http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-mcconnell-idUSKCN0VW1SO?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter
The Republican-led Senate on Tuesday ruled out taking action on any nominee put forth by President Barack Obama to the Supreme Court in a political power move intended to thwart his ability to change the court's ideological balance.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate will not hold hearings or vote on any nominee to replace long-serving conservative Justice Antonin Scalia until after the next president takes office next January. Scalia died on Feb. 13
McConnell is a fucking idiot. Now, Dems will not be staying home on election day.
>>25173
We have Trump now if you're worried about the Dems.
>>25172
I love that this is what American democracy looks like.
When can we switch to a parliamentary system?
>>25177
lmao who's we?
>>25177
I'm talking about the senate race.
The republicans holding out will only make them look stupid.
No one wan't a government shutdown over this shit.
Also Trump is barely a conservative.
Expect him to change his tone once he get's the nomination
>>25178
The American federal government is designed to be slow moving. It is the best way to avoid a over reaching tyranny.
And I love this meme that the European Parliamentary system is somehow better.
>>25183
No, this is DEFINITELY worthy of a government shutdown, and like Trump says, it will be their fault for the shutdown, not ours, in the eyes of history.
>>25185
The voters don't seem to think so.
Obama is playing smart. If nothing get's resolved he can just pin it on the republicans.
He could also present a more moderate niminee.
Both are a victory for him seeing how right Scalia was.
>>25178
>parliamentary system
The only benefit of a Parliament is the ability to fire the PM or president.
>>25184
There is a difference between slow moving and obstructionist actions motivated by political posturing.
This isn't allowing for a careful debate of the would justice. A careful debate of the issues surrounding the nominee would focus on vetting the nominee in an open forum. Not blocking discussion because it is an election year.
Note: Republicans aren't the only ones guilty of this shit. Both parties do this. And it is a huge flaw in our congress dedicated to two parties full of opportunists rather than leaders.
>>25192
>Republicans aren't the only ones guilty of this shit. Both parties do this.
This is right wing damage control. If you actually look at what has happened with nominees in the last 30 years, republicans have blocked nominations far more often as dems block GOP ones. Dems haven't controlled Congress for that long except after Nixon. For as often as Fox News plays the 25 year old clip of Joe Biden saying GHW Bush shouldn't get his vote for the nomination in an election year, they left out the part about how Joe Biden let all of Bush's nominees get a hearing in the judiciary committee.
Here are the actual stats:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6073/6104298712_67e182c4b1.jpg
As anyone can see, Obama nominations don't get confirmed nearly as often.
All they have to do is vote it down, buy they won't even bring it up. They can't because they can't guarantee what their own people will do. McConnell is a weak and ineffectual leader who doesn't have the control over his own party that any other Senate Majority Leader from the last century had.
It's a terrible plan just to close your eyes and go lalalala I'm going to pretend your pick doesnt exist and wait for the next guy to make a choose.
The dems get to hit you with it all the time during the election. fucking dumb.
>>25194
1) I'm pretty liberal. So clam down.
2) Take a fucking college class on politics. Who would have ever guessed the parties use strategies to gain power over one another and bend the rules in whatever direction that suites them best. Both parties push the boundaries in order to posture themselves for the public or to create a strategy to "win" over the other group.
2a)For example, often republicans will actually increase the deficit in order to say "oh fuck, we don't have money to spend on "entitlements""
3)The Repubs and Dems aren't your favorite basketball team that need to be blindly cheered for or against. They're both full of individuals that need to be checked, examined, and held to a high standard. Both need to be called out for their horse shit.
In this case the Republicans are refusing to vet a would be justice cause they think that they can win the next presidential election. (It will be interesting what happens if they lose the presidential race and win the congress again,will block for another 4 years?).
4) Learn to read.
>There is a difference between slow moving and obstructionist actions motivated by political posturing.
>This isn't allowing for a careful debate of the would [be] justice. A careful debate of the issues surrounding the nominee would focus on vetting the nominee in an open forum. Not blocking discussion because it is an election year.
is a (smarter way of saying)
>All they have to do is vote it down, buy they won't even bring it up. They can't because they can't guarantee what their own people will do. McConnell is a weak and ineffectual leader who doesn't have the control over his own party that any other Senate Majority Leader from the last century had.
Also, can you provide some evidence that McConnell has less control over his party than other leaders have had in the last 100 years?
I don't like the guys policies or his actions, but is he an ineffectual leader of other repubs? I don't think you have any idea.
>>25224
1. You can be liberal and still regurgitate republican talking points.
2.
>the parties use strategies to gain power over one another and bend the rules in whatever direction that suites them best.
>Both parties push the boundaries
There is a difference between 'pushing the boundaries' and the Senate Majority Leader saying shit like "My only goal is to make sure this president is a one termer and to block every aspect of anything he submits to Congress."
>For example, often republicans will actually increase the deficit in order to say "oh fuck, we don't have money to spend on "entitlements""
Democrats don't do anything remotely like this that I can think of. If you come up with something post it.
3
>They're both full of individuals that need to be checked, examined, and held to a high standard. Both need to be called out for their horse shit.
One of them has a hell of a lot more than the other. It's like they think we don't remember any of the previous republican administrations, because they brought all the same old debunked talking points back like they are new again.
4
All they have to do is put it to a vote. The nomination certainly wouldn't be confirmed. The Constitution says:
> the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint" individuals to positions in the executive and judicial branches
Notice that it's "Shall", meaning he must, and not "Might" or "Could". It's Obama's constitutional responsibility to send the nomination. After he does it's only going to make the GOP look bad by stalling.
>>25276
>>25224
Forgot about this part:
>Also, can you provide some evidence that McConnell has less control over his party than other leaders have had in the last 100 years?
Are you kidding or just very young? He's the weakest GOP Senate Majority Leader since Wallace White lead the Do-Nothing Congress of 1947-49. Here's some 'evidence' for you: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/19/mcconnell-lets-not-nominate-a-bunch-of-crazy-tea-party-people-folks/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/get-mitch-mcconnell-099376
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2014/03/mitch-mcconnells-poor-leadership-needs-to-end-one-way-or-another-2819040.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/us/politics/leading-republicans-move-to-stamp-out-challenges-from-right.html?_r=0
>>25177
Trump is a populist anti-globalist economic protectionist. He wasn't a Republican until he wanted to run for president. I'm a blue dog Democrat and I support Trump 100%, he's a true 1980s style liberal with old school democratic ideas.
>>25172
>>25173
And most Independants will vote against incumbent Republicans. This is idiotic. During the GOP's last childish spat, the government shutdown, polls showed the country overwhelmingly against the GOP. They were just lucky it happened a year before the election and idiot voters forgot about it by then. But if this drags on, it will be a big issue come election time and anybody who's not a die-hard God-fearing conservative is going to vote against these stubborn idiots.
>>25279
He was a Democrat in the 80s, switched to Republican in 87 and gave serious thought to running for President because several Republicans urged him to, then went Democrat, then was Republican, then became Independant/Third Party and actually campaigned for the Reform Party nomination in 2000. He dropped out before the primaries though. Also ironically he criticized his opponent Pat Buchanan for being racist and homophobic, and said that the racism in the Reform Party was a reason he was quitting. So he went back to flipping between Dem and Repub.
He's a mix, he really is a true Independant.
>>25184
>And I love this meme that the European Parliamentary system is somehow better.
When you have more than two parties, you have to actually compromise if you want any power. None of this childish "we'll shut down the government if we don't get to do things our way."
>>25173
You're the idiot
If they give in now, there's a 0 percent chance of having a decent scj
If they hold out, there is a greater than zero chance. This won't effect the election in a significant way
Even the most gun fearing liberal probably won't be voting Hilary over sanders
Even if this plan is the only way to get your preferred repubtard to get elected, your plan fails because he might not get to elect another scj, and the supreme court will rule as "progressively" (or as I've recently been calling it "regressively")as humanly possible until the next scj
>>25284
You are a retarded cuck. It's typical to not allow a justice during a election year.
>>25173
If Hillary get nominated than you bet your ass they will stay home giving the presidency right to Trump.
>>25303
Thank god
Good, Obama has been a huge cunt about literally everything. Fuck him.
>>25202
They'll just play commercials of Biden, Obama and Schumer calling for no election year judges years ago if they try.
The Dems screwed themselves.
I hope no one accidentally Posts a reply to The S Korean legislative filibuster thing in this thread by accident.
These threads are separate!
>>25301
Implying Trump would nominate anyone nearly as conservative as Scalia.
>>25302
[Citation needed]
>>25318
His sister is a federal appellate judge. Appointed to district court by Reagan and bumped up to COA by Bill Clinton.
How long can they delay it? Will we have too few SCOTUS judges for 10 years? 15?
>>25370
This sets a precedent that Congress can effectively shut down the constitutional court at will, since there's no strict guideline about how far they're legally allowed to take this.
>>25371
The entire US government was designed to be as obstructionist as possible.
>>25370
they can delay it until you vote these assholes out of office. IDGAF if you're liberal or conservative, but unless it's one of the handful of Republican senators that have spoken against this, anybody who cares about this country needs to vote these guys out. We should have tossed the House Republicans a couple years ago when they pulled their stunt
>>25410
Tea Party was lolbertarians.
Their whole goal was to Ron Swanson it anyway.
>>25478
Libertarians are the only who respect the constitution
Bring back the 10th
>>25388
It wasn't designed to function without a constitutional court, anon. What they're doing is wrong.
>>25494
Judicial review wasn't one of the original powers of the Supreme Court
>>25505
Bill of Rights didn't apply to States either;
Just the federal government, so we can take a breather.
I think your point is implicating implications.
Bill of Rights?
Call it Selective Incorporation
I don't see a problem with this at all.
Dems wanted to do the same thing to Bush.
>>25172
Cruz was on the committee that signed this.
Trump should definitely attack him and the rest of the Senate over this. He talks about being against political bullshit and against establishment politics, nows his chance to go after his top rival for being the exact type of political bullshit that's fucking over our country.
This isn't about being liberal or conservative or what you think of Obama. It's about wanting politicians who can grow up and do their fucking job. If Romney won in 2012 do you think Cruz, McConnell and the others would feel the same?
This is going to create a lot of animosity toward the GOP. Trump already has the nomination in the bag, to win the general he needs to show people that he really is against the political crap like this
>>25581
No they actually didn't, that's a bullshit lie that idiots keep repeating for some reason.