(11-04-2016 12:21 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 10:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Translation- if we don't get our way we're going to just be little babies and not do our job. The obstructionism of the modern republican party is staggering and against everything our democracies should be about.

Uhm.. there is the term 'advise and consent" in the constitution you do know...

You may not like it but the Senate has the right to NOT consent to a choice.

Yes... advise and consent...justices that the president appoints. It doesn't say obstruct, refuse to hold hearings, refuse to consider any judicial candidate the president nominates. It's dereliction of their constitutional duties for the sake of partisan politics. The republican party has become a shadow of the Party of Reagan. No way would the party act like this under his leadership.

(11-04-2016 12:25 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  One of you bearcats should change your usernames. Too much alike and I can't tell which is the good guy (conservative).

I always get them confused on the AAC board. I've called out the wrong guy a number of times. lol

I supposed that you talked with Reagan. Knew the man. Etc.

(11-04-2016 11:05 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 10:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Translation- if we don't get our way we're going to just be little babies and not do our job. The obstructionism of the modern republican party is staggering and against everything our democracies should be about.

Had obstructionism worked healthcare premiums might now be going thru the roof right now.

If they did nothing we'd have the same health care costs issues. Health care costs rising at high levels has been an issue for a couple decades. The parties need to work together to actually address the cost issues (repealing Obamacare would not do that), but it's much better to trash Obamacare than to offer ways to address one of its failings (not adequately addressing rising health care costs)....

(11-04-2016 08:45 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 08:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm in favor of it if Hillary nominates a clearly biased candidate. At that point us that tactic to force her to the middle and nominate another candidate. Hillary would do herself a great favor by not nominating a loon leftist in the first place and instead nominate a moderate constitutionalist that Republicans could live with and not be able to block without looking like hypocrites. It should actually be her first act as POTUS and set a tone portraying herself as Presidential... not a party slave. That would go a long way in healing the country after this horrible campaign debacle. Do I think she will do that? Hell no.

Id suggest Trump also not go off the rails with his first pick either if he is elected..for the same reasons above.

Trump's first pick will be from his published list. They will be a conservative.

I don't have a problem with It being a conservative. My hope is that it would be a moderate, conservative constitutionalist.

(11-04-2016 12:27 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I supposed that you talked with Reagan. Knew the man. Etc.

Not hard to view the way he governed and come to a common sense opinion.

(11-04-2016 12:29 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 12:27 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I supposed that you talked with Reagan. Knew the man. Etc.

Not hard to view the way he governed and come to a common sense opinion.

Ok.

You have your opinion.

(11-04-2016 10:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Translation- if we don't get our way we're going to just be little babies and not do our job. The obstructionism of the modern republican party is staggering and against everything our democracies should be about.

It's obstructionism in order to save America which makes it ok.

(11-04-2016 12:25 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 12:21 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 10:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Translation- if we don't get our way we're going to just be little babies and not do our job. The obstructionism of the modern republican party is staggering and against everything our democracies should be about.

Uhm.. there is the term 'advise and consent" in the constitution you do know...

You may not like it but the Senate has the right to NOT consent to a choice.

Yes... advise and consent...justices that the president appoints. It doesn't say obstruct, refuse to hold hearings, refuse to consider any judicial candidate the president nominates. It's dereliction of their constitutional duties for the sake of partisan politics. The republican party has become a shadow of the Party of Reagan. No way would the party act like this under his leadership.

I agree. Just follow the Constitution and do your jobs.

If either of these horrible people that win the election put forth a radical nutjob as SCOTUS candidate?...They should nixed by Congress. If either of these heinous individuals that win election had any intent of bringing the country together and showing that the REPUBLIC comes before ideology?...they would nominate someone that BOTH sides could not possibly object to being on the court. That of course is what STATESMEN did for decades. We don't have those type people anymore running for POTUS and why we are at this point today. We are in a world of schit.

(11-04-2016 02:55 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 10:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Translation- if we don't get our way we're going to just be little babies and not do our job. The obstructionism of the modern republican party is staggering and against everything our democracies should be about.

It's obstructionism in order to save America which makes it ok.

I get that..but..to deny hearings is a dereliction of Congress's constitutional duty.
Have the hearing and vote the the nominee down on whatever grounds..that is fine. Move on to the next one. That is how it is supposed to work. At some point the POTUS is forced to come to the middle and put forth a candidate that everyone can live with. Honestly...That is what we should want. A SCOTUS that neither gang is really thrilled about but can live with.