58% of Americans say they'd like to see the President nominate someone to the Supreme Court

[Underhill]

Even if he nominates someone nothing says the Senate has to confirm them. This also applies to any candidate nominated by the next president.

So you are saying democrats shouldn't have approved either of the two justices Bush nominated? I suspect the tune would have been a bit different if they had played these games.

 

[Underhill]

I don't think anyone is saying the republicans shouldn't be involved in the process. Generally in this situation a moderate candidate would be the answer, which is what Bush did for his last nomination. If he had a republican senate at the time I'm sure his nomination would have been different.

The problem I have is with this notion that they will simply reject anyone he sends up. It is the same tact they have been pursuing since Obama took office. Obstruct everything, instead of actually judging based upon the merits or qualifications in this case.

 

[Quetzal]

The problem I have is with this notion that they will simply reject anyone he sends up. It is the same tact they have been pursuing since Obama took office. Obstruct everything, instead of actually judging based upon the merits or qualifications in this case.

Exactly. That is a huge issue no matter who is in the Oval Office.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think anyone is saying the republicans shouldn't be involved in the process. Generally in this situation a moderate candidate would be the answer, which is what Bush did for his last nomination. If he had a republican senate at the time I'm sure his nomination would have been different.

The problem I have is with this notion that they will simply reject anyone he sends up. It is the same tact they have been pursuing since Obama took office. Obstruct everything, instead of actually judging based upon the merits or qualifications in this case.

That is one view.
Another is that the Pubs oppose him so often because he attempts things they oppose,
ie, it's opposition not to him, but to his agendas.
One could be true, the other could be true, or both could be true.

Would Democrats in Congress ever oppose a president just because he's a Republican?

 

[Underhill]

Exactly. That is a huge issue no matter who is in the Oval Office.

Historically it hasn't been. This is a new tactic by republicans. I think most Americans write it off as politics as usual, but it really isn't. Even when GW Bush was at his lowest in the polls, the democrats worked with him. When Clinton was getting grief for his bj in the white house the congress kept doing their job and worked with him.

I don't think enough Americans are pissed off about what they are doing.

 

[Underhill]

That is one view.
Another is that the Pubs oppose him so often because he attempts things they oppose,
ie, it's opposition not to him, but to his agendas.
One could be true, the other could be true, or both could be true.

When memos circulate that say republicans will stop anything that comes from the white house, that is not ambiguous. Republicans were against Clintons health care bill, but they still worked with him on other issues while blocking that legislation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think enough Americans are pissed off about what they are doing.

I'm carrying my share of that load!

 

[Revoltingest]

When memos circulate that say republicans will stop anything that comes from the white house, that is not ambiguous. Republicans were against Clintons health care bill, but they still worked with him on other issues while blocking that legislation.

Of course, Clinton worked with New Gingirch too.
Obama appears more hostile to cooperation than did Bill.
I don't buy the idea that Obama is just a victim of a vast right wing conspiracy.
Wait! Clinton claimed the same thing!

 

[Quetzal]

Of course, Clinton worked with New Gingirch too.
Obama appears more hostile to cooperation than did Bill.

The issue still stands, why can't we at least agree that the pubs are being intentionally difficult despite the actual issue at hand. This has everything to do with party politics and nothing to do with getting things done.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The problem I have is with this notion that they will simply reject anyone he sends up. It is the same tact they have been pursuing since Obama took office. Obstruct everything, instead of actually judging based upon the merits or qualifications in this case.

Obama is a constitutional law professor. He's also a lame duck. I don't think we should be surprised if he finds a way, or makes a way, to appoint Scalia's successor in the face of unreasonable Republican obstructionism.

Obama appears more hostile to cooperation than did Bill.

I would be too if I tried to cooperate and got nothing back but a bunch of childish refusals to work together and cooperate.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would be too if I tried to cooperate and got nothing back but a bunch of childish refusals to work together and cooperate.

I see bi-partisan boobery (not the good kind).

 

[ShivaFan]

58%? That is a horrible number consiering such polls.

That means 50% think SOME President should nominate, like Trump for example, and 8% think Congress should approve anybody Obama nominates.

 

[McBell]

Let me guess, party politics?


Source.
Nailed it!

It gets me a frustrated. This is one of the benefits of being president, right? You get to nominate someone to fill a spot when it becomes open. Nope, the GOP has decided to stick to party politics. Constitutionally mandated responsibilities? Yeah, no big deal.

I do not buy into the idea that 1001 people accurately represent the whole of the United States.

 

[Underhill]

Of course, Clinton worked with New Gingirch too.
Obama appears more hostile to cooperation than did Bill.
I don't buy the idea that Obama is just a victim of a vast right wing conspiracy.
Wait! Clinton claimed the same thing!

There is a difference between claiming a thing and having it be true.

I would agree the Republicans felt short shifted after Obamacare. But the president was elected on his promises for health care reform. A president enjoying a majority in the house and senate has never had to work closely with the opposition. When you add in that the whole bill was based on a republican plan, the whole excuse falls flat. They decided after the first mid term that they would block anything that came from the white house. This has been admitted to by Newt Gingrich and others. It was not a matter of specific agenda items being controversial.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a difference between claiming a thing and having it be true.

I hadn't considered that!

I would agree the Republicans felt short shifted after Obamacare. But the president was elected on his promises for health care reform. A president enjoying a majority in the house and senate has never had to work closely with the opposition. When you add in that the whole bill was based on a republican plan, the whole excuse falls flat. They decided after the first mid term that they would block anything that came from the white house. This has been admitted to by Newt Gingrich and others. It was not a matter of specific agenda items being controversial.

I'd expect that Romney would've met a lot of Republican resistance had he tried to implement Romneycare on a national level.

 

[Underhill]

Obama is a constitutional law professor. He's also a lame duck. I don't think we should be surprised if he finds a way, or makes a way, to appoint Scalia's successor in the face of unreasonable Republican obstructionism.

He is not a lame duck. A lame duck refers to a president after his predesesor has been chosen and he is just filling the seat until he leaves office. He has 6 months until he is a lame duck.

 

[McBell]

He is not a lame duck. A lame duck refers to a president after his predesesor has been chosen and he is just filling the seat until he leaves office. He has 6 months until he is a lame duck.

There is more than one definition (even when eliminating all but the political ones) for lame duck.

 

[Akivah]

I'm a Republican. I am totally disappointed with the behavior of the Republicans on this issue. Sure, I don't care for Obama. But he is the President. Respect the office! Nominating judges is one of his duties. So what if his term is almost over, it isn't over yet. I expect him to fully discharge all his duties until the very last day of his administration.

I know judges serve for life and we'd like to get a judge that has our philosophy in there, instead of a liberal judge. Too bad, that's the way it goes. What are we going to do instead, constrain when a president is allowed to appoint judges down to nothing? "Oh, not within the first year, you're still getting used to the office. Oh, not the last year, your term is almost over. Oh, not the middle years, you have important crises to deal with.". It's total garbage what the Republicans are trying to do on this issue.

 

[Underhill]

There is more than one definition (even when eliminating all but the political ones) for lame duck.

There are. But those definitions are virtually all politically motivated. The whole point of a lame duck is that he is a placeholder for the new guy. If the election were a month of two away, you might make that argument. But in this case the talk about a lame duck started 9 months before the election and are completely political.

 

[Underhill]

I'm a Republican. I am totally disappointed with the behavior of the Republicans on this issue. Sure, I don't care for Obama. But he is the President. Respect the office! Nominating judges is one of his duties. So what if his term is almost over, it isn't over yet. I expect him to fully discharge all his duties until the very last day of his administration.

I know judges serve for life and we'd like to get a judge that has our philosophy in there, instead of a liberal judge. Too bad, that's the way it goes. What are we going to do instead, constrain when a president is allowed to appoint judges down to nothing? "Oh, not within the first year, you're still getting used to the office. Oh, not the last year, your term is almost over. Oh, not the middle years, you have important crises to deal with.". It's total garbage what the Republicans are trying to do on this issue.

It's another one of those cases like the government shutdown where short term goals eliminate long term reasoning. This sets another one of these dangerous precedents that the republicans will fight tooth and nail when the inevitable role reversal comes along.