Dems Would Be 'Justified' in Blocking Supreme Court Nominee of GOP President, White House Says

[IDemo]

Source: ABC News

White House press secretary Josh Earnest raised eyebrows during today's press briefing by suggesting that Democrats would be “justified” to take revenge on the GOP blockade against Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland by blocking a possible GOP president’s nomination for the president's full term.

Earnest was recalling a suggestion President Obama made in an interview with Fox News Sunday in which he said if Republicans continued blocking Garland until he left office then “it is almost impossible to expect” that Democrats wouldn’t retaliate if given the opportunity.

"What's to stop Democrats who are in charge of the Senate when a Republican is in office, from saying, 'Well, we're just going to wait the four years to fill the vacancy.' There is no material difference in that argument. That would represent a breakdown of the process," Earnest said.

But Earnest went just a bit further, after a reporter asked, “Would they really do that?”

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dems-justified-blocking-supreme-court-nominee-gop-president/story?id=38406202

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. The GOP in response to the lack of

whiteness on Obama's skin, has taken this country into a state of complete dysfunction.

To properly express their hatred of Obama, again because of the lack of whiteness in his skin. they seem willing to destroy the very platform we are built on, the justice system.

Between their outright, undeniable attempt to stop voting and now this, I dont see how anyone in their right mind could imagine giving them the White House.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. ^^^THIS^^^

[mpcamb]

17. Yeah, but... I still don't like the nominee. We can do better.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. We can certainly do better

but as long as the GOP controls Congress, there is "0" chance of any confirmation of that person. With this nominee, the odds are that his "center/center-leftness" can can be moved more to the left once in. But in order to get him there, the GOP have to be publicly shamed for rejecting a candidate they overwhelmingly approved before.

[hughee99]

22. Sounds like we just need a Dem president with enough

"Whiteness" in their skin and the republicans will be okay with whatever nominee they put forward.

[silvershadow]

20. Both issues are sickening. They have tried to nullify his entire presidency. The are vile pigs. nt

[TipTok]

24. That is a mighty simple way of looking at things...

[Jackie Wilson Said]

25. Oh it is that simple, though I COMPLETELY understand why SOME folks dont think so

TRUST ME

[TipTok]

27. Have you ever considered...

... that you have severely limited yourself with such a narrow view?

I would suggest that the ocean is not a mile wide and an inch deep and that you would benefit from some subtlety and analysis in your outlook.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

2. They never will

They'll just roll over as usual, and let the Repubs have their way.

[MisterP]

6. in a Dem Senate, no less

[maxsolomon]

10. another way of looking at that

is to say that Dems would fulfill their sworn constitutional duties, no matter who the president is. as opposed to the repukes, and that's the point he was making.

they've rejected SCOTUS nominees (Bork, Myers, and they should have rejected Thomas), but never stonewalled the process.

[truebrit71]

14. Yup. Need to keep that powder dry...

....

[houston16revival]

4. It's a useful tactic to float the idea

I don't know what McConnell's got on them

but they never grow a pair

Harry Reid is about as good as we've had

I can't see a four year stall, but I can see one year

and the public won't forget that it's an accepted practice at that point

'We can't confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the first year of a President's
term because we need to see how he's going to govern.'

'And not in the second year, we need to let the people decide the midterm
elections.'

[L. Coyote]

5. How about blocking any elected Republicans?

Just say the people need to re-decide the last election!

[sofa king]

8. We can do that, too.

Seriously, it's called "refusing to seat," and if we regain control of Congress we can totally do it in the next mid-terms, to prevent the GOP from filibustering in the Senate, for example.

Normally, one doesn't entertain such thoughts for fear of reprisal, but there is hardly a Republican left under the age of 45 now, they're having trouble winning statewide elections even with gerrymandering and vote theft, and their policies are killing dumb rednecks so much faster than I thought possible that someday statisticians are going to call this decade the Republican Holocaust.

It looks like we're going to bag the Senate and never again give it back. The House is ours in 2022, when the census shows exactly how many Republicans died to make rich people richer. And the rich people themselves will be headed off for Dubai shortly thereafter, when their taxes go as high as mine are now.

We won by letting the Republicans kill stupid Americans. It's disgusting and I'm not gloating, but the tragic truth is unavoidable, now.

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

[7962]

12. OK, I'll bite. What the heck are you talking about?

Killing dumb rednecks? Huh?

[sofa king]

13. Here you go

The more conservative the state, the faster those state's residents are dying. That's translating into fewer statewide elections won by Republicans now, and it will translate into fewer Representatives in the House no matter how it's gerrymandered in 2022. Republicans are killing their constituents by the thousands every year now, and they are not being replaced by younger Republicans.

So, as the Ink Spots say, it's all over but the crying now. And it's our damned fault, too, for failing to get the message across in time.

[7962]

15. Well, thats a pretty broad spectrum of population too.

The south certainly has a bigger problem with obesity than the rest of the country, and it spans all races and age groups. But the south is also where the most blacks live too. And blacks do have a higher rate of health issues that can contribute to dying before you should. So unless this map breaks down the death rate by race, its tough to assume that the biggest majority of those dying off are all "dumb rednecks" as you put it. The districts may change more because of hispanics moving into the south than by people dying off. Their numbers are going up faster than ever. But change is change, regardless!

[Jim Lane]

7. It might be only a two-year stall. Brace yourselves for 2018.

We have a decent shot at retaking the Senate this year, but we'll probably have only a narrow majority. Then in 2018 we're again defending more seats than the Republicans. Furthermore, we're defending seats we won in 2012 (Presidential-election-year turnout), but the usual midterm falloff will set in.

We would need to do very well in this year's Senate races to have enough of a cushion to survive the midterm losses.

If a Republican wins the White House this year, he might have an immediate Senate majority, but if not he'll very likely have one beginning in 2019.

[Igel]

9. Yeah, because "tu quoque"

is always the grown-up thing to do.

Esp. making it into high principle.

[malthaussen]

11. And he is wrong.

There is no "justification" for those granted the public trust to fail to do their duty. This is not kindergarten.

-- Mal

[spooky3]

16. There's nothing wrong with 'spainin' to Republicans

What could happen if they keep this obstruction up.

[Chicago1980]

18. Hopefully with the will of the voters,

no republican nominee will become the next POTUS.

[alarimer]

23. Blocking does not mean not holding a vote.

It means voting against them, or filibustering. But Democrats would not refuse to hold hearings. THAT is the difference.

[northernsouthern]

26. They would more than likely give in.

But in all truth unless they take this to the court to get it resolved now, then yes they have all the right in the world to never nominate a figure again. This is the stupid game they are playing at. It is why they need some rules.