RastaMentality
Banned
Hillary's team needs to make a good minute long ad showing what's at stake while also explaining the Supreme Court and what it does to the country. Good luck to them.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
Hmm.. high turnout in a Presidential election works for the Dems. Especially with 2016's demographics.
They're fools if they think that this is a winning gambit.
She should probably come up with a list of cases that are at stake.
SenorArdilla
Member
I do hope that this invigorates the base into showing up now that the stakes are higher.
eBay Huckster
Member
Nope. Seat sits vacant until a nominee gets confirmed.
They only fill in on lower court decisions, I believe.
Black Republican
Member
What a coincidence He died the same day the 1st part of the last batch of Hillary's emails was released. hmmmmmmm dont you say?
and its likely better for conservatives then what they will get next year
Coriolanus
Banned
You and me both. The turtle is many things, but stupid usually isn't one of them. Quite peculiar to see him try to pull this kinda crap.
Plouffe really should get that chairperson spot.
Can't say that i didn't triple-check.
FloydtheFathead
Member
It's real B-Dubs.
Yes. Even a moderate throws the court overwhelmingly into the Democrat favor given how often Roberts and Kennedy count as the swing vote.
Obama should do what Bush never could. Get Harriet Myers confirmed.
After confirmation Harriet Myers pulls off mask to reveal Goodwin Liu
Still in place for Supreme Court though no?
If you need me too, I can drive up to NYC and hold you.
User 463088
Banned
He's gone.
And Madame Graham on NBC News being a total bitch right now right now. Total fucking bitch.
Just found out about Scalia's death. My reaction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppqoILwgYZY
There's a reason we call him Louise Graham.
Father_Brain
Banned
Seemed to work fine for them in 2014. I dunno.
User 463088
Banned
Obama knows exactly what he's doing.
Yellowtail
Member
But then there'd still be a vacancy on the court.
It depends. This could be over relatively quickly. Or it won't, and Republicans will be the Party of Obstruction heading into November.
I literally stared at my computer screen scared to click the link because I thought it'd be one of those unconfirmed rumors that have no merit.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Democrats should probably win back 4 seats no matter what, bringing it to a VP tiebreaker.
It's hard to see how democrats can get the 5th seat in an election where the Republican wins the presidency, so I think the senate is basically going to whoever wins the presidency.
Seriously, I just to every news website I know and called up a couple friends just to make sure. I seriously thought this was a hoax thing when I saw it.
If by that you mean drink until we pass out and then drink some more, then come on up.
I shouldn't be happy that a man has died, but he was such a fucking asshole that I can't help it. It's this crazy, weird feeling that I can't explain in words.
Obama could literally flip the court on it's head with this choice. Citizens United's days are officially numbered.
Black Republican
Member
was it you dont have to be a lawyer to be a Supreme Court Judge correct?
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
And they elected their senators for 6. The president isn't guaranteed his nominees, and the Senate has an obligation to use their independent judgment in confirming, or not, a nominee. Their confirmation power isn't a rubber stamp.
DAAAAAAAAAMMMNNN
Agree with you both. Now, how dumb will the GOP be? I'm expecting a whole lot of fuckery based on Cruz and McConnell's statements. This party. May it come at a high cost for them.
eBay Huckster
Member
In fairness, that shutdown happened about 4 months earlier in the 2014 cycle.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Assuming it did make it to the election, I'm not sure whether that favors Dems or Repubs more honestly. I could see it quickly devolving into a referendum on abortion in terms of the political discourse, and I think that favors Dems in the swing states.
Basically my read.
Yes, it actually doesn't have to do with anything. A true filibuster isn't going to come up -- McConnell just won't bring a vote, and neither will the committee. But Graham is saying because of that rule change all bets are off and its okay to block a SCOTUS nominee
Remains to be seen. Besides there is nothing anyone can do to stop them from blocking the vote. I don't think they care because they know this boils down to the Presidential election which ultimately overshadows congressional shenanigans especially to Joe Dumbshit Voter.
Btw if Hillary wins she will carry the Senate into D majority status again. The map for the Senate is stacked against the GOP
There's no guarantee that the nominee will be confirmed, that's true. But a rejection of actually hearing a nominee until the next president is elected before the nominee even exists is the height of partisan insanity.
No, but if a nominee is qualified enough they'll look like super huge assholes blocking him/her and it'll do a huge amount of damage to them politically. If Obama makes the right pick they'll have no choice to confirm or risk killing their presidential nominee before they even get chosen.
They'll look like gigantic assholes and kill their nominee if they try this. It will literally accomplish nothing they want it to.
I mean it would have been "ok" before. It's largely irrelevant, but I guess they have to frame it somehow.
Macho Madness
Member
But refusing to even hear a potential nominee? You know that's essentially unprecedented. They have the right to confirm a nominee, not reject that they confirm a nomination at all.
So then.. you could see how automatically ruling-out the possibility of confirmation before any specific potential nominees are floated might look bad?
It's one thing to say: "no confirmation, period. No matter whom you nominate. It isn't happening."
It's another to say: "we have to exercise our judgment on a nominee before making a decision of whether to consent or not."
Officerrob
Banned
Their "independent" judgment is to reject who he nominates before he even nominates them
Coriolanus
Banned
Ah. i think i see the narrative angle the turtle will go for.
Yes, democrats voted for bams in 2012, so that the man could appoint a judge.
But voters also gave republicans a senate majority in 2014, so that they could counter his perceived excesses.
tbh it's a good point. I mean, it's fuckery of the highest order and i do agree that he should settle for a moderate, but i can't say that he doesn't have a good counter to the 2012 bit available to him.
Obv flat-out saying that they'll reject everybody, as mitch implied, is just stupid.
Yes, democrats voted for bams in 2012, so that the man could appoint a judge.
But voters also gave republicans a senate majority in 2014, so that they could counter his perceived excesses.
tbh it's a good point. I mean, it's fuckery of the highest order and i do agree that he should settle for a moderate, but i can't say that he doesn't have a good counter to the 2012 bit available to him.
Obv flat-out saying that they'll reject everybody, as mitch implied, is just stupid.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Technically the Senate can refuse to ever confirm someone to the Supreme Court just like Congress can technically never pass a law and the President can technically always veto every bill. The constitution assumes a certain level of participation in order for a functioning democracy to exist.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked