Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NHprogressive

(56 posts)
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 10:20 AM Mar 2016

Americans say by 2-to-1 that Senate should hold hearings on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee

Source: Washington Post

The Supreme Court confirmation battle has become intensely partisan, so the numbers break down somewhat along partisan lines. But it's notable that by a margin of nearly 2-to-1, independents side with Democrats on this. Among independents, 62 percent say the Senate should hold hearings, while 32 percent say the Senate should not. And even Republicans are pretty evenly split.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/americans-say-2-to-1-that-senate-should-hold-hearings-on-obamas-supreme-court-nominee/?postshare=6981457700941229&tid=ss_tw



Let's get to it. That vacancy needs to be filled speedily. Let the republicans own their obstructionist crap, oppose a functional Supreme Court, and eat the consequences.
35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Americans say by 2-to-1 that Senate should hold hearings on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee (Original Post) NHprogressive Mar 2016 OP
In a democracy, that's what would happen. dchill Mar 2016 #1
Has the President picked a nominee? nm rhett o rick Mar 2016 #2
I am looking forward to his nominee, NHprogressive Mar 2016 #3
The discussion is moot if he doesn't choose a nominee. nm rhett o rick Mar 2016 #6
You're obviously right, but I'm not sure I'm catching your meaning: NHprogressive Mar 2016 #7
Quite the contrary, I think he should nominate someone soon. The longer he waits the rhett o rick Mar 2016 #9
Ah. Got it. NHprogressive Mar 2016 #19
Yes, he needs to do that, pronto! mountain grammy Mar 2016 #4
Oh, he shall. He SHALL! sofa king Mar 2016 #12
I heard he is considering a Hispanic Female Republican and will reveal just before the election. nm rhett o rick Mar 2016 #13
It's possible. sofa king Mar 2016 #16
Dysfunction Junction......................................... turbinetree Mar 2016 #5
The GOP senate needs to do their job Gothmog Mar 2016 #8
This message was self-deleted by its author Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2016 #10
I say let 'em be dicks, and destroy them for it. sofa king Mar 2016 #11
Absolutely. Obama gets his pick and the Senate can't sit on their hands and wait it out. CTyankee Mar 2016 #14
I think nominees can be resubmitted, too. sofa king Mar 2016 #21
Amen. n/t NHprogressive Mar 2016 #20
but the Republican Senate does not represent 2/3 of Americans maxsolomon Mar 2016 #15
A big HELL YEAH! Reagan did it. Dont call me Shirley Mar 2016 #17
I want hom to nominate Sandra Day O'Connor FreedomRain Mar 2016 #18
GIVE'EM HELL PRESIDENT OBAMA! davidpdx Mar 2016 #22
So what will the political-cost be to the Republicans? n/t PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #23
As if what we think matters in this system nt LiberalElite Mar 2016 #24
US Senators are required to take the Oath of Office, I don't understand why they get a pass. n/t Umbral18 Mar 2016 #25
They swear to uphold the Constitution, then ignore it and say they're following it, clear? LastLiberal in PalmSprings Mar 2016 #26
Not worried in the least Mr. Brutus Mar 2016 #27
Come on, do you really think they care what the American people want ! Get real ! Cosmic Dancer Mar 2016 #28
Clearly the R's believe they're on the verge of oblivion unflapped Mar 2016 #29
Above all else Rethugs fear Primary Challenges, they will never hold a hearing. kairos12 Mar 2016 #30
Republicans don't care what Americans think and they're controlling it. Vinca Mar 2016 #31
Americans, phffft. Who cares what they want? When they can buy elections, the assholes valerief Mar 2016 #32
Sign Elizabeth Warren's Petition: Senate Republicans Do Your Job & Vote on Supreme Court Nominee red dog 1 Mar 2016 #33
Looking good that Pres. Sanders will be leading the charge to fill the vacancy. /nt NCjack Mar 2016 #34
So, one in three don't understand the Constitution, I guess. spooky3 Mar 2016 #35

NHprogressive

(56 posts)
3. I am looking forward to his nominee,
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 10:49 AM
Mar 2016

and glad that the people are behind the nomination process going ahead.

NHprogressive

(56 posts)
7. You're obviously right, but I'm not sure I'm catching your meaning:
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 11:35 AM
Mar 2016

are you saying that you don't think he should nominate someone?

I hope that he does, as it would force to the republicans to look like the idiots they would be if they were to keep the court empty for an unprecedented length of time, especially given the margins of support indicated in the article.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
9. Quite the contrary, I think he should nominate someone soon. The longer he waits the
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 03:53 PM
Mar 2016

shorter time for them to stall.

mountain grammy

(26,591 posts)
4. Yes, he needs to do that, pronto!
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 11:01 AM
Mar 2016

Just throwing out names isn't helping the cause, but why would anyone want to face that pack of hyenas, and I do apologize to hyenas everywhere.

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
12. Oh, he shall. He SHALL!
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 05:44 PM
Mar 2016

Don't think for a moment that the former senior lecturer on Constitutional law has failed to notice that the Constitution (Article II, Section 2) does not give him a choice in the matter:

... and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court...

The Senate is free to obstruct by not consenting to the nominee, but the President is not given any leeway in the matter. He SHALL nominate someone, and "shall" is not a discretionary word.

However, there is no time limit, so it may be to the President's advantage to let the Republicans play out enough rope over the matter that it hangs 'em in November. Then he can present his nominee to the new (hopefully Democratically-controlled) Senate in January.

This sort of move, using his opponents' vile behavior to win advantages for himself, is President Obama's trademark move, and I expect him to do it, or something more clever than I can envision.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
13. I heard he is considering a Hispanic Female Republican and will reveal just before the election. nm
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 05:49 PM
Mar 2016

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
16. It's possible.
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 06:07 PM
Mar 2016

It's possible that the President plans to nominate one or more "red herring" candidates sooner than that, too. Nominating a Republican would be a classic Hobson's choice for the GOP and guaranteed to harm them no matter what they do.

If they refuse to hold hearings on the Republican nominee, Republican voters are disgusted and may stay home on election day, or jump the fence.

If they do hold hearings and, God forbid, the nominee is favorably recommended to the Senate, some hayseed who isn't up for reelection for five years is guaranteed to filibuster it and keep even more voters at home.

That's a dangerous game, though, because if they pull it together and approve the nominee we get screwed. But really, when is the last time 50-plus Republicans demonstrated competence of any sort? I'd bet every penny I don't have on them f^%$ing it up.

turbinetree

(24,679 posts)
5. Dysfunction Junction.........................................
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 11:26 AM
Mar 2016

and the right wing senators that have speaking out of both sides of there partisans mouth are going to lose there seats (6 0f them this coming November) .

You, Grassely have been a six term hypocrite, yes, six term (36 year and just think of the tenure benefits that we the taxpayers are going to be footing , if and when you retire) right wing by the name of Crassly should be voted out of office, six terms what has he really done, and what has he doing exactly what in selling his state to the chinese, and the water pollution from farming needs, to be asked on his leadership abilities, some rivers have so much agriculture pollution that the water is undrinkable

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00001758&type=I

Just think and sit back Grassley, because for your enjoyment let's watch and listen to what you are doing to get paid a lot of money for to represent the Constitution and not doing anything because you are so worried that a court that has been rigged for over thirty-five years spewing out a right wing agenda and propaganda may finally be coming to a close-----------------------and YES, the American Public wants change-------------a big one


So in closing, enjoy this great piece of how you and your cronies show's how you are really a failure when it comes to upholding and doing your job, and for thirty-six years this is what you have been doing, while hiding in the weeds of partisanship rhetoric-----------------which you swore you were to do and defend the Constitution................while ripping off the taxpayers everyday.......................





https://t.freespeech.org/video/elizabeth-warren-gop-senate-want-stop-extremism-do-your-job-confirm-scotus-nominee



Honk------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

Response to NHprogressive (Original post)

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
11. I say let 'em be dicks, and destroy them for it.
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 05:28 PM
Mar 2016

There is a 17 day overlap in January, 2017 between President Obama's term and the new 115th Congress. So let the GOP do what they do best and be dicks, kick 'em the hell out, win the Senate back, touch off the nuclear option for Supreme Court nominees, and approve President Obama's nomination in January, 2017.

In the meantime, we get to F the conservatives in the A all year, because they deliberately granted cert to a giant raft of shitty cases that Scalia was going to use to legislate from the bench. Now, ties in the Supreme Court default to the winner in the Court of Appeals, but does not set a precedent, so we get to kill the conservative position now AND THEN kill them forever with Obama's and Sanders'/Clinton's nominees.

They obstruct, we nullify the right wing judicial agenda, they give us the Senate, we get our nominee, then nail the coffin shut on Ronald Reagan's evil legacy forever. And all we have to do is let them be their racist idiot selves for another nine months.

CTyankee

(63,860 posts)
14. Absolutely. Obama gets his pick and the Senate can't sit on their hands and wait it out.
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 05:50 PM
Mar 2016

Since the people are with Obama and the rest of the Dems on this they will either applaud it or quietly agree. When the huzzah is over and done we Dems come out just fine. I'm sure Obama will pick an eminently qualified person for the Court.

Let 'em be assholes. They'll deserve the scorn they'll get...

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
21. I think nominees can be resubmitted, too.
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 09:04 PM
Mar 2016

I'm not 100% on that, but I'm pretty sure that when the reset button is pushed in January, 2017, any nominee who was rejected or otherwise not approved can be resubmitted.

It permits the President to play an extremely not-lame duck role in this election. The President can pick an extremely qualified candidate, let the Republicans refuse to hold hearings, mention the refusal at every press conference, and begin to make a couple dozen Senatorial elections turn on the idea that no matter who's running for President, it's also a mandate for President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

So, to pick a hypothetical example which is totally not going to happen because we are all adults, if one of the Democratic candidates somehow doesn't get the nomination and the other candidate is unpalateable to a particular voter and that voter unwisely decides not to participate in the Presidential election, that voter may still have an interest in unseating his or her Senator, see?

And that puts that hypothetical person in the booth, and unless that hypothetical person is insane, that person will think really damned hard about voting against Donald Trump.... And that person can tell all of DU that he or she was only there to cut the rope on that person's Senator. And nobody will ever know! Hypothetically, that is.

I just know someone is going to take it personally, but I swear I'm not trying to single any one of you out in the hypothetical example above. Oh no, I am singling all of you out, hahahaha!

maxsolomon

(33,199 posts)
15. but the Republican Senate does not represent 2/3 of Americans
Fri Mar 11, 2016, 06:01 PM
Mar 2016

the populations of the states that put the GOP in power in the Senate are probably 1/3 of America.

so, essentially, they don't care what we think about it. if they can't block this nominee until Cruz is installed, this is the end of the Conservative SCOTUS, and they know it.

unflapped

(18 posts)
29. Clearly the R's believe they're on the verge of oblivion
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 10:50 AM
Mar 2016

The pattern is clear here and it is resulting in the death of the Republican Party.

The day Scalia died McConnell acted fast to announce his strategy. Sen. Grassley, whose judiciary committee would hold the Supreme Court hearings, initially said he'd wait to see what happens with Obama's pick and seemed open to holding hearings. That tune changed one day later. It would seem that McConnell got to him as soon as he opened his mouth, and suddenly Grassley was all about not holding hearings.

Then Gov. Sandoval's name was floated as a possible nominee, and he was quoted as seeming open to it and honored, although noncommittal. Within 24 hours he pulled his name from consideration. Again, what changed? I'll tell you what changed, McConnell got to him!

McConnell has a theory: if he lets the Democrats do what they want to do - EVER - then they'll improve this country so much for so many that Republicans will never win another election. Better to risk looking obstructionist than to lose the war for the next generation, he figures.

But why? Why does McConnell care so much? Is it because he cares about the issues? Is it because he cares about humanity? No. It's simple: he is competitive and doesn't like to lose. Period. End of story.

As Obama said the other day, this is bad for everyone. America needs a strong, rational Republican Party. Two parties isn't enough. Now there's really only one. That's a huge risk for democracy, even if the one surviving party is the better of the two.

valerief

(53,235 posts)
32. Americans, phffft. Who cares what they want? When they can buy elections, the assholes
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 02:12 PM
Mar 2016

in office will listen.



Of course, we pesky Americans are trying our damnedest now to buy Bernie a seat in the White House!!!!

red dog 1

(27,731 posts)
33. Sign Elizabeth Warren's Petition: Senate Republicans Do Your Job & Vote on Supreme Court Nominee
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 04:21 PM
Mar 2016

Sign Elizabeth Warren's petition:
"Senate Republicans Do Your Job:and Vote on President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee"
http://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign/warrensupremecourt

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Americans say by 2-to-1 t...