Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RDANGELO

(3,433 posts)
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:25 AM Feb 2016

The current Supreme Court condition could put the Republicans in a no win situration.

If the President could put enough political pressure on the Senate Republicans, they could be put in a situation where they would be forced to confirm his nominee or possibly pay heavy consequences in the general election. The republicans are currently pushing the notion president should hold off on submitting a nominee until after the election. He has been elected and reelected. The people know that it is his constitutional responsibility to nominate judges. I have a hunch that the independents would back him up on that.

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

saltpoint

(50,986 posts)
2. I'd like to see the Obama administration
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:29 AM
Feb 2016

and a nationwide all-demographics network of surrogates let the Republicans in the Senate know that their ongoing impulse to block the president's appointees, including especially this one, is treasonous.

U.S. Americans voted twice -- once to hire and again to retain the services of this sitting president and the argument should be made clear that his appointment, whoever it is, in the wake of a Supreme Court Justice's death, is part of his job.

Ain't nothin' wrong with somebody given a job and then doing it.

I say crank up the heat on these shit-for-brains obstructionist Republicans and let's tilt that 5-4 balance the other way.

Hayduke Bomgarte

(1,965 posts)
4. They've looked foolish, for years, to anyone capable of
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:36 AM
Feb 2016

Independent and reasonable thought and who pay even mild attention. The problem to me, is that the drooling mouth breathing, knuckle draggers who need to recognize this foolishness have allowed themselves to be rendered incapable of grasping the concept.

JMO

yourout

(7,531 posts)
6. +1....now way they risk aleinating their base in an election year.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:43 AM
Feb 2016

I think they have the opposite problem.
They can NOT let Obama make the appointment no matter how moderate the appointee.

He could reanimate Fat Tonys corpse and they could not vote for him because he was Obama's choice.

corkhead

(6,119 posts)
8. Hopefully it's not too late for there to be good progressive challengers to every open seat
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:48 AM
Feb 2016

To further put their feet to the fire.

malaise

(269,054 posts)
5. But but but he is black
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:39 AM
Feb 2016

so the Constitution does not apply

ReTHUGs are up shite creek without a paddle on this one. Their nightmare has finally arrived and I'm freaking lovin' it.

corkhead

(6,119 posts)
7. If the DNC wasn't so inept we would have solid challengers to every open R seat
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:45 AM
Feb 2016

And when i say solid, I mean not republicon light. To paraphrase Eisenhower, "given the choice between a real republicon and a fake one the voters will pick the real one every time." ...or something like that.

Progressive challengers to every open seat would change the face of ths country - much for the better.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
9. That quote is from Truman.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:13 PM
Feb 2016

And there's not many open seats. We need to have those "solid" challengers on all seats that are up for re-election.

The Senators that are up for re-election won in 2010. The 2016 electorate will hopefully look quite different.

corkhead

(6,119 posts)
10. Thanks for the correction. My understanding is that there are enough to flip to D control.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:33 PM
Feb 2016

I worry we'll make a crappy deal that will balance the court right smack in the middle with a milquetoast centrist. The President will say that it is better than what we had. Sadly it won't be where we really should be. 20 years of Michael Moore on the Supreme Court sounds about right to make up for 20 years of Fat Tony in my opinion.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
11. We don't have a reason to make such a deal.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:02 PM
Feb 2016

The Republicans were looking forward to a lot of 5-4 decisions to overturn many longstanding things - Roe, public sector unions, etc. Those decisions are now 4-4 at best. A 4-4 decision does not overturn a lower court, nor set a precedent.

20 years of Michael Moore on the Supreme Court sounds about right to make up for 20 years of Fat Tony in my opinion

I'd love it if the Republicans blocked Obama's nominee...and then his successor nominates Obama. 20 years of Obama on the SCOTUS would be very entertaining from a explode-Republican-heads point of view.

Though I don't think Obama wants the job.

dickthegrouch

(3,175 posts)
12. I want the republicans in a no-win situation
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 02:10 PM
Feb 2016

As in Not winning.

I really think we should fund all of EarlG's pic's of the moment to be made into adverts after the primaries.
One every day through the election.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The current Supreme Court...