Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[Jamzmania]

Actually my primary point has been not against the nominee himself but that I think the people should have their say in the future of the Court.

Which is why you want to wait until January 2021 before having confirmation hearings, and why you support an elected judiciary. So the people can have their say.

Your beliefs are not mine, so please do not try to claim they are.

[Diopolis]

I think it's pretty telling that the republican's best line of attack is transparently bullshit.

Actually my primary point has been not against the nominee himself but that I think the people should have their say in the future of the Court.

Those of us most opposed to the nominee himself prefer to hold hearings and then reject him.

[Geilinor]

I think it's pretty telling that the republican's best line of attack is transparently bullshit.

Actually my primary point has been not against the nominee himself but that I think the people should have their say in the future of the Court.

The people had their say in 2012 and why should there be a special exception in an election year?

[Ifreann]

Which is why you want to wait until January 2021 before having confirmation hearings, and why you support an elected judiciary. So the people can have their say.

Your beliefs are not mine, so please do not try to claim they are.

Oh, silly me, you don't actually support letting the people have their say, except in this one narrow situation that, coincidentally, could allow a Republican president to replace Scalia with another conservative judge.

I guess the will of the people is only important when that would give the GOP the advantage.

[Khadgar]

Actually my primary point has been not against the nominee himself but that I think the people should have their say in the future of the Court.

The people had their say in 2012 and why should there be a special exception in an election year?

Because liberals are evil.

[Jamzmania]

Your beliefs are not mine, so please do not try to claim they are.

Oh, silly me, you don't actually support letting the people have their say, except in this one narrow situation that, coincidentally, could allow a Republican president to replace Scalia with another conservative judge.

I guess the will of the people is only important when that would give the GOP the advantage.

You do realize that simply allowing this election(s) - happening this year - to play out would be a lot less ridiculous than waiting the several years that you propose? The Court won't fall apart and anarchy will not reign in the streets if Scalia's vacancy is not immediately filled.

The people have experienced eight years of Barrack Obama and his policies, and now they can decide if they want another four - with the added feature of the high possibility of another liberal judicial activist on the Supreme Court. Obama has every right to make his nomination, and the Senate has every right to not confirm it. That is each of their prerogatives. Perhaps you would like to offer a reason that the Senate should consider the lame duck's nominee when they have absolutely no obligation to do so?

[Fartsniffage]

Oh, silly me, you don't actually support letting the people have their say, except in this one narrow situation that, coincidentally, could allow a Republican president to replace Scalia with another conservative judge.

I guess the will of the people is only important when that would give the GOP the advantage.

You do realize that simply allowing this election(s) - happening this year - to play out would be a lot less ridiculous than waiting the several years that you propose? The Court won't fall apart and anarchy will not reign in the streets if Scalia's vacancy is not immediately filled.

The people have experienced eight years of Barrack Obama and his policies, and now they can decide if they want another four - with the added feature of the high possibility of another liberal judicial activist on the Supreme Court. Obama has every right to make his nomination, and the Senate has every right to not confirm it. That is each of their prerogatives. Perhaps you would like to offer a reason that the Senate should consider the lame duck's nominee when they have absolutely no obligation to do so?

That's kinda the point though isn't it? They haven't experienced 8 years of his Presidency. If they had then this wouldn't be an issue.

[Geilinor]

Oh, silly me, you don't actually support letting the people have their say, except in this one narrow situation that, coincidentally, could allow a Republican president to replace Scalia with another conservative judge.

I guess the will of the people is only important when that would give the GOP the advantage.

You do realize that simply allowing this election(s) - happening this year - to play out would be a lot less ridiculous than waiting the several years that you propose? The Court won't fall apart and anarchy will not reign in the streets if Scalia's vacancy is not immediately filled.

The people have experienced eight years of Barrack Obama and his policies, and now they can decide if they want another four - with the added feature of the high possibility of another liberal judicial activist on the Supreme Court. Obama has every right to make his nomination, and the Senate has every right to not confirm it. That is each of their prerogatives. Perhaps you would like to offer a reason that the Senate should consider the lame duck's nominee when they have absolutely no obligation to do so?

Yeah, the people have experienced Barack Obama's presidency and they gave him an approval rating of 50%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

[Faustian Fantasies]

The problem is bigger than "the President wants to appoint a nominee, the Senate has the right to deny him". It's that the Senate won't even hold hearings on it. I can't think of any time when the Senate body has refused to even consider a nominee. The magnitude of obstructionism is far more than merely voting the nomination down.

[Jamzmania]

The problem is bigger than "the President wants to appoint a nominee, the Senate has the right to deny him". It's that the Senate won't even hold hearings on it. I can't think of any time when the Senate body has refused to even consider a nominee. The magnitude of obstructionism is far more than merely voting the nomination down.

And, again, the Senate has every right to not hold hearings. He wouldn't be confirmed even if they did.

[Faustian Fantasies]

The problem is bigger than "the President wants to appoint a nominee, the Senate has the right to deny him". It's that the Senate won't even hold hearings on it. I can't think of any time when the Senate body has refused to even consider a nominee. The magnitude of obstructionism is far more than merely voting the nomination down.

And, again, the Senate has every right to not hold hearings. He wouldn't be confirmed even if they did.

But do you not accept that the actions taken by the Republican Senate far exceed the obstructionism of anything done by previous Senates in respect to blocking a nomination?

[Jamzmania]

And, again, the Senate has every right to not hold hearings. He wouldn't be confirmed even if they did.

But do you not accept that the actions taken by the Republican Senate far exceed the obstructionism of anything done by previous Senates in respect to blocking a nomination?

I imagine that refusing to hold hearings on nominees is actually a fairly common tactic.

[Faustian Fantasies]

But do you not accept that the actions taken by the Republican Senate far exceed the obstructionism of anything done by previous Senates in respect to blocking a nomination?

I imagine that refusing to hold hearings on nominees is actually a fairly common tactic.

No, this is actually historic and unprecedented.

[Jamzmania]

I imagine that refusing to hold hearings on nominees is actually a fairly common tactic.

No, this is actually historic and unprecedented.

Even if it is, I don't see that as a negative.

[Faustian Fantasies]

No, this is actually historic and unprecedented.

Even if it is, I don't see that as a negative.

It's negative when the adjective "unprecedented" applies to "an unprecedented level of obstructionism".

[Geilinor]

The problem is bigger than "the President wants to appoint a nominee, the Senate has the right to deny him". It's that the Senate won't even hold hearings on it. I can't think of any time when the Senate body has refused to even consider a nominee. The magnitude of obstructionism is far more than merely voting the nomination down.

And, again, the Senate has every right to not hold hearings. He wouldn't be confirmed even if they did.

The Senate has the responsibility to consider the nomination and to either approve or reject it.

[Jamzmania]

Even if it is, I don't see that as a negative.

It's negative when the adjective "unprecedented" applies to "an unprecedented level of obstructionism".

Obstructionism is not inherently bad. The idea that the Congress isn't "doing it's job" because it's not passing certain legislation or, in this case, holding hearings on certain nominees is wrong. Blocking bad bills or other actions is not wrong.

[Geilinor]

It's negative when the adjective "unprecedented" applies to "an unprecedented level of obstructionism".

Obstructionism is not inherently bad. The idea that the Congress isn't "doing it's job" because it's not passing certain legislation or, in this case, holding hearings on certain nominees is wrong. Blocking bad bills or other actions is not wrong.

Then they should vote it down.

[Jamzmania]

And, again, the Senate has every right to not hold hearings. He wouldn't be confirmed even if they did.

The Senate has the responsibility to consider the nomination and to either approve or reject it.

In this case, the Senate has considered the nomination. And they have decided to wait until after the election.

[Geilinor]

The Senate has the responsibility to consider the nomination and to either approve or reject it.

In this case, the Senate has considered the nomination. And they have decided to wait until after the election.

Consideration involves holding actual hearings. It's that simple.

[Jamzmania]

In this case, the Senate has considered the nomination. And they have decided to wait until after the election.

Consideration involves holding actual hearings. It's that simple.

They considered the idea of the nomination.

And they decided to wait.

That is the right and prerogative of the Senate.

[Geilinor]

Consideration involves holding actual hearings. It's that simple.

They considered the idea of the nomination.

And they decided to wait.

That is the right and prerogative of the Senate.

They should consider the nominee himself, not the "idea" of it.

[Lamaredia]

The Senate has the responsibility to consider the nomination and to either approve or reject it.

In this case, the Senate has considered the nomination. And they have decided to wait until after the election.

Which isn't a valid option. They're not doing their jobs, since they have specifically said that they will block ANY justice.

[Faustian Fantasies]

It's negative when the adjective "unprecedented" applies to "an unprecedented level of obstructionism".

Obstructionism is not inherently bad. The idea that the Congress isn't "doing it's job" because it's not passing certain legislation or, in this case, holding hearings on certain nominees is wrong. Blocking bad bills or other actions is not wrong.

When we look at the brinkmanship taking place in the U.S. Congress, it's been incredibly harmful to our government'. This is an unprecedented expansion of how far Washington brinkmanship can go, and thus the actions of the Republican Senate will only ever serve to hurt us. If you don't like the president's nominee, then don't vote for them when it's time to. That's how you prevent an outcome you don't prefer from taking place. But refusing to even hold a vote, or refusing to even hold a hearing, is a new echelon of pettiness.

[Jamzmania]

They considered the idea of the nomination.

And they decided to wait.

That is the right and prerogative of the Senate.

They should consider the nominee himself, not the "idea" of it.

You may think that they ought to and that is your opinion, which you have a right to hold. I happen to believe that they should simply wait. In this case, the Senate has decided to wait and we can't change that, only they can. Who knows? Perhaps the leadership will cave (as they have a history of doing) and hold hearings anyway.