View original postThe Constitution itself, states that the Senate has to vote on appointments, because it would be absurd for a government founded on a system of checks and balances, to give one man that much power. The duty to fill the vacancy is every bit as much the Senate's as Obama, and you can just as easily accuse him of being obstructionist in refusing to nominate someone the Senate can accept.
... that McConnell didn't wait for Obama to nominate anyone at all before deciding he wouldn't accept the candidate regardless of who it was. The few senators who said early on, you know, maybe we shouldn't refuse the candidate before even knowing who it is, were described as straying from the message McConnell and his allies wanted to promote.
That someone like Lindsay Graham, whose normal policy on judge appointments is that he will approve them if they are qualified even if they are too liberal for his taste, decides to suspend that policy in election years and not approve any candidates he doesn't like, fair enough. But refusing the president's candidate sight unseen is going a bit far.
On a side note, I read that Rick Perry, of all people, proposed an interesting system with fixed 18-year terms on the SC, staggered so as to have a replacement every 2 years under normal circumstances. Might be worth discussing in the long term.
republicans ironically ask Obama to ignore Constitution
- 18/02/2016 07:29:28 PM
588 Views
Uh...
- 18/02/2016 08:32:02 PM
428 Views
Re: Uh...
- 18/02/2016 10:59:27 PM
508 Views
Get out the echo chamber. Only far left think republicans will be punished for not filling the seat *NM*
- 19/02/2016 02:07:08 PM
204 Views
Once again, are you insane, stupid or a liar?
- 23/02/2016 01:18:34 AM
454 Views
I believe part of this whole debate was...
- 23/02/2016 07:43:53 AM
377 Views
If you want to ignore precedents, maybe your argument starts to make a bit of sense...well, no.
- 23/02/2016 02:50:47 PM
462 Views
There is so much wrong with one of your statement
- 22/02/2016 07:32:16 PM
674 Views
You didn't cite examples of the last year of Eisenhower's presidency, which is the point
- 23/02/2016 12:56:36 AM
366 Views
Actually I did, maybe reading comprehension is not your strong suit *NM*
- 23/02/2016 01:59:36 AM
180 Views
I know numbers real good. Not one of the Eisenhower citations was in 1960, his last year in office. *NM*
- 24/02/2016 02:02:07 AM
183 Views
Democrats after years of being accused of ignoring the Constitution still have not read it
- 19/02/2016 02:05:07 PM
380 Views
Well, he's ignored it this long so he might as well keep ignoring it.
- 19/02/2016 06:54:02 PM
401 Views