Posted on Feb 17, 2016
Obama's Only Weapon In Supreme Court Fight Is Public Shaming
1.67K
22
20
4
4
0
WASHINGTON -- As the White House and allied Democrats begin a high-stakes push to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, they are coping with a major hurdle: they have little to no leverage over Republicans.
The process for replacing a justice on the court is supposed to be simple. The Constitution gives the president the authority to make a nomination, and gives the Senate the power to advise and consent. When there have been vacancies in the past, things have proceeded in a straightforward way. A name is offered up and the Senate Judiciary Committee receives it, holds hearings and votes on it. Presuming the nomination passes through the committee, it goes to the full chamber. Though the nominee could be subjected to a filibuster, in which 60 votes are required for confirmation, that's really only happened once, and whether it was technically a filibuster remains in dispute.
The process for replacing a justice on the court is supposed to be simple. The Constitution gives the president the authority to make a nomination, and gives the Senate the power to advise and consent. When there have been vacancies in the past, things have proceeded in a straightforward way. A name is offered up and the Senate Judiciary Committee receives it, holds hearings and votes on it. Presuming the nomination passes through the committee, it goes to the full chamber. Though the nominee could be subjected to a filibuster, in which 60 votes are required for confirmation, that's really only happened once, and whether it was technically a filibuster remains in dispute.
Obama's Only Weapon In Supreme Court Fight Is Public Shaming
Posted from huffingtonpost.com
Supreme Court
Barack Obama
Republicans
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 8
4
4
0
Ha! He should nominate ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wish that ALL poloticians would just put America first, not their pocket stuffing campaign contributors.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
SGT (Join to see)
That's why they're called politicians COL Charles Williams. It's like why crooks are called stupid. Because they are.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Democrats filibustered (to include, then, Senator Obama) against President George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominee; so please, tell me what makes today's situation any different.
In the words of President Obama... "Elections have consequences", last I looked the republicans are in the senate majority and will act no different than did the democrats during President Bush's terms.
In the words of President Obama... "Elections have consequences", last I looked the republicans are in the senate majority and will act no different than did the democrats during President Bush's terms.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
The difference is when you have to actually vote on something, there is a record of that vote forever and the American people can see that and decide what it means to them. The repubs now are trying to avoid any accountability for their actions by not actually taking any votes. That way the voters this fall can't see who would have voted to obstruct and who wouldn't. And that's exactly what the repubs want. Obstruction with plausible deniability at the individual level. They don't want to have to look their constituents in the eye and explain where in the constitution it states that presidents can't nominate and the senate shouldn't offer advice and consent on supreme court nominees in the last year of a president's term.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"Democrats filibustered (to include, then, Senator Obama) against President George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominee; so please, tell me what makes today's situation any different."
It is one thing to filibuster. It is another to say, "F#$#k you, we refuse to conduct the people's business."
Walt
It is one thing to filibuster. It is another to say, "F#$#k you, we refuse to conduct the people's business."
Walt
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
The difference is it was Dems and it was ok then. Now its the GOP and wow its so different now. Just like if they changed the voting rules in the Senate the Dems would freak yet Ole Harry Reed di it and that was suppose to be fine.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google