Breaking: In Closed Door Meeting, Senate GOP Decides No Hearing For Obama SCOTUS Nominee

[G_j]

breaking.. heard on Thom Hartmann just now


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-gop-decides-no-hearing-for-any-obama-scotus-nominee

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mitch-mcconnell-withhold-consent-obama-scotus

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/

[Agschmid]

1. They will give in on this, they can't be that obstructionist.

[SeattleVet]

7. Don't say, "They can't be..."

they always seem to take that as a challenge.

[madville]

19. Obstructionism has gotten them this far

They only have their biggest House majority in 80 years, the Senate and 2/3 of the state governments.

Obstructing Obama drives their voter turnout and is what they are elected to do.

[LonePirate]

28. Indeed. Romney's loss is the only DC setback they have suffered in the last five years.

The obstruction will continue until they suffer consequences.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

42. Isn't that sort of like saying

"The beatings will continue until morale improves"?

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

39. Yeah, obstructing is pretty much all they do anymore.

I think they don't know how to do anything else.

[Gothmog]

2. We need to make the GOP pay a price for this

If the Democrats are not able to use this to take back the Senate, then I will be upset

[AxionExcel]

4. If the GOP is going to piss on the U.S. Constitution

Then they need to be called out on their wholesale BETRAYAL of The United States of America,
and everything that made this nation special and great.

[davidn3600]

10. They can use it, but will voters really care?

Historically, voters haven't really cared much about the Supreme Court when it comes to election time.

The GOP has blocked lots of stuff and the voters never cared. Why would they care now?

[G_j]

12. unfortunately

that's a good possibility

[brush]

3. I don't believe that for a second

Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Obama is going to keep the pressure on with presenting a nominee that will force the repugs to yield because of fear of a recess appointment or fear of losing the election because of their blatant, in everyones' face uprecedented, racist obstructionism.

No president ever has been denied a SCOTUS appointment hearing.

They will not get away with it with the black guy.

[KamaAina]

5. They've got the recess appointment thing figured out

they hold meaningless "pro forma" sessions every few days so the 10-day period required for a recess appointment never kicks in. Obama tried one anyway, and was slapped down by SCOTUS 9-0.

[brush]

9. So they lose the election, which is going to happen anyway. This unconstitional blocking will help.

I still don't think it will happen.

Soon as an actual nominee is out there, the pressure will really be on and the repugs will fold.

Some repug senators have already conceded that they are willing to have a hearing.

[WillowTree]

6. No need to fear a recess appointment if they just don't recess.

[brush]

8. So then they face losing the election. But they're going to do that anyway, and this will help

[davidn3600]

11. Actually there have been....

Several appointments have been rejected by the Senate.

It's important to understand that the Senate isn't a rubber stamp in this process. They have a right to reject the nominee on any grounds they want.

[brush]

13. Which is why I think they will yield and have a hearing

If they reject the first one Obama will nominate a second and a third if necessary to continue highlighting their obstructionism.

[NaturalHigh]

17. "No president ever has been denied a SCOTUS appointment."

Yes, they have.

[former9thward]

30. What?

Several presidents have been denied SCOTUS appointments. 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Twenty-nine nominees (including one nominated for promotion) have been unsuccessful. President Tyler had all four of his appointments rejected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

[brush]

32. Appointments, yeah, but hearings on nominees? No.

They're trying to do the to the black guy.

They'll yield when it becomes apparent that they will lose the senate and the White House because of their obstructionism.

[brush]

37. I meant appointment 'hearings'

I think they'll yield to that eventually and then not recommend the appointment, a very simple thing to do.

Don't know why they do this grandstanding when all they have to do is not approve the nominee.

[C_U_L8R]

14. I guess we should thank them

because their obstinance could very well motivate tremendous voter turnout.
And that tends to favor liberals. So thank GOP, you sure are despicable
but you ain't so smart at strategerie.

[Octafish]

15. If true, they GOP just gave us Congreff.

No one is gonna forget the "Republican Party is blocking the Supreme Court's business" -- unless the Democrats for whatever reason don't make that connection between now and November.

[madville]

20. How would they lose Congress over this?

Obstructing Obama has gotten them their biggest House majority in the last 80 years, the Senate, and 2/3 of the state governments. It is just as likely to benefit them as hurt them.

Remember when those government shutdowns were going to "cost" them the 2014 mid-terms and Congress? That really worked out to their advantage in the end.

[Octafish]

25. Good points. It seemed we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

If I were to be a DEM communication advisor, I'd have told the President to bring it up more. Perhaps one-on-one with each member of the House, and those Dems in the Senate up for reelection those years. Certainly using the bully pulpit to hammer to the American people what was at stake and who was at fault.

From what I can remember, the tee vee and papers were full of all sorts of stuff, little if any of which was analyzed at length or in context. Seeing how important Congress would be for passing his agenda, I was surprised the way things were left to play out.

[brush]

33. They have some vulnerable senators up for re-election

This might be what loses the majority in the senate.

[madville]

35. The Senate is possible

But it was in play before this anyway. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin are possible Democratic pick-ups. Nevada will likely go to Republican Joe Heck with Reid's retirement.

It's going to be close, Democrats will have to sweep the likely pick-ups, it likely just depends on how motivated Democrats are to turn out for Hillary.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

43. I personally think that SCOTUS is too high-profile to obstruct successfully (for the long-term)

When President Obama publicly nominates and promotes an obviously well-qualified and seemingly non-partisan/"non-threatening" nominee, the Republicans will have to twist themselves into all kinds of knots to explain why they won't even allow for a nomination hearing. Something tells me that they won't be able to hold out for a whole 10 months and if they do, the GOP is far from destined to win the WH next year, esp. if Trump is their nominee, so Hillary and Bernie will wind up nominating somebody when they take office and the GOP will have to eventually relent. They can't keep the seat vacant for years and they know that. Plus, institutional problems on the Supreme Court while the Republicans are pulling their shenanigans might put some pressure on them as well. Roberts might care about wanting a fully seated court to preside over and *might* convince his Republican buddies to give up on this nonsense. I just can't see this ending well for the GOP but we'll just have to all sit back and watch this farce play out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. I just love slow pace constitutional crisis

This might save the democratic bacon in November though. And might is a big if.

[Macattack1]

18. they believe they have political cover thanks to Schumer and Biden's past remarks

..looks like that's the excuse they are going with...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

44. In spite of the obvious practical differences between the two situations.

Not comparable at all even if the Republicans want to pretend that they are

[tapermaker]

21. win the senate back

nuke the supreme court filibuster and pres. Obama will have 17 days in jan 2017 to pick and ram through whoever he wants regardless of who wins the whitehouse

[spanone]

22. the dems need to HAMMER THIS HARD....!!!!!

[Delphinus]

23. Unbelievable.

[LanternWaste]

24. This may serve the eventual Democratic presidential nominee well...

I believe this will serve the eventual Democratic presidential nominee rather well in its branding of the GOP as a roadblock to progress and barrier to effective governance to the undecideds and moderates in the general election.

I think the ad-buys during the GE should hammer the GOP's refusal of one of its most fundamental obligations, and specifically target the uncommitted voter.

Senate races in IL, NH, OH, and PA (as per the Cook PVI) could be persuaded with a few, well-placed nudges to go Democratic. With a total of 24 GOP Senators running for re-election, this could also be used in many other Senate races too.

The difference between the 'strength' or 'mulishness' of the Republicans may be one well-crafted campaign ad.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. I hope Obama calls their bluff and nominates someone soon.

While it will suck for that person to be left dangling for awhile, nominating some highly qualified person will force the GOPers to explain why they won't proceed with a hearing and will expose them once again as a bunch of spiteful, obstructive asshats.

[potone]

27. This is so arrogant!

The blatant disrespect this shows to the president is outrageous. Other Supreme Court Justices have been confirmed during a president's last year, and it is disingenuous to claim that they should wait so that the "people have a voice." This is part of Obama's job, and what he was elected to do. They are shirking their constitutional duty and we must fight back hard!

[marions ghost]

29. Not surprised

--but outraged.

[flamingdem]

31. What can "we the people" do about it nt

[tinrobot]

34. Harry Reid needs to shut down the Senate.

[tabasco]

36. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent.

If they refuse to do that, they hate the constitution, they hate America, and they should be deported.

[Johonny]

38. THe reality of Obama on the court comes one step closer to happening...

[Fast Walker 52]

40. It's real and it's fucking insane. This party needs to be cast away for all time.

Jesus freaking christ.

[Rex]

41. Well they have 300 days to go...so I hope they are getting ready to dig in.

Morons.

[G_j]

45. Yes

and we'll see who creates the going meme..

[greymattermom]

46. so what happens if another one bites the dust

like maybe Clarence Thomas? Can the court vote 4-3 on a lot of issues?