Republican senator promises not to approve Hillary SC appointments

[pauldun170]

GOP = Great Obstructionist Party.

Hopefully Kentucky wakes the fuck up in the next election and finally votes out that useless turd McConnell. He's done dickall for the state and is the grand architect of all things obstruction related in the Senate. Granted he'll be almost 80 by then so maybe he won't run.

Kentucky is full on red state.

McConnell and Rand could public state that they plan to collect a paycheck and do nothing for the state or the country for the remainder of their terms and they will still get reelected. At most, show up to vote no to anything proposed by a democrat. All they have to do is show up on FoxNews every once in a while to drop talking points about how its critical for the country that the red team beat the blue team.

They should just get football jerseys made for all the Republicans in congress.

 

[pauldun170]

Way back when, McCain used to be one of the sane ones. Sad to see the GOP's ongoing slide into stupidity. I'd like to see some competent opposition to Clinton, but the GOP ain't it.

Years ago, back in the 90's I thought he was one of the good ones. It was huge reality check when he ran in 2008.
Over the past couple of years I've kept an eye on him because he is always playing political theater with defense acquisition.
He just seems like an old ass at this point who needs to go.
Problem is that his replacement will likely be an idiot from the new gen of quasi Tea Party Republicans

 

[PokerGuy]

To follow through on such a threat would be a monumental political mistake since the Democrats will just throw out the filibuster for SC nominees as they are poised to retake the Senate. Hillary could then appoint several young liberal women justices who will, concevibly, alter the trajectory of the court's opinions for decades.

Sadly, I think that's exactly what will continue to happen. The idiots will continue to gain power, and without enough competent justices to keep things in check the country is in the inevitable decline spiral. The only question is, how rapid will the decline be. Will it continue at it's current medium pace, or will the country implode at an even faster pace?

 

[Mursilis]

It's the symptom of a larger sickness in the American electorate, although one that is disproportionately on the right. American government simply doesn't work if both parties engage in scorched earth opposition to each other. Not because of some noble ideal of bipartisanship, but because most of the time both houses of Congress and the White House aren't controlled by the same party. Considering that the business of government requires these 3 elected parts of government to work together if you have total partisan opposition like this you end up with a dysfunctional government that (no joke) descends into dictatorship.

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...entist_explains_why_government_by_crisis.html

All of thus just furthers my suspicions that democracies are (fatally?) flawed and will, like political systems of the past, be pushed aside by history. I just have no idea what comes next, or what system would be better.

This also why I dislike 'get out the vote' drives. Voters who have to be cajoled into voting likely aren't making the most informed of choices. I'd prefer voting be left to those actually interested in it, although I can't promise the results would be much better.

 

[PokerGuy]

All of thus just furthers my suspicions that democracies are (fatally?) flawed and will, like political systems of the past, be pushed aside by history. I just have no idea what comes next, or what system would be better.

I don't think it's really a matter of better. I think it's generally just a cycle where democracy is the best system of government we've identified, but it is absolutely fatally flawed and will inevitably implode on itself over time. Once the people collectively figure out that they can use the system to benefit themselves and take from others (ie, use the force of government to take from others), then it just becomes a matter of time before it implodes. Then it will get replaced by something else, which will at some point implode and get replaced again.

 

[zinfamous]

Amazing how that guy was once respectable.

 

[fskimospy]

All of thus just furthers my suspicions that democracies are (fatally?) flawed and will, like political systems of the past, be pushed aside by history. I just have no idea what comes next, or what system would be better.

This also why I dislike 'get out the vote' drives. Voters who have to be cajoled into voting likely aren't making the most informed of choices. I'd prefer voting be left to those actually interested in it, although I can't promise the results would be much better.

I would say it furthers the suspicion that presidential systems are fatally flawed. The problem here is what Linz described, the dual electoral mandates. Both the president and Congress can claim an electoral mandate simultaneously and neither one is wrong. When you have that set of circumstances and no constitutional way to resolve it if no one wants to budge you have a recipe for a constitutional crisis. It seems that usually in those cases such a crisis is resolved by the president (who controls the military, after all) sweeping Congress away, which is why they tend to lead to dictatorship.

Under our system it's hard for me to imagine a coup like that, but I can totally see the president just amassing more and more power over time until Congress becomes an irrelevant rubber stamp.

 

[fskimospy]

By the way, anyone notice how the Republican position is morphing into exactly what was predicted? Earlier in the year Republicans justified not having a vote for Garland because the next president should nominate them. 'The American people should have a say', they said! Now that it looks like the American people are having their say and electing Clinton, suddenly their say isn't so important anymore. lol.

What of course they really meant was that the American people should have a say, so long as that say is for a Republican.

 

[JSt0rm]

they cant hold of a supreme court nom for 4 years. He is just trying to fire up the base so they will come vote for him.

 

[K1052]

Sadly, I think that's exactly what will continue to happen. The idiots will continue to gain power, and without enough competent justices to keep things in check the country is in the inevitable decline spiral. The only question is, how rapid will the decline be. Will it continue at it's current medium pace, or will the country implode at an even faster pace?

I'm not sold on the dystopic vision that's being peddled by the Republicans with America as a country in precipitous decline that can only be "saved" by them. The country is changing obviously (demographically most importantly) but I guess that's even more scary to many. A more liberal supreme court isn't going to lead to the fall of America nor would a more conservative one. This false dilemma that's been spread to get out their voters is far more likely to accomplish that than whoever ends up sitting on the bench.

 

[Sonikku]

Worth noting McCain was considered one of the more reasonable republicans, which I supposed is still the case now that Trump is standards-bearer.

I found this post very depressing the more I think about it.

 

[JSt0rm]

Hillary is probably going to nominate 2 justices. I mean the gop isnt gonna have the white house again for 50 years. They better get used to a liberal supreme court. Elections have consequences. And if you are the party of the paranoid white then dont expect to take the highest office in the land.

 

[theeedude]

Hillary should nominate an Asian woman. I think now is a good time to lock in the growing Asian demographic as life-long Democrats, and make sure the Republicans can't win them back.

 

[JSt0rm]

asian's are generally smart and logical. They wont fall for the rights paranoia in any great numbers.

 

[dainthomas]

they cant hold of a supreme court nom for 4 years. He is just trying to fire up the base so they will come vote for him.

You don't think they'd try? Nothing would surprise me any more.

 

[dullard]

Hillary is probably going to nominate 2 justices.

It is very likely that she'll nominate at least 2 justices (Scalia's replacement and RGB's replacement). But there will be 4 others in their 70s and 80s. There is certainly a reasonable chance that one of those others will choose to retire or die themselves. Congress and the president should be prepared for 3 to 4 new justices in the next few years.

 

[theeedude]

asian's are generally smart and logical. They wont fall for the rights paranoia in any great numbers.

They are fairly receptive to supply side economics and affirmative action rollbacks, at least some I know personally.
But having a highly qualified Asian blocked from SCOTUS will turn the affirmative action book on the GOP. Also, after Trump's anti-Chinese rhetoric, having GOP block a Chinese American would be very symbolic. The timing is right all around.

 

[preCRT]

McCain has completely thrown away any respect he previously earned. His Palin pick made folks question his sanity, but now there is no doubt, he's gone into full shit mode.

 

[glenn1]

By the way, anyone notice how the Republican position is morphing into exactly what was predicted? Earlier in the year Republicans justified not having a vote for Garland because the next president should nominate them. 'The American people should have a say', they said! Now that it looks like the American people are having their say and electing Clinton, suddenly their say isn't so important anymore. lol.

What of course they really meant was that the American people should have a say, so long as that say is for a Republican.

There's a difference between being able to do something and it being the right thing to do. Refusing to confirm nominations is certainly one of these things. Which is why passing a constitutional amendment to allow for confirmation on a negative consent basis is something everyone should support. After 60/90/?? days a presidential nomination is presumed accepted unless voted against or the Senate votes for extending the deadline.

 

[theeedude]

McCain is the "reasonable" and "responsible" Republican. All you really need to know about the modern day GOP.

 

[pauldun170]

asian's are generally smart and logical. They wont fall for the rights paranoia in any great numbers.

Do you want to add that they are really good with math and have very small penises?

I think the stats on Asian-Americans' has more to do with where you'll find large communities.
Districts where voters traditionally vote democrat, regardless of background.

 

[glenn1]

asian's are generally smart and logical. They wont fall for the rights paranoia in any great numbers.

Anyone who says something like this has probably never been in a romantic relationship with one. Or know many Asians beyond the guy who takes his order for General Tso's Chicken. Either way stereotypes are still stereotypes even if you think they're positive ones.

 

[fskimospy]

There's a difference between being able to do something and it being the right thing to do. Refusing to confirm nominations is certainly one of these things. Which is why passing a constitutional amendment to allow for confirmation on a negative consent basis is something everyone should support. After 60/90/?? days a presidential nomination is presumed accepted unless voted against or the Senate votes for extending the deadline.

While I would support your idea I think an easier path would be just to eliminate what remains of the filibuster.

This doesn't necessarily solve the long term problem though. To be frank I can't think of a solution. In the past the senate might vote down some nominations as is their right but they generally let the president staff the government.

Forget the filibuster, what if republicans retain the majority? From what it sounds like they will face enormous pressure to deny any and all appointments. If we continue down this path that will happen someday and that's a constitutional crisis right there.

 

[Jhhnn]

they cant hold of a supreme court nom for 4 years. He is just trying to fire up the base so they will come vote for him.

He's base pandering. Not that he really needs to do so given his lead & likely re-election. At 80, this is likely his last election & he wants to go out as a winner.

If he had real integrity, he'd be ashamed to pander for the votes of people who booed him at his concession speech back in 2008.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's just another example of Repub hostage taking. The hostage, as usual, is a fully functional govt.

Now they have the impudence & gall to tear down the institution & traditions of the Supreme Court. The Court needs 9 justices to be fully functional. Everybody knows this. Refusing to provide that is disrespectful of the needs of the People & of the Constitution itself. It's truly shameful.