Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's like you're Antonin Nino to her Ruth Bader. What a lovely Valentine pair you are!
|
What can I say? SEC_Chick is one of my favorite Imaginary Friends.
Speaking of Justice Scalia, I think that the GOP has made a mistake in making a categorical statement that they will not let a nomination go through before a name is even floated. I understand why the presidential candidates say that; they're all playing to the base to get nominated. But McConnell et al should know better. I think it plays into the Democratic Party's hands for the general election - there's quite a few senate seats in play, and this issue might hurt the GOP in swing states.
I've got no problem with the idea that the GOP-lead Senate can reject a nominee on any grounds they see fit. I just think it plays better when you say something like "we'll wait to see who is nominated and will perform our constitutional duty to advise and consent," and then pick the gal/guy apart during the hearings to show the country why the guy/gal is not fit to serve. (Credit this idea to @dick_nixon on Twitter. Dude is brilliant.)
I've also got no objection to a filibuster of a nominee, although as Slave and I agreed (I think) several years ago, the senate should require a *real* filibuster a la Strom Thurmond and Harry Byrd trying to stop the the Voting Rights Act, not the modern "oh dear, we didn't get 63 votes on this - too bad" version.
Go hard or go home.
