t appoint a ninth Supreme Court justice at all,” Obama said. He noted Burr “just said that if Hillary wins, he’ll do everything he can to block all Supreme Court nominations.”

Since mid-October, Republican senators have been rolling out a new pretext for refusing to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Now their principles may bar them from voting for anybody nominated by a Democrat, regardless of whether the American people chose that Democrat to be president.


“Now keep in mind, the reason they said they wouldn’t have a hearing or vote for my Supreme Court nominee, bucking all of American history, was because, ‘We thought the American people should decide the next Supreme Court justice,’” Obama said. “Now they’re saying, ‘Well, if they don’t decide the way we want them to decide, maybe we won’t even do that.’”

Then he turned his fire on Burr.

“Eleven years ago, Richard Burr said a Supreme Court without nine justices would not work. Well, what changed?” Obama said. “What, only Republican presidents get to nominate judges? Is that in the Constitution? I used to teach constitutional law. I’ve never seen that provision.”

Damn right! No matter what you think about Obama, he's got a point. The Republicans are literally taking their partisan obstructionism to unprecedented levels here. Well they already did that when they refused to move on Merrick Garland earlier this year on the unprecedented idea that the public should decide the next SCOTUS judge. But this is downright in violation of the Constitution. They are literally preventing a President from doing his *ahem* her Constitutionally appointed duties, or threatening to do so.

Well guess what? APPARENTLY if the public chooses another Democrat for the next four years we can't get a judge. That's bull#! And this is why the Republicans. ALL of them need to go. They are doing everything in their power to make government dysfunctional all because they aren't in power and it is getting goddamn pathetic at this point.
edit on 3-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



+24 more 
posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

it has to do with integrity. I fully understand why that's a foreign idea to you. If you look it up, at least you might comprehend the verbiage.


+9 more 
posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t

it has to do with integrity. I fully understand why that's a foreign idea to you. If you look it up, at least you might comprehend the verbiage.

There is no integrity in breaking the Constitution. Plus these guys are LITERALLY changing their tunes because their gamble is failing, I'd say that is the opposite of integrity. Integrity would be honoring your promise to move on a judge because the public said a Democrat should be President.

YOU don't know the first thing about integrity apparently if you think these Republicans are showing it with these moves.
edit on 3-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Republican obstructionism will come back to bite them in the ass.

Not only are they obstructionists, but they are also lazy, do-nothingings.

They control congress and have not tried to push the changes that they and the party claim they would like to make.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

It's interesting to note that many of the Senators suddenly flip-flopping on their position here are up for re-election. I'm hoping for a down ballot sweep. We need to get the government working again.


+10 more 
posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Just how long is the time limit for 'advise and consent' by the Senate for Supreme Court nominees as specified in the Constitution?

Oh, there isn't a time limit.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: introvert

It's interesting to note that many of the Senators suddenly flip-flopping on their position here are up for re-election. I'm hoping for a down ballot sweep. We need to get the government working again.


Ya right.

It's hard to get government to do their jobs when over half of our representatives are anti-government loons.

They sure do like to wrap themselves in the flag and sing the praises of 'Merica, but they are very anti-American.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

If you think hamstringing the Presidency on a technicality for partisan reasons is in the spirit of the Constitution that our Founding Fathers wrote then I have a bridge to sell you. Plus I wouldn't call what the Senators are doing currently as "advising and consenting". I see it as doing nothing.
edit on 3-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)


+12 more 
posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Laughable.

Krazysh0t, you've swallowed the koolaid. There's no partisanship at the top rungs of government. There should be no one on the Supreme Court who could readily be considered conservative or liberal. If they could be ... they were a bad choice to begin with and the entirety of the Supreme Court should be scrapped and re-selected.

On top of that, do you recall how many members the Supreme Court originally consisted of? Do you see a problem today?



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Yeah. Why is "compromise" considered a dirty word in this day and age?



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

If you think hamstringing the Presidency on a technicality for partisan reasons is in the spirit of the Constitution that our Founding Fathers wrote then I have a bridge to sell you. Plus I wouldn't call what the Senators are doing currently as "advising and consenting". I see it as doing nothing.

They are taking their time, that's all.
Again, what is the time limit set forth in the US Constitution?



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Merrick Garland is a moderate.

On top of that, do you recall how many members the Supreme Court originally consisted of? Do you see a problem today?

The point is that we have an odd number of judges so that there isn't a tied decision.

Even Richard Burr said nine years ago that a bench without nine judges wouldn't work. How are you not seeing the hypocrisy?



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

If you think hamstringing the Presidency on a technicality for partisan reasons is in the spirit of the Constitution that our Founding Fathers wrote then I have a bridge to sell you. Plus I wouldn't call what the Senators are doing currently as "advising and consenting". I see it as doing nothing.

They are taking their time, that's all.
Again, what is the time limit set forth in the US Constitution?

No. They are actively stating that they aren't going to do anything until a Republican is in the Presidency which is basically preventing the President from doing his job. You DO know that the President nominating judges was largely a non-partisan fight traditionally right? Congress would usually just check off the nominees without a fight.

It's a good thing that if the Democrats take control of the Senate they are planning on killing the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees.


+9 more 
posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

it's obvious and sad that you either aren't paying attention, or you just aren't smart enough to understand what's really going on.

The government is corrupt. Not the democrats, or the republicans, or just those two over there, the GOVERNMENT. With all the information coming out now showing the levels of infiltration that exist, if you ignore it, you are a #ing idiot. And you very well may be.

At the moment, Hillary is the one being exposed. But, in that exposure, you are seeing a lot of others with cookie crumbs on the floor in front of them. And the one's you don't see are scared #less that they will be next when the e-mail that ties them to this is read and published.

Integrity. It's something that drives you to do the right thing regardless of the consequences. I'm done harping on just the liberals. It's bigger than that. suck up to what you think is right if you want to remain an idiot. But when you take off your liberal blinders and realize the corruption for what it is, you might see that defending this group is making you look just as ugly as what the world is starting to see.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I think they are still mad hillary killed Scalia.


meh, they'll get over it, someday.





posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Oh good. This shtick again. I'm stupid because I don't share your opinion. Yeah yeah. I've heard that before. Move along son.


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Democrats are trying to swing SCOTUS in their favor. Hillary is anti gun/pro gun control and that's her "in" if she can get one of her flunkies on the court. Any other challenges would be railroaded through also. Look what Obama did with his "healthcare" plan. How's that one workin' out for folks?
And really? "hyper partisan"? Democrats will vote Democrat if there's a dead squirrel running for office, as long as there's a "D" by their name. Obama's just pissed he can't stack the deck.
edit on 3-11-2016 by DAVID64 because: not enough coffee yet



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Snarl

Merrick Garland is a moderate.

On top of that, do you recall how many members the Supreme Court originally consisted of? Do you see a problem today?

The point is that we have an odd number of judges so that there isn't a tied decision.

Even Richard Burr said nine years ago that a bench without nine judges wouldn't work. How are you not seeing the hypocrisy?

A tie always works in favor of the people. Beware ... your statist roots need coloring.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Democrats are trying to swing SCOTUS in their favor. Hillary is anti gun/pro gun control and that's her "in" if she can get one of her flunkies on the court. Any other challenges would be railroaded through also. Look what Obama did with his "healthcare" plan. How's that one workin' out for folks?
And really? "hyper partisan"? Democrats will vote Democrat if there's a dead squirrel running for office, as long as there's a "D" by their name. Obama's just pissed he can't stack the deck.

So what? The Republicans had their chance with Merrick Garland who is a moderate. Hell they STILL have their chance if they just move on him before Obama changes his mind or Hillary gets in and nominates someone else (though I'm pretty sure she'll just honor Obama's nominee). The Republicans knew what they were getting into when they made their gamble, now they need to honor it.
edit on 3-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Snarl

Merrick Garland is a moderate.

On top of that, do you recall how many members the Supreme Court originally consisted of? Do you see a problem today?

The point is that we have an odd number of judges so that there isn't a tied decision.

Even Richard Burr said nine years ago that a bench without nine judges wouldn't work. How are you not seeing the hypocrisy?

A tie always works in favor of the people. Beware ... your statist roots need coloring.

Really? So if SCOTUS was voting on a bill to get rid of something say a law that prohibits you from buying a gun and the SCOTUS got held up on a tie, that benefits the people? Your rhetoric is shallow. I can easily pick out situations where a tied court isn't beneficial to the public.

Lol my statist roots? Yeah sorry that I want to adhere to the spirit of the Constitution and all.
edit on 3-11-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
120
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join