http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/jud...-democrats

If an old timer like Orrin Hatch gets it, maybe the Senate Republicans will quit fooling around with unprecedented Democratic obstructionism.

"...First, obstruction has been offered in the form of what’s called the blue slip. Traditionally, the blue slip process has been used to assure consultation between the White House and home state senators of judicial nominees. Democrats and their grass-roots and media allies, however, are demanding that the blue slip process be used as a single-senator veto. They insist that a single home-state senator be able, at any time and for any reason, to stop a nomination dead in its tracks without any Judiciary Committee consideration at all....

The next obstruction weapon of choice has been completely unnecessary delays on the floor of the Senate. Democrats have done everything they can to slow the procedures necessary to get to a roll call vote. For context, before 2001, only 1 percent of judicial nominees with no opposition were confirmed by a time-consuming roll call vote. Under President George W. Bush, that figure jumped to 56 percent. Before 2001, there had been four filibusters of judicial nominees, and no majority-supported judicial nominee had ever been defeated by a filibuster. Under President George W. Bush, Democrats conducted 20 filibusters and ultimately kept multiple appeals court nominees from being confirmed.

Delays like this continue to this day. In July, we held another unnecessary cloture vote on a district court nominee. After voting 97-0 to end a debate that no one apparently wanted in the first place, Democrats forced us to delay the confirmation vote by two more days. This was the first time in history that a unanimous cloture vote was not followed immediately by a confirmation vote. It could have taken a few hours, but instead took two weeks from the filing of a cloture motion to the final unanimous confirmation vote.

At this point in President Barack Obama’s first year, when Republicans were in the minority, the Senate took cloture votes on fewer than 1 percent of the executive and judicial branch nominees we confirmed. This year, with Democrats in the minority playing confirmation spoiler, the Senate has been forced to take cloture votes on more than 27 percent of the nominees we confirmed. In fact, including those we will take this week, Democrats have forced us to take 51 cloture votes on President Trump’s nominees so far this year. That is seven times as many as during the combined first years of all nine presidents since the cloture rule has applied to nominations....

Last week, the Republicans in the Senate showed that we plan to get this job done, one way or the other."

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH **Deep Breath** HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Republicans calling democrats obstructionist is the funniest thing I’ve ever read.

This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

Harry Reid obstructed more crap than any republican did the whole 8 years your Lord Zero was in office. Nice try at revising history yet again.

(11-08-2017 10:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

Garland? The GOP obstructed a SCOTUS seat, then had the gall to call Trump approving a SCOTUS seat a victory.

(11-08-2017 10:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

Garland? The GOP obstructed a SCOTUS seat, then had the gall to call Trump approving a SCOTUS seat a victory.

And UCF hits kap with a devastating forearm shiver. Kap isn't getting up. I think he's dead folks.

(11-08-2017 10:27 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

Garland? The GOP obstructed a SCOTUS seat, then had the gall to call Trump approving a SCOTUS seat a victory.

And UCF hits kap with a devastating forearm shiver. Kap isn't getting up. I think he's dead folks.

from one example? seriously?

(11-08-2017 09:57 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH **Deep Breath** HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Republicans calling democrats obstructionist is the funniest thing I’ve ever read.

Wow.

Then you need to get out more, clearly.

Sad!

(11-08-2017 10:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

It's no secret that republicans, on day one, vowed to obstruct Obama on everything he did regardless of the policy.

We already established for example that the individual mandate was a republican ideal that Obama supported. When he did that, republicans were suddenly against it.

We also have examples of republicans like John McCain who wrote legislation on immigration reform and then walked away from it when Obama supported aspects of it.

Would you like for me to link that information for you?

(11-08-2017 10:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

Garland? The GOP obstructed a SCOTUS seat, then had the gall to call Trump approving a SCOTUS seat a victory.

Nah, the American electorate pretty much chose that one.

It was a win........ then........ a win.

(11-08-2017 09:57 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH **Deep Breath** HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Republicans calling democrats obstructionist is the funniest thing I’ve ever read.

Obviously, like most Democrats, you are reading challenged. Otherwise you wouldn't be laughing. I even bolded the most extreme part.

(11-08-2017 10:31 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:57 AM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH **Deep Breath** HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Republicans calling democrats obstructionist is the funniest thing I’ve ever read.

Wow.

Then you need to get out more, clearly.

Sad!

Now, THAT was funny!

(11-08-2017 10:27 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

Garland? The GOP obstructed a SCOTUS seat, then had the gall to call Trump approving a SCOTUS seat a victory.

And UCF hits kap with a devastating forearm shiver. Kap isn't getting up. I think he's dead folks.

Thanks for quoting it, otherwise I wouldn't have seen it since I have the dishonest one on ignore. Now I get the opportunity to expose the ignorance of both of you.

The GOP didn't obstruct Garland. The Senate does not have a duty to act at the command of the President.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ee/482733/

Quote:Does the Senate have to hold hearings and a vote on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court? The Constitution says that unless the Senate gives advice and consent Garland cannot be appointed, but it does not require the Senate to do anything in response to the nomination.

The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] 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, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.

Garland wasn't going to be seated even if the Senate held hearings, so the hearings were a waste of time and taxpayer money.

(11-08-2017 10:32 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

It's no secret that republicans, on day one, vowed to obstruct Obama on everything he did regardless of the policy.

We already established for example that the individual mandate was a republican ideal that Obama supported. When he did that, republicans were suddenly against it.

We also have examples of republicans like John McCain who wrote legislation on immigration reform and then walked away from it when Obama supported aspects of it.

Would you like for me to link that information for you?

No, we established that the individual mandate was the ideal of SOME Republicans, and that it was opposed my an equal number. Go on back to the other thread you used that lie in and read the follow-up posts.


And at this point rolling out John McCain as a Republican is laughable. His RINO attributes have been public knowledge for years now.

(11-08-2017 10:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

Garland? The GOP obstructed a SCOTUS seat, then had the gall to call Trump approving a SCOTUS seat a victory.

Nah, the American electorate pretty much chose that one.

It was a win........ then........ a win.

Remember how all the leftists on here were squawking that by not seating Garland there was going to be a tremendous push back against the Republicans on Election Day? And that the dim landslide would allow them to seat somebody who was even more progressive than Garland?

Good times!

(11-08-2017 10:52 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:27 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

Garland? The GOP obstructed a SCOTUS seat, then had the gall to call Trump approving a SCOTUS seat a victory.

And UCF hits kap with a devastating forearm shiver. Kap isn't getting up. I think he's dead folks.

Thanks for quoting it, otherwise I wouldn't have seen it since I have the dishonest one on ignore. Now I get the opportunity to expose the ignorance of both of you.

The GOP didn't obstruct Garland. The Senate does not have a duty to act at the command of the President.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ee/482733/

Quote:Does the Senate have to hold hearings and a vote on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court? The Constitution says that unless the Senate gives advice and consent Garland cannot be appointed, but it does not require the Senate to do anything in response to the nomination.

The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] 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, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.

Garland wasn't going to be seated even if the Senate held hearings, so the hearings were a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Uh huh. So obstructing any discussion on the appointment of a SCOTUS nominee in clear violation of all standard norms and historical precedent, isn't obstructionist because the applicable statute of the constitution grants them that right? Yeah, no sh*t. Not only is that completely irrelevant, no one here was arguing it's constitutionality, what exactly do you think obstructionism is if not disingenuously using the rules and procedures in an intentional attempt to stop an opponent?

Man, years of right wing media outlets have really turned your mind to mush if you think your response somehow helps your claim.

(11-08-2017 10:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

Garland? The GOP obstructed a SCOTUS seat, then had the gall to call Trump approving a SCOTUS seat a victory.

You mean when the GOP did what Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer said was a good idea?

(11-08-2017 11:30 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:23 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 10:06 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  This is where we are in this country now. The republicans obstructed the democrats when Obama was in office and now it's the other way around.

Examples?

Garland? The GOP obstructed a SCOTUS seat, then had the gall to call Trump approving a SCOTUS seat a victory.

You mean when the GOP did what Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer said was a good idea?

And they left it up to the American people. Had Hillary won, any honest Democrat (alright, I know, that is almost impossible to find-and they would be harassed by the party if they were honest-see Diane Feinstein) would admit they knew that her Supreme Court candidate would have been confirmed easily.