• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Republican senator promises not to approve Hillary SC appointments

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
agent00f said:
What I mean by pragmatist here is that he doesn't have absolute ideals of his own, but does what is expedient for the moment. At the moment the hardliners and Trumpets still dominate the GOP.
Click to expand...

The guy certainly knows when to duck, stay low and occasionally pop his head up to keep his constituents from forgetting him.

He's clever in that regard. I'll give him at least that. 😉
 
In all fairness Obama and Clintons are also pragmatic in that sense, they just happened on more fortunate circumstances with constituents less detached from reality.
 
agent00f said:
What I mean by pragmatist here is that he doesn't have absolute ideals of his own, but does what is expedient for the moment. At the moment the hardliners and Trumpets still dominate the GOP.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, although he certainly seemed to have his own ideals unless the "maverick" was simply propaganda that I succumbed to.
 
tweaker2 said:
I recall the moment when the worm turned for McCain: He became the Repub's presidential candidate and in that instant, he whipped his wheel hard right to keep the Tea Party nut jobs from burning down the house the GOP built.

From there on in after his defeat, even though I saw him working the back channels of the legislature as the more practical smooth operator that he is, he's had to pay credence to the wingnut base to keep his seat by appearing to be at times as nutty as they are.

Now if he could only control his urges to be the womanizer that he likes to be, it looks like he still has some kind of value that the GOP in decline can tap into.
Click to expand...
I've often wondered what McCain as a politician would be like if he represented any state other than Arizona. I lost a lot of respect for the maverick when he chose Palin, although I guess we should also thank him given what it did for Tina Fey.
 
agent00f said:
I think McCain is a pragmatist instead of idealist, and he knows where the prevailing winds in the GOP are blowing.
Click to expand...
McCain is probably going to win in November, but if he goes on like this his chances may diminish and he may lose. He may be marginalizing himself too, I'm surprised he's taking this stance. The American public are not going to take kindly to this attitude. They weren't crazy about the GOP stonewalling Obama on SCOTUS appointment and stonewalling HRC indefinitely could easily prove to weaken the GOP over time and they may find themselves weakening even further, losing the house and all leverage. I'm no expert, but this seems completely plausible to me.
 
This quote should be featured in EVERY state where a GOP senator is up for election and there is any chance of beating them. Declaring in advance that they will oppose and obstruct ANY nominee from the opposition party President regardless of qualifications is a prime example of what exactly is wrong with a GOP controlled Senate.

A clear choice is presented-continue to let the USA die a death of slow strangulation due to such extreme partisanship or throw the bums out. For over one hundred years the GOP dealt honestly and fairly with the opposition, both when they were in power and when they were not. The modern GOP is about party first and foremost-the damage they do to the country is not even an incidental concern to them.

Totally disgusted.
 
I am completely surprised by this news I could have never predicted it.

dank69 said:
This. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the GOP refuses to consider any SCOTUS nominees for her entire term. I also wouldn't be surprised if they immediately move to impeachment hearings for the email server, and then more hearings for the other bogus scandals when that fails.
Click to expand...
 
I don't think it's reasonable to say we will block any nominee that scumbag illary puts up. It is reasonable to expect her to put up complete crooks and leftists as nominees and thus anticipate that they will need to block such idiots, but you can't automatically say you're going to block everyone before she even nominates one. Wait until she does it and then take the appropriate action.

Not a big deal IMO, we all know what kind of scum she will nominate, so the senate knows they'll have to battle to minimize the damage.
 
Rightwing definition of "reasonable" keeps plumbing new lows. Which is how the party of Lincoln became a party of Trump.
And it won't ever be the party of reasonable people again.
 
tweaker2 said:
I may be wrong, but if I recall, the Repubs have a way of blocking recess appointments via not "technically" going out on recess?
Click to expand...
The supreme court recently ruled, that yes the president can appoint during the recess. But it also ruled that the senate gets to choose the rules as to what is a recess.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/

Currently the rules make it impossible to recess if one senator wants it to be in session. However, if the democrats win the senate, and Clinton wins the presidency, then the senate can choose to change the recess rules any way they want to. They can make it impossible to have that technicality.

I suspect more that they'll just make supreme court nominations filibuster proof and with the majority there would be no need for recess appointments.
 
dullard said:
The supreme court recently ruled, that yes the president can appoint during the recess. But it also ruled that the senate gets to choose the rules as to what is a recess.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/

Currently the rules make it impossible to recess if one senator wants it to be in session. However, if the democrats win the senate, and Clinton wins the presidency, then the senate can choose to change the recess rules any way they want to. They can make it impossible to have that technicality.

I suspect more that they'll just make supreme court nominations filibuster proof and with the majority there would be no need for recess appointments.
Click to expand...
I thought they already invoked the nuclear option for appointments. Dems don't need 60, just 50 + VP.
 
dank69 said:
I thought they already invoked the nuclear option for appointments. Dems don't need 60, just 50 + VP.
Click to expand...
The rules are voted on each term. The nuclear option is part of the rules. I was just pointing out that they would have to keep that when they do the rule changes.
 
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.
 
hal2kilo said:
So elections don't have consequences anymore?
Click to expand...

I think it's more an extension of the scorched earth opposition that you saw under Obama. Remember when Pokerguy said in a previous thread that this opposition made sense because Obama and Clinton's policies literally represented the destruction of America? That's the kind of ideological fanaticism we're dealing with here. I mean how do you reason with someone who thinks a moderate liberal president is an existential threat to their country?

Personally this case coming to pass seems unlikely to me as 1) the Democrats look likely to take the senate and will simply nuke the filibuster if the GOP insists on this and 2) I still find it hard to believe the GOP thinks it can get away with a five year vacancy on the Supreme Court. It sure seems more likely than I thought not so long ago though!
 
There are consequences, the consequence for the GOP is where they are now with Trump.
They are now hostages of the dysfunction they have been creating.
 
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.
 
PokerGuy said:
I don't think it's reasonable to say we will block any nominee that scumbag illary puts up. It is reasonable to expect her to put up complete crooks and leftists as nominees and thus anticipate that they will need to block such idiots, but you can't automatically say you're going to block everyone before she even nominates one. Wait until she does it and then take the appropriate action.

Not a big deal IMO, we all know what kind of scum she will nominate, so the senate knows they'll have to battle to minimize the damage.
Click to expand...

Yea, like that raging lefy merrick garland. fucking hippie...
 
K1052 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sometimes after you scorch the earth, what grows back isn't what you wanted.
 
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.
 
Mursilis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top