Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499107)

Robert Bork should have been-- fuck... slowly eaten alive by cannibals?

Does this clarify my position on that national embarrassment?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499124)

What? If Bush 1 was functionally president in June already, Bush 1 would be president in November. The whole point is that there is no difference in the decision makers between June and November.

There will be a different decision maker after January 20, 2017.

Biden's talking about timing. The GOP senators are talking about who decides.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 499113)

As to the Supreme Court, I am torn on McConnell's response. On one hand, he's in this position and is being forced to make a stand because rank and file Rs are beyond pissed that congressional leadership have been a bunch of pussies. I would much rather have McConnell been willing to fall on the sword for say, Cromnibus or the debt limit, rather than this, and had he done so, he wouldn't look so much like an idiot now. He appears to have gained a lot of courage since Matt Bevin won KY. I think that the Senate should take up the matter and then vote no, if that's what they want to do.

OTOH, the Ds are being exceedingly hypocritical, as always. I cannot be convinced that a Reid-led Senate would have done anything in an R President's last year. Beside the growing number of Ds found on the record as advocating just this sort of thing when the shoe was on the other foot (now Biden), the Ds have a pretty well-established history of not being able to compete a task as simple as passing a budget. They didn't even try. You cannot tell me they would have considered a GWB nominee to replace a liberal justice who kicked the bucket in 2008 (or even the second half of 2007).

As to Trumps ever increasing likelihood of being the GOP nominee, Mr. Chick and I are pulling the plug on Presidential campaign contributions. We are now putting our political donation funds toward Senate Conservatives Fund candidates and Republican governors (and maybe some state AGs). The Senate will be our last fire break against a felon, a socialist, or whatever Donald Trump is.

I spend a lot of time on the primary and research and read the survey responses for each of the multiple nominees even for the justice of the peace candidates. I voted for primary challengers against my congressman and state representative (who both suck). I admit, though that I usually vote straight party in the general election. Not this time. I cast my first vote for President for Bob Dole when I was 20 and for the first time, I will probably vote Libertarian this go round. Heck I would be as likely to vote for Lyndon LaRouche as Trump.

ETA: I will not in any way argue that McConnell is not a liar and a hypocrite as well. I think we can all agree that Mitch McConnell sucks.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499126)

somehow my response to this didn't show up- Ty deletion?

So your "interpretation" is that Biden is saying, "Bush shouldn't nominate until November, cuz lots of us are busy. But come November we will give the nominee full consideration, even if Clinton wins?"

Are you an elaborate Penske sock? Am I whiffing by responding?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499115)

Hypocrisy is in what you believe the Dems would have done? This word, it does not mean what you think it means.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499128)

Not to defend the Joe Biden of 1992, but what is a clear difference between then and now is that then-Majority Leader George Mitchell did flatly state that the Senate would not hold hearings or otherwise act in any way regarding any potential GHWB nominee. Not did Robert Byrd in 1988.

Again, I think that the GOP *can* do this. It just is unseemly and (I think) politically unwise.

And the idea that McConnell's statement is somehow consistent with what the Democratic Party supposedly did to nominees of Reagan, GHWB, or W is transparently disingenuous bullshit.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499130)

you left out a "not" relative to Senator Mitchell?

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499131)

Ok, come on. You don't see a flat refusal by the Majority Leader (supported by GOP members of the Judiciary Committee) to consider *any* nominee as being materially different than one or two Democratic senators - even leading ones like Biden - saying they won't vote for a Reagan/GHWB/W pick? Even with a filibuster threat, it just isn't the same thing.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499131)

You wish me to denounce Bukharin? Why must I denounce Bukharin?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499132)

ummm, didn't he say Bush 1 shouldn't nominate anyone because it would be wrong, and unprecedented, other than 2 presidents that made very wrong decisions? You guys are smarter than me. But I hear him saying that. Can you help me?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499133)

there is a reason the board is dead, and this is another brick in the wall.

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499135)

1. I'd have gone with, "all in all, you're just another brick in the wall." And I am not even that much of a Floyd fan.

2. Kidding aside, the fact that I don't call Adder "brain dead" is hardly a reason the board is dead. Heck, I don't even come here often enough to make GGG's list of which poster supports which candidate. (Not that I'm bitter.)

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499114)

It doesn't say advice or consent. I would love to hear how exactly McConnell's actions are in line with that phrase in your opinion. The flat out refusal to even consider a nominee seems to fly in the face of the actual words and certainly the founders' intent. And we all know how sacred both those principles are to Republicans.

TM

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 499137)

Sorry, it says advise and consent -- but what's the difference? The Constitution requires Senate consent for the President's appointments, and this Senate appears to have decided to withhold consent. I disagree with what you say about the founders' intent -- I'm not sure the founders thought about what would happen in a polarized nation where the Senate simply refuses to give consent. I think you're working too hard to interpret the Constitution as functional -- I think the Constitution allows an untenable impasse. But either way, it's not good.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499140)

I don't really understand why we're still arguing this. You seem to be reading the word, "advise," out of the clause. If you don't read it out of the clause, the Senate needs some type of method of advising. If you think the mechanism is for the Speaker to decide he can close his eyes, hum the Battle Hymn, stick his fingers in his ears, and pretend there isn't even a nominee, then I guess we'll just disagree.