Mitch McConnell Says Americans Won’t Tolerate Dems Blocking Supreme Court Nomination

[*wildcats forever*]

(01-06-2017, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can we make the Mexicans pay for it?

No, now the plan is we pay for it, and then have them repay us. Much more "expedient" 

[Griever]

(01-06-2017, 02:17 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: No, now the plan is we pay for it, and then have them repay us. Much more "expedient" 

so does that mean we will all be reimbursed, since this will make our taxes go up?

[GMDino]

(01-06-2017, 02:30 PM)Griever Wrote: so does that mean we will all be reimbursed, since this will make our taxes go up?

Not everyone will have their taxes go up.

The "job creators" need another cut to start creating those jobs.

[BigPapaKain]

(01-06-2017, 01:21 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: We do put up with it. Have been for 8 years.

Man if you think it's only been 8 years of this nonsense do I have some bad news for you.

[CageTheBengal]

(01-06-2017, 05:02 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Man if you think it's only been 8 years of this nonsense do I have some bad news for you.

Why do you think Americans put up with it for so long?

[BigPapaKain]

(01-06-2017, 05:29 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Why do you think Americans put up with it for so long?

As a whole they're idiots.

[THE Bigzoman]

(01-05-2017, 02:31 AM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Just because the Republicans blocked Obamas nomination doesn't justify the Dems doing the same. It's not what's best for the country.

I just wish people would remember how they were mainly obstructionist throughout Obama's term and make them pay the price. That's the only way to leave a mark and let politicians know that being obstructionist will not be tolerated. Too bad Americans attentions spans and priorities are out of whack.

No, it totally justifies it.


Republican obstruction in Congress was just shitty. Voters haven't just kept them in power after doing so; they handed republicans more power at the state and federal level than they've ever had in the last  90 years. Independents are okay with it, and partisan voters are definitely okay with it as well.

Democrats have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by taking the moral high ground here.  Roe V Wade won't be safe and secure if Republicans have their way with the supreme court.


Obstruct away. I don't blame them at all.

[CageTheBengal]

(01-07-2017, 11:38 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: No, it totally justifies it.


Republican obstruction in Congress was just shitty. Voters haven't just kept them in power after doing so; they handed republicans more power at the state and federal level than they've ever had in the last  90 years. Independents are okay with it, and partisan voters are definitely okay with it as well.

Democrats have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by taking the moral high ground here.  Roe V Wade won't be safe and secure if Republicans have their way with the supreme court.


Obstruct away. I don't blame them at all.

I get what you're saying Trump is gonna try to do some bat shit crazy moves but I'm thinking about the big picture. The red vs blue war needs to end. It's just making people more and more extreme rather than finding a middle ground. The more this happens the less people care about real issues and policies and it's just emotion on full blast. If the Democrats don't take the high road we are setting a new low on both sides of the aisles and we have 2 crippling parties. Let the Republicans wallow in their mud Trump will blow up in their face eventually.

[GMDino]

And now...more hypocrisy from Mitch:


https://thinkprogress.org/mitch-mcconnell-confirmation-ethics-hypocrisy-2c75b671d694#.l18onnd29

Quote:Mitch McConnell ignoring cabinet confirmation procedure he demanded in 2009


Letter shows he demanded full ‘financial disclosures’ before hearings.


Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), back in 2009 when he wanted ‘fair and consistent application’ of confirmation rules. CREDIT: AP Photo/Harry Hamburg
[/url]
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate plans to rush forward this week with confirmation hearings for many of Donald Trump’s nominees for cabinet and other key executive positions. Though many of the picks [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/us/politics/senate-confirmation-hearings-background-checks.html?_r=0]have not yet completed the customarily required ethics clearances and background checks, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has shown no willingness to delay.

“They’ve made pretty clear they intend to slow down and resist and that doesn’t provide a lot of incentive or demonstrate good faith to negotiate changes. So I think we’re going to just be plowing ahead,” his deputy, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) told Politico.

But back in 2009, McConnell took the exact opposite view. A letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), posted on Twitter by Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington co-founder and former Obama administration ethics adviser Norm Eisen on Sunday, shows he demanded that “financial disclosures must be complete” before any confirmation hearings be scheduled.

Mitch McConnell to Reid in 2009: nominee "financial disclosures must be complete... prior 2hearing being scheduled." pic.twitter.com/wxCfXTPS6g

— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) January 8, 2017

In his letter, McConnell wrote that his party’s duty to “conduct the appropriate review” of presidential nominations, “consistent with the long standing and best practices of committees, regardless of which party is in the majority,” was one it took seriously. “These best practices serve the Senate well,” he added, “and we will insist on their fair and consistent application.” The then-Senate Minority Leader called the financial disclosure process and other ethical steps essential “to fairly review a nominee’s record and to make an informed decision prior to a vote.”

This is not the first time since Trump’s November victory that McConnell has completely reversed himself on the senate’s “advise and consent” process. After refusing to even allow a confirmation hearing for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland for nearly a year — the longest delay in American history — and refusing to commit to allowing a confirmation vote even if Hillary Clinton won, McConnell said on Wednesday that “the American people simply will not tolerate” it if Democrats refuse to confirm a Trump Supreme Court nominee.

On Sunday morning, McConnell said on Face the Nation that Democrats should stop making “procedural complaints” and “grow up.”

[BmorePat87]

(01-07-2017, 11:38 AM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: No, it totally justifies it.


Republican obstruction in Congress was just shitty. Voters haven't just kept them in power after doing so; they handed republicans more power at the state and federal level than they've ever had in the last  90 years. Independents are okay with it, and partisan voters are definitely okay with it as well.

Democrats have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by taking the moral high ground here.  Roe V Wade won't be safe and secure if Republicans have their way with the supreme court.


Obstruct away. I don't blame them at all.

In terms of representation in Congress, Republicans have actually loss power since they begun their obstructionist tactics. Not enough to lose a majority, but a loss none the less. 

They did gain ground in terms of the Presidency. They had 5 million  less votes than the Democrats in 2012 but only 3 million less votes in 2016, which apparently was enough of a deficit to still win the Electoral College. I don't think this outlier of an election is enough to suggest that their tactics worked. 

I'd wait and see how they respond these next two years. Obama did get a decent amount of policy through. If they can reverse it now, I'd call it successful.

[GreenDragon]

The Rep's being upset about the Dems not voting for any SCOTUS picks by Trump is just hilarious.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-09-2017, 11:47 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: The Rep's being upset about the Dems not voting for any SCOTUS picks by Trump is just hilarious.

I doubt they are upset. They just need to pretend to be upset on TV sound bites until the next election to get the voters upset at the Democrats. 

I this day and age, politics isn't about what have you done for me lately. But. blaming the other guy for not doing anything for me lately. It may have always been that way, but I'm just more aware of it. 

[Rotobeast]

(01-10-2017, 12:29 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I doubt they are upset. They just need to pretend to be upset on TV sound bites until the next election to get the voters upset at the Democrats. 

I this day and age, politics isn't about what have you done for me lately. But. blaming the other guy for not doing anything for me lately. It may have always been that way, but I'm just more aware of it. 

Mitch better get to worrying about his own party splitting.

[Belsnickel]

Are the officials that were in favor of keeping an 8 Justice bench still advocating for that? I seem to remember some officials on the right advocating for that.

[Rotobeast]

(01-10-2017, 04:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Are the officials that were in favor of keeping an 8 Justice bench still advocating for that? I seem to remember some officials on the right advocating for that.

Is there an option for that, or is the number of justices mandated ?
If we did roll with 8, how would the tie-breaker work ?
I vote for an actual (physical) tug-of-war.

[Belsnickel]

(01-10-2017, 04:15 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Is there an option for that, or is the number of justices mandated ?
If we did roll with 8, how would the tie-breaker work ?
I vote for an actual (physical) tug-of-war.

We can keep the court at 8, not an issue, really. The number is statutory law, so determined by Congress.

I vote for beer pong. Notorious RBG would win every time.

[Rotobeast]

(01-10-2017, 04:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I vote for beer pong. Notorious RBG would win every time.

That would be some good tv, right there !

[Belsnickel]

(01-10-2017, 04:31 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: That would be some good tv, right there !

Well, no one really knows what goes on in the room where the voting actually take place.



This is where it all goes down, and when they are talking the cases out and making their decisions, no one other than the justices themselves are allowed in. So who knows?

[*bfine32*]

(01-10-2017, 04:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, no one really knows what goes on in the room where the voting actually take place.



This is where it all goes down, and when they are talking the cases out and making their decisions,no one other than the justices themselves are allowed in. So who knows?

Well if I had to sit in the middle of the 4 chair side; I'd be pushing for only 8, seems kind of crowded. Didn't they learn anything from King Arthur?

[Belsnickel]

(01-10-2017, 05:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well if I had to sit in the middle of the 4 chair side; I'd be pushing for only 8, seems kind of crowded. Didn't they learn anything from King Arthur?

Yeah, but that was based on a table of equals. The SCOTUS is anything but. The rumor is that at one end, is the chair for the CJ, the other end is the most junior member. The most junior member has to fetch refreshments, books, etc., for the other justices. At least, this is based on previous courts. The Roberts court may not be quite as much like a fraternity.