• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama Nominates Merrick Garland for SCOTUS

MysteryMen said:
I'm sorry, maybe I'm forgetting history, but pretty sure after Bork was rejected they confirmed Anthony Kennedy (97-0), who was also nominated by Reagan, correct?

So that's not even close to a case of categorically refusing to confirm anyone because they did confirm somebody, just not Reagan's first choice. There is no parallel to what is going on now
Click to expand...

I'm confident that Obama could come up with someone the republican senate would confirm.
 
Junebug said:
Robert Bork says hello.

He wasn't not confirmed because Reagan nominated him. He was not confirmed because libs didn't like his ideology.

Turnabout, if it comes, will be fair play.
Click to expand...

Yeah except they then turned around and confirmed a more moderate Anthony Kennedy. Bork's involvement in Watergate certainly didn't help his cause and he was far to the right.

No one would get that up in arms if the Senate voted down a liberal justice after thorough debate and forced Obama to nominate a more moderate justice.

Comparing Bork to a potential 11 month refusal to hold hearings or a vote on any nominee is a stretch.
 
I think the form that "advise and consent" can take is an interesting ideological discussion. If I were in the Senate and the opposing party's president nominated someone, I would personally base my vote on whether the person nominated was qualified for the position. I do not personally believe it is the Senate's job to evaluate if they agree with the views that the person has on certain topics/issues but rather is to make sure someone who is not unqualified for the job gets the position.
 
Come on BSF4L, the libs borked Bork at least in part because they had let Scalia through. The Borking was pretty ugly. These things happen in politics, and I think that the majority Republicans in the Senate are preparing to do just that bork Obama's nominee. The key factor was and is not doing the right thing but preventing the other side from controlling the court. That was and is politics, whether we like it or not.
 
Junebug said:
I'm confident that Obama could come up with someone the republican senate would confirm.
Click to expand...

I would wager a considerable amount that this is not the case. It's not just protecting the court, it's also continuing to kill the strawman that is "Obama is a dictator who cannot be trusted." The GOP spent years building the case for "Obama as dictator" up and they're not going to just let a little something like a Supreme Court vacancy get in the way of that.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I think the form that "advise and consent" can take is an interesting ideological discussion. If I were in the Senate and the opposing party's president nominated someone, I would personally base my vote on whether the person nominated was qualified for the position. I do not personally believe it is the Senate's job to evaluate if they agree with the views that the person has on certain topics/issues but rather is to make sure someone who is not unqualified for the job gets the position.
Click to expand...

Google "Robert Bork."
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Republicans have spent decades complaining about what they see as an injustice done to Bork and how wrong it was. So you do the exact same injustice you accuse the Dems of and are fine with it? And it wasn't because of Reagan that he was denied (Reagan had other justices approved), it was because of Bork.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If it comes to that -- and, in my mind, that will depend on who the nominee is -- losing the moral high ground is a small price to pay to keep the country from lurching left.

Again, turnabout is fair play.
 
RChildress107 said:
Yeah except they then turned around and confirmed a more moderate Anthony Kennedy. Bork's involvement in Watergate certainly didn't help his cause and he was far to the right.

No one would get that up in arms if the Senate voted down a liberal justice after thorough debate and forced Obama to nominate a more moderate justice.

Comparing Bork to a potential 11 month refusal to hold hearings or a vote on any nominee is a stretch.
Click to expand...

I mean, sweet Jesus. The Bork hearings were among the most obstructionist acts in this history of bicameral governance. Flat out voted a supremely qualified candidate down strictly for his views, without apology. GTFOH.
 
Junebug said:
Absolutely. If it comes to that -- and, in my mind, that will depend on who the nominee is -- losing the moral high ground is a small price to pay to keep the country from lurching left.

Again, turnabout is fair play.
Click to expand...

So you would agree that the Senate should have an up or down vote on whoever Obama nominates and only vote down the nominee if he/she is unqualified or far to the left?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Google "Robert Bork."
Click to expand...

I know all about the Bork issue. My post was not intended to be a defense of one side or the other - it was just my opinion that I believe the Senate's job (run by Democrats or Republicans) is to confirm if qualified. I think others can disagree.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I mean, sweet Jesus. The Bork hearings were among the most obstructionist acts in this history of bicameral governance. Flat out voted a supremely qualified candidate down strictly for his views, without apology. GTFOH.
Click to expand...

I never said otherwise, in fact I said he was voted down for being too far to the right. Point was he got a vote, got rejected, and then the Senate turned around and appointed a conservative nominee. Far cry from flat out refusing to vote on any nominee for 11 months.
 
RChildress107 said:
I never said otherwise, in fact I said he was voted down for being too far to the right. Point was he got a vote, got rejected, and then the Senate turned around and appointed a conservative nominee. Far cry from flat out refusing to vote on any nominee for 11 months.
Click to expand...

Not really. FTR, I don't think that the Senate should obstruct a nomination; I think he or she should get an up or down vote. Vetoing a choice on ideological grounds and not holding a vote at all both usurp authority.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Not really. FTR, I don't think that the Senate should obstruct a nomination; I think he or she should get an up or down vote. Vetoing a choice on ideological grounds and not holding a vote at all both usurp authority.
Click to expand...

You really can't see the tremendous difference between "You can pick anyone but him" vs. "You can't pick anyone"?
 
Republicans shouldn't get too worked up about Obama replacing Scalia. If the Republicans win the Presidency, they will likely replace Ginsberg, and balance will be restored. If the Democrats win the Presidency, then it won't make a difference whether Obama replaced Scalia or if his successor does, from the Republicans' perspective.
 
demondeacfreak said:
Republicans shouldn't get too worked up about Obama replacing Scalia. If the Republicans win the Presidency, they will likely replace Ginsberg, and balance will be restored. If the Democrats win the Presidency, then it won't make a difference whether Obama replaced Scalia or if his successor does, from the Republicans' perspective.
Click to expand...

Unless they think they will win, and Trump gets to pick two justices. That would be YUUGE.
 
RChildress107 said:
So you would agree that the Senate should have an up or down vote on whoever Obama nominates and only vote down the nominee if he/she is unqualified or far to the left?
Click to expand...

I have already said on this thread that I'm still thinking about the issue, but I'm leaning toward the view that an up or down vote should occur. If it does, no one should vote no just because Obama was the nominater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top