Sniping on Both Sides as Obama Nominates Garland for SC

The back and forth bickering has begun in earnest, with shots being exchanged between the WH and GOP. This is yet another example of a government at odds, and we the people are left in the cheap seats witnessing the blows.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, on nomination of Merrick Garland: 'As I have repeatedly stated, the election cycle is well under way and the precedent of the Senate is not to confirm a nominee at this stage in the process. I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president'

White House on Supreme Court nomination: Not appropriate for Senate to use politics as an excuse not to do their job

Expect these opening salvos to continue, while neither side gives an inch. It's infuriating to me, but hardly surprising. Garland's age is now being used as a stumbling block, but that excuse doesn't hold water in light of past nominees.

Fred Lucas ‏@FredLucasWH Josh Earnest: Not aware that age played any role in choice of Garland. Ginsburg was 60 when Clinton nominated her. Lewis Powell was older

This will drag out, as BHO seeks to fill the open SC vacancy as part of his "legacy", and the GOP leadership dig in their heels to fight any nominees that they feel will tip the court.
www.breakingnews.com...

Garland? GARLAND! JUDY!! JUDY GARLAND! So Fabulous!

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

The President has the constitutional authority to nominate justices. What they leave out when they attack Congress is the Senate has the constitutional authority to advise and consent to the nomination. The precedent being referred to is the Biden doctrine. I always find it sad that neither party has qualms about doing this when it works in their favor, only to thrown a temper tantrum when it happens to them.

If the American people are upset then they need to get out and vote.

a reply to: Xcathdra

But outright denying the whole advise and consent part of the senate's job is the problem people are having. The Republican senate leaders had said they will do NOTHING. If they just went through the process and denied the nomination with a vote it wouldn't be such a big deal.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Xcathdra

But outright denying the whole advise and consent part of the senate's job is the problem people are having. The Republican senate leaders had said they will do NOTHING. If they just went through the process and denied the nomination with a vote it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Actually not voting on him IS worse than saying no.

a reply to: Pyle

and the senate is within their constitutional authority to say no hearings. Maybe Obama should not have tried to marginalize Congress by trying to rule through executive orders. The final straw for me was when he decided the House was not in session and tried the recess appointments to the nlrb.

Congress is not required to jump when the President demands it. There are 3 co-equal branches of government with checks and balances.

Considering Biden and Obama held up nominations when the shoe was on the other foot...

a reply to: Xcathdra

You mean the time when the senate was on recess but had a few people show up and bang the gavel, do nothing, and then go home just so it appears that they are not in recess?

Yes the senate can hold up nominations and yes demarcates do it as well as republicans. But the republican leaders are demanding NO ACTION BE TAKEN full stop. No hearing, no meetings, no discussion, no interviews and no vote. The have enough votes to deny the nomination but don't want that because of politics or enough to filibuster it for months. They don't claim that the nomination is bad only that its bad because Obama nominated the person.

TLDR the republican leadership doesn't want to do their constitutional duty. (All they have to do is vote no and be done with it.)

a reply to: Pyle

Actually they dont want to do it UNTIL AFTER NOVEMBER. They didnt say EVER. Its a effort to keep it out of the presidential race as another win for th edemocrats.

a reply to: Pyle

Their constitutional duty is advise and consent. The Presidents constitutional duty is not to bypass another branch of government because he wants something they will not give.

Snark aside they showed up, opened into session, called for business and then closed the session. Since Obama got spanked by the court for creating an injury to the separation of power and as a result had his recess appointments booted (as they were unconstitutional) one would think he would learn his lesson.

Ironic considering he failed to appoint an inspector general (state dept IG)for Clinton's entire term in the State Department.