Should Republicans block any nominee from Hillary indefinitely?

[Praxas]

Unless, of course you don't like the nominee and then screw the up-or-down vote.

And that just proves how much the GOP and their supporters are crybabies with sour grapes. You and the others just keep letting dems get more seats to shut your asses down. Keep up the good work lol

 

[Henrin]

Do not pass at least one candidate in 4 to 8 years and there will be no your side when it is done, you know that right?

That's fine. Maybe it will encourage people to start nominating justices that aren't partisan hacks or ****ing idiots like Roberts.

 

[Henrin]

Hey, the Senate Majority Leader said the next President should get to choose. Let the people express their will through the election.


Only thing that sucks is it's likely to be President Clinton.

>>>>

No.

.....

 

[humbolt]

Why don't we have the election first, and worry about the SC later?

 

[Nilly]

How many of the American people won't decide that is what they want? You not only have all the Trump voters, but also all the people that didn't vote at all. How are you going to claim consent by the people when only a minority of them voted for Hillary?

You could make that argument about any action the president takes?

The elections are done the way they are for a reason. The POTUS is the POUTS of the entire US, not just the people that voted for him/her. If Hilary comes to power, she is as much your president as she is mine and her actions have the implicit consent of the American people as a whole.

 

[Master PO]

Keep telling yourself that buy folks like you just keep enabling the dems to take back more seats. Keep up the good work.

Keep dreaming that only the people you support are rightous

 

[Henrin]

You could make that argument about any action the president takes?

The elections are done the way they are for a reason. The POTUS is the POUTS of the entire US, not just the people that voted for him/her. If Hilary comes to power, she is as much your president as she is mine and her actions have the implicit consent of the American people as a whole.

I'm sorry, but if I don't offer someone my consent I don't see how they have it. I did nothing to give her a sign that I consented to her being my president and I will not consider her anything more than an unwanted person that has taken power.

 

[ocean515]

I think this is a brilliant suggestion by Ted Cruz. As justice Breyer stated:



Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: No ninth justice, no problem - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court is working fine right now. If another seat were opened during Hillary reign, Republicans should strongly consider leaving 1-2-3 seats vacant indefinitely. This type of strategy could preserve our democracy from radical judges who create laws themselves.

Subjectively, I would argue yes.

However, objectively, No.

What goes around, comes around. The thought of Hillary as President is repulsive to me, however, I believe we are a country of laws and principles. If voters elect her President, then that is the way it goes. It makes no difference that I will never salute her as President, should she win.

We've survived war among ourselves, and many other challenges. Regardless of historic precedent, we've had 9 justices, and we should return to that number.

 

[Nilly]

I'm sorry, but if I don't offer someone my consent I don't see how they have it. I did nothing to give her a sign that I consented to her being my president and I will not consider her anything more than an unwanted person that has taken power.

Sorry but that's how society works. Don't like it? Leave.

 

[jamesrage]

I think this is a brilliant suggestion by Ted Cruz. As justice Breyer stated:



Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: No ninth justice, no problem - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court is working fine right now. If another seat were opened during Hillary reign, Republicans should strongly consider leaving 1-2-3 seats vacant indefinitely. This type of strategy could preserve our democracy from radical judges who create laws themselves.

Yes they should block her nominees because any of the judges she nominate will wipe their ass with the 2nd amendment and other constitutional rights.

 

[Grand Mal]

I think this is a brilliant suggestion by Ted Cruz. As justice Breyer stated:



Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: No ninth justice, no problem - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court is working fine right now. If another seat were opened during Hillary reign, Republicans should strongly consider leaving 1-2-3 seats vacant indefinitely. This type of strategy could preserve our democracy from radical judges who create laws themselves.

Republicans need to be told that they were elected to govern, not indulge in petty partisan political obstruction. Damn. The party of "NO!". The party of losers. No wonder your country is losing ground when it's elected government refuses to do their jobs because there's another political party in the room.
How did this crap become acceptable to you?

 

[Hari Seldon]

I think this is a brilliant suggestion by Ted Cruz. As justice Breyer stated:



Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer: No ninth justice, no problem - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court is working fine right now. If another seat were opened during Hillary reign, Republicans should strongly consider leaving 1-2-3 seats vacant indefinitely. This type of strategy could preserve our democracy from radical judges who create laws themselves.

Why not. Its not like they want to do the job of actually governing. Obstruction is what they do best.

 

[Praxas]

Keep dreaming that only the people you support are rightous

The fact is you have assumptions the dems would do the same, we have proof the GOP are obstructionists. Go sell your bs to some trump supporter, the GOP are nothing but traitors.

 

[JANFU]

Why not. Its not like they want to do the job of actually governing. Obstruction is what they do best.

Would it be fair to say that applies to both parties?

 

[digsbe]

I think they should do everything within their power to prevent the SCOTUS from becoming a permanent left-wing branch of government hellbent on advancing a liberal agenda and not upholding the Constitution.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Would it be fair to say that applies to both parties?

No, I don't think so. The GOP has made an art of obstruction. I can't remember the bill but the GOP submitted it but because Obama agreed with it the same guy who submitted it voted against it. I could be wrong but I don't believe the Dems have refused to even consider a Supreme Court Justice for this long.

 

[Casper]

That's fine. Maybe it will encourage people to start nominating justices that aren't partisan hacks or ****ing idiots like Roberts.

Not sure I would be willing to watch my Party die Politically over the issue, but who knows maybe she will be forced to pick a moderate.

 

[TurtleDude]

The fact is you have assumptions the dems would do the same, we have proof the GOP are obstructionists. Go sell your bs to some trump supporter, the GOP are nothing but traitors.

supreme court justices who use their power to deny the obvious intent of the constitution are also traitors

 

[JANFU]

No, I don't think so. The GOP has made an art of obstruction. I can't remember the bill but the GOP submitted it but because Obama agreed with it the same guy who submitted it voted against it. I could be wrong but I don't believe the Dems have refused to even consider a Supreme Court Justice for this long.

When Obama became President Dems had control of both houses(IIRC) he did not see the need to build relationships within the R Party. That was a major error. Then we had Nancy, such a pleasant woman. Hardliners within both parties, more vocal with the R Party, but the country has endured gridlock. Reason Trump and Bernie did so well.

 

[Henrin]

Republicans need to be told that they were elected to govern, not indulge in petty partisan political obstruction. Damn. The party of "NO!". The party of losers. No wonder your country is losing ground when it's elected government refuses to do their jobs because there's another political party in the room.
How did this crap become acceptable to you?

Did you ever figure that their base wants them to do exactly what they're doing?

 

[Praxas]

supreme court justices who use their power to deny the obvious intent of the constitution are also traitors

Great opinion from someone with sour grapes. Any more deflections from you?

 

[TurtleDude]

Great opinion from someone with sour grapes. Any more deflections from you?

do you think that SC justices should ignore the constitution for political expediency?

 

[Hari Seldon]

When Obama became President Dems had control of both houses(IIRC) he did not see the need to build relationships within the R Party. That was a major error. Then we had Nancy, such a pleasant woman. Hardliners within both parties, more vocal with the R Party, but the country has endured gridlock. Reason Trump and Bernie did so well.

I remember Tom DeLay. Now there was a real "winner". The GOP has increased the use of the filibuster to new highs and for relatively innocuous things like lower level appointments. Remember they shut down the government for a bit. Be interesting to see how they react if the Dems do the same. I can't wait to hear the hypocrisy.

 

[Your Star]

So they should just accept for no valid reason that the courts will be run by liberals for decades to come?

The election of a president is a pretty damned valid reason.

 

[JANFU]

do you think that SC justices should ignore the constitution for political expediency?

The Senate is also bound by the Constitution. Have they failed in their responsibilities regarding Obama's nominee?