did mcconnell vote for anthony kennedy's nomination during reagan's last year in office?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died.
- Thread starter MARSHALL77
- Start date
did mcconnell vote for anthony kennedy's nomination during reagan's last year in office?
probably. the point here is that they are all hypocrites when it's deemed politically necessary.
I assume you understand voter turnout is influenced by a variety of factors, including anger. Blocking a black woman could drive women and blacks to the polls, and is doubly dangerous when you look at the turnout for black women for Obama, especially in Ohio.
Bork was particularly unfit for the high court, due to his role in the Saturday Night Masacre. Never mind his being dumb enough to say he supported a state's right to levy a poll tax. Seriously, WTF.
i understand why Bork wasn't confirmed but that's the reason the vacancy wasn't filled until reagans last year in office
right, and mcconnell had no qualms about voting for kennedy, even though there was about to be a new president 11 months later.
And schemer had no qualms about refusing nominees if bush had the chance his last year + in office. Both sides are petulant children. We all know that.
Obama will nominate Loretta lynch or some other minority and the GOP will either put it to a vote or be called racist
It's gonna be white women this time electing Hillary by a landslide. It's finally their turn. As soon as the Bernie nonsense fades away, we're going to be nauseated by The Grand Feminist Proclamation. Coming to a TV near you in the near future.
So given that, the GOP might as well go ahead and block. Being the wimps they are these days, they probably won't though.
I might give up the presidency in order to keep a crazy black liberal woman off the court.
Who was that crazy black woman that was attorney General? That is probably what Obama would appoint.
I honestly feel you would cave in and immediately post about how America is one giant vagina giving into the PC crowd.
He is going to nominate the Hindu guy. Who is so perfectly middle of the road the Repubs will look like fools.
Not many Presidents in our history have got a nomination for the court pushed through without their same party controlling the Senate in their last 12 months of office. I think I read it has happened maybe twice. I think Reagan nominated Bork and he was rejected. Then, he got Ginsburg through but it cost a political price as they rejected his first nominee . The other time may go back to the 1800's.
NBC News website says it's probably Loretta Lynch. They also express hope that Democrats will take enough control of the Congress to confirm Obama's nominee next January just before he leaves office.
Either way, the GOP is going to lose this one too. They should fight since that's their job, but this is a losing battle. Hell, Hillary's just going to win and would put Obama's choice in there anyhow.
Another big to do over nothing. Sure, the country's cultural rot will continue. If you don't like it, stay the hell away from people like I do. Can't get enough of that Wyandot County corn field.
Either way, the GOP is going to lose this one too. They should fight since that's their job, but this is a losing battle. Hell, Hillary's just going to win and would put Obama's choice in there anyhow.
Another big to do over nothing. Sure, the country's cultural rot will continue. If you don't like it, stay the hell away from people like I do. Can't get enough of that Wyandot County corn field.
No way he nominates a moderate. If he wouldn't support John Roberts nomination - & make no mistake, Roberts was a great candidate (I'll withhold comment about Roberts personally finding a way to help Obama on the ACA) then I have my doubts about him picking a moderate. And Obama 100% played politics voting against his nomination. Any comments he makes about not politicizing the nomination are crocodile tears.
one of them, and not just because he was trying to hold off until after an election, because he deeply was concerned (as were several others) about the individual being on the court.
Oh well, that's different.
Certainly no concerns this time around. Especially deep ones.
considering there hasn't been a nomination and the republicans, lead by ol' mitch, have already said they won't even take a vote, it's slightly different. if you can't see the difference between that and democrats trying to stand in the way and question a nominated individual on that person's individual beliefs, then maybe you hit yourself in the head one too many times in high school.
All Mitch is doing is the exact same thing that Schumer said. No difference what so ever. They arent keeping Obama from nominating anyone. I think the GOP would have to consider Lynch if she was the nominee. And I also think if Sri Sirvernan or what ever his name is were nominated they would have to consider him as well.
People are always deeply skeptical of a nominee if they're not from their own party. But if this POTUS nominates Holder then it validates all the concerns I have about him shitting on the Constitution. Lynch isn't much better.
