General Discussion

CommonSenseDemocrat

(377 posts)

79. They're not going freestyle, but Obama should not have taken recess appointments off the table

Reply to Orrex (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 16, 2016, 10:12 AM

Feb 2016

This is a poker game and we shouldn't unilaterally disarm.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee [View all] yeoman6987 Feb 2016 OP

Regardless, Chuck & Mitch (Chitch? Muck?) don't get to freestyle the Constitution Orrex Feb 2016 #1

That's true. yeoman6987 Feb 2016 #54

They're not going freestyle, but Obama should not have taken recess appointments off the table CommonSenseDemocrat Feb 2016 #79

I doubt the senate would take any official recesses if recess appointments were on the table NobodyHere Feb 2016 #86

They are currently in a recess CommonSenseDemocrat Feb 2016 #92

Umm, because he's a buffoon? tularetom Feb 2016 #2

Figures you would post this. In context he said that Bush's nominee would have to show that they blm Feb 2016 #3

Yeah, really. The OP is soooo concerned. Arugula Latte Feb 2016 #8

Yup ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2016 #48

Definitely a pattern. nt laundry_queen Feb 2016 #60

and your point is? hfojvt Feb 2016 #55

That's not what GOP's are saying, is it? They are saying NO - period. No ifs or buts about it. The blm Feb 2016 #62

so you are going to pretend you don't know what they mean? hfojvt Feb 2016 #63

Both sides are NOT clearly doing it. Schumer is talking about the DISHONEST approach blm Feb 2016 #69

refuse to see it, then? hfojvt Feb 2016 #70

Schumer is NOT the majority leader of the Senate ... GeorgeGist Feb 2016 #72

You peddle baloney. Schumer also said extraordinary circumstances - a death would qualify. blm Feb 2016 #85

Robert has not turned out to be so bad treestar Feb 2016 #80

Roberts saved Obamacare Reter Feb 2016 #82

However, no nominee was actually blocked. DCBob Feb 2016 #4

Precisely! Obama has every right to appoint whomever the fuck he wants! InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2016 #11

He does, but the Senate has every right to refuse to confirm if they object. Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #50

Actually, none of this surprises me. Hypocrisy abounds. razorman Feb 2016 #59

I'd like to see the repugs try to reject his nomination if it's a Latino/Latina candidate brush Feb 2016 #77

Perhaps. But I'm not so sure. Since the Latin threshold has been passed razorman Feb 2016 #78

What Latin threshold? brush Feb 2016 #89

What I meant was that we already have the first Latin Justice razorman Feb 2016 #90

Okay, that still doesn't negate the resentment that Latino Americans will . . . brush Feb 2016 #91

The key to sanity is considering one's own preference when power is reversed. Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #84

I like that. Hadn't heard it put that way before. razorman Feb 2016 #88

There was no vacancy. former9thward Feb 2016 #67

It's actually not the same thing. What a shock, right? kcr Feb 2016 #68

Do a recess appointment. leveymg Feb 2016 #5

Need a recess for that. onenote Feb 2016 #9

Sounds good to me! ... Famous African American Women for $600 Alex... InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2016 #13

They only last until next session Reter Feb 2016 #83

Were there any SCOTUS Nominations by GWB rejected after July 2007? Xipe Totec Feb 2016 #6

Oh, you alcibiades_mystery Feb 2016 #7

This is one way SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #10

STOP BEING REASONABLE AND LOGICAL!! WillowTree Feb 2016 #41

Really, and then we also need sane judges who will respect the law, so the best result Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #51

Looks like concern trolling from here. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #12

Seriously! InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2016 #14

Some here pine for Reagan and can barely contain themselves now that his last crappy Rex Feb 2016 #75

I often see you complaining about sourcing... TipTok Feb 2016 #93

And another shows up. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #94

Two things. Marr Feb 2016 #15

Exactly. The post has a false premise. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #16

Yep! Blatantly dishonest, imo. blm Feb 2016 #36

Also it's a hit and run post. Would love for OP to defend his position. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #37

The right wing seems all upset. What a shame, eh? Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #17

I don't get the drama over this LittleBlue Feb 2016 #18

Nope. The President will do his job and nominate.. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #19

And the Senate will do their job SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #20

Bullshit, what they are screaming about is not their job. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #22

It's certainly their job to confirm or reject SCOTUS appointments n/t SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #25

Reject before nomination? Don't think so. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #27

Think so SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #31

Where in the Constitution does it say they have to be fair to the nominee? davidn3600 Feb 2016 #44

So we aren't allowed to discuss it? Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #45

He will, but it won't go anywhere unless he nominates someone who leans conservative LittleBlue Feb 2016 #23

Exactly SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #21

Anthony Kennedy. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #26

That's laughable SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #30

Democrats don't act like far right wing republicans. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #33

When it comes to SCOTUS SickOfTheOnePct Feb 2016 #34

Though I keep reading that allegation, I see no consistent evidence supporting it. LanternWaste Feb 2016 #38

Except, it is NOT what was said, is it? Why pretend both sides would do the same? blm Feb 2016 #39

Much as I try not to answer a question with another question....... WillowTree Feb 2016 #49

I agree with you. But there's a good reason for the outrage. Marr Feb 2016 #24

Because our party is more like their party than we care to admit. (eom) HassleCat Feb 2016 #28

Let's see ... given the rest of the FIASCO.... underpants Feb 2016 #29

"except in extraordinary circumstances" Hugin Feb 2016 #32

one guy as opposed to their whole party....pale comparison spanone Feb 2016 #35

we have faith you'll get it right one day LanternWaste Feb 2016 #40

Not too obvious. Behind the Aegis Feb 2016 #42

Here's GOP and Cave hero Reagan (on Anthony Kennedy) in his last year: Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #43

May not be any difference between McConnel and Schumer on this but huge difference between parties hollowdweller Feb 2016 #46

Washington Examiner is not a credible news source meow2u3 Feb 2016 #47

I didn't know it was right wing. Seems everything is now adays. yeoman6987 Feb 2016 #52

I love that story. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #65

What took you so long? lpbk2713 Feb 2016 #53

Hi Yeoman....curious...why are you catching so much heat.... clarice Feb 2016 #56

Thanks. I guess some are bored and need to vent to me. yeoman6987 Feb 2016 #57

I guess. nt clarice Feb 2016 #58

I think some feel the need pintobean Feb 2016 #61

Thank you. yeoman6987 Feb 2016 #64

I like being informed of actual facts that relate to the premise of the post.. Kingofalldems Feb 2016 #66

What an open minded "progressive" attitude. Good on ya mate. nt clarice Feb 2016 #97

Because the only place the quote appears is right-wing websites, and only in the last week. NYC Liberal Feb 2016 #96

58-42 to confirm. Zo Zig Feb 2016 #71

Obama's nominee will be in the mainstream CreekDog Feb 2016 #73

Oh my! Some of you are really worried about us getting a liberal judge on the bench! Rex Feb 2016 #74

Well, he was wrong too. PatrickforO Feb 2016 #76

Seems like a lifetime since we had a Liberal Supreme Court majority. It's the republicans B Calm Feb 2016 #81

It is entertaining watching conservatives crap their pants over the thought of a liberal judge Rex Feb 2016 #87

The ONLY places this quote appears are right-wing websites from the last few days. NYC Liberal Feb 2016 #95