deep
Blue Crack Addict
Why am I not surprisedI hear Marfa's actually a cool town.
(at a sex farm)
Why am I not surprisedI hear Marfa's actually a cool town.
Sure, I think if the situation were reversed and a Republican president were up against a heavily Democratic Senate, the Democrats would do their part to disagree with the Republican president's pick.
You are correct. Chuck Schumer did the exact same thing in 2007 ( more than a year before Bush left office )
The EXACT same thing? Did you not listen to the video you posted?
I certainly do hope the GOP throws a 10-month tantrum. All the better for turnout.
It is true there is only one Chuck Schumer so he's not going to be verbatim to what McConnell says now. You're just picking gnat shit out of pepper, to argue for a purist comparison of Senate blocking language. The one major difference is Schumer was making these statements with 18 months to go before January 2009 as opposed to 11 months till January 2017.
Bob Dole once quipped that "the most dangerous place in Washington is between Charles Schumer and a television camera"
No, the big difference that escaped you was that he said they would block unless they were shown it was a choice that matched with the mainstream. It wasn't just some blanket blocking "because Bush". He also went on to explain how recent appointments were lied about to get extremists in. The difference in his speech vs the current clown car is reasoning vs pure agenda. Can you really not see that?
The energy is on the GOP side and with the BernieBros. The tantrum could cut the other way.
What I see is we have a differing view on what constitutes mainstream vs extremist. Do you consider Chief Justice Roberts extremist ?
What I see is we have a differing view on what constitutes mainstream vs extremist. Do you consider Chief Justice Roberts extremist ?
“At the outset, the Senate should discount the philosophy of the nominee. In our politically centrist society, it is highly unlikely that any Executive would nominate a man of such extreme views of the right of the left as to be disturbing to the Senate. However, a nomination, for example, of a Communist or a member of the American Nazi Parly, would have to be considered an exception to the recommendation that the Senate leave ideological considerations to the discretion of the Executive. Political and philosophical considerations were often a factor in the nineteenth century and arguably in the Parker, Haynsworth and Carswell cases also, but this is not proper and tends to degrade the Court and dilute the constitutionally proper authority of the Executive in this area. The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate. As mentioned earlier, if the power to nominate had been given to the Senate, as was considered during the debates at the Constitutional Convention, then it would be proper for the Senate to consider political philosophy. The proper role of the Senate is to advise and consent to the particular nomination, and thus, as the Constitution puts it, “to appoint.” This taken within the context of modern times should mean an examination only into the qualifications of the President’s nominee.”
interesting juxtaposition, isn't it?
i feel sad for someone's death but I feel ecstatic for the fact that one of my least favorite human being is no more.
Soo, basically a president that still has 1/4th of his term left is now useless and should not be making decisions his successor might not completely agree with while there is still one WHOLE YEAR left of decisionmaking and life going on as usual?
Wow, such logic.. wow.
From what I've heard, Cruz plans to filibuster Obama's nomination. Because of course he would .
Sure, I think if the situation were reversed and a Republican president were up against a heavily Democratic Senate, the Democrats would do their part to disagree with the Republican president's pick.
But I also think their motives for doing so would be very different from the current Republican party's motives for opposing Obama's pick. The GOP's refusal to support anything Obama has put forth during his time as president (including things the GOP themselves were originally for until Obama got on board) has much deeper, and often much uglier, reasons behind it.
I certainly do hope the GOP throws a 10-month tantrum. All the better for turnout.
The energy is on the GOP side and with the BernieBros. The tantrum could cut the other way.
Yup. There was a group of Republicans i think either the night before Obama's first Inauguraruon the right wing republicans met in a DC restaurant and basically said they'd stop everything Obama would try to do.
ML ,nice to see you here.