Dems Would Be 'Justified' in Blocking Supreme Court Nominee of GOP President

[dutch508]

IDemo (16,739 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141414956

Dems Would Be 'Justified' in Blocking Supreme Court Nominee of GOP President, White House Says


Source: ABC News

White House press secretary Josh Earnest raised eyebrows during today's press briefing by suggesting that Democrats would be “justified” to take revenge on the GOP blockade against Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland by blocking a possible GOP president’s nomination for the president's full term.

Earnest was recalling a suggestion President Obama made in an interview with Fox News Sunday in which he said if Republicans continued blocking Garland until he left office then “it is almost impossible to expect” that Democrats wouldn’t retaliate if given the opportunity.

"What's to stop Democrats who are in charge of the Senate when a Republican is in office, from saying, 'Well, we're just going to wait the four years to fill the vacancy.' There is no material difference in that argument. That would represent a breakdown of the process," Earnest said.

But Earnest went just a bit further, after a reporter asked, “Would they really do that?”

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dems-justified-blocking-supreme-court-nominee-gop-president/story?id=38406202

looks like the dem's plan on scorched earth policy in the years to come.

Jackie Wilson Said (2,266 posts)
1. The GOP in response to the lack of whiteness on Obama's skin, has taken this country into a state of complete dysfunction.

To properly express their hatred of Obama, again because of the lack of whiteness in his skin. they seem willing to destroy the very platform we are built on, the justice system.

Between their outright, undeniable attempt to stop voting and now this, I dont see how anyone in their right mind could imagine giving them the White House.

OhForFuquesFace...

maxsolomon (13,238 posts)
10. another way of looking at that is to say that Dems would fulfill their sworn constitutional duties, no matter who the president is. as opposed to the repukes, and that's the point he was making.

they've rejected SCOTUS nominees (Bork, Myers, and they should have rejected Thomas), but never stonewalled the process.

 

houston16revival (760 posts)
4. It's a useful tactic to float the idea

I don't know what McConnell's got on them

but they never grow a pair

Harry Reid is about as good as we've had

I can't see a four year stall, but I can see one year

and the public won't forget that it's an accepted practice at that point

'We can't confirm a Supreme Court nominee in the first year of a President's
term because we need to see how he's going to govern.'

'And not in the second year, we need to let the people decide the midterm
elections.'

L. Coyote (34,114 posts)
5. How about blocking any elected Republicans? Just say the people need to re-decide the last election!

sofa king (9,577 posts)
8. We can do that, too.

Seriously, it's called "refusing to seat," and if we regain control of Congress we can totally do it in the next mid-terms, to prevent the GOP from filibustering in the Senate, for example.

Normally, one doesn't entertain such thoughts for fear of reprisal, but there is hardly a Republican left under the age of 45 now, they're having trouble winning statewide elections even with gerrymandering and vote theft, and their policies are killing dumb rednecks so much faster than I thought possible that someday statisticians are going to call this decade the Republican Holocaust.

It looks like we're going to bag the Senate and never again give it back. The House is ours in 2022, when the census shows exactly how many Republicans died to make rich people richer. And the rich people themselves will be headed off for Dubai shortly thereafter, when their taxes go as high as mine are now.

We won by letting the Republicans kill stupid Americans. It's disgusting and I'm not gloating, but the tragic truth is unavoidable, now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseated_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

are they really that stupid?

malthaussen (9,607 posts)
11. And he is wrong. There is no "justification" for those granted the public trust to fail to do their duty. This is not kindergarten.

-- Mal

alarimer (13,998 posts)
23. Blocking does not mean not holding a vote.

It means voting against them, or filibustering. But Democrats would not refuse to hold hearings. THAT is the difference.

[jukin]

1. The GOP in response to the lack of whiteness on Obama's skin, has taken this country into a state of complete dysfunction.

Yes. Everywhere blacks are in charge there is complete destruction. Clearly this is because of YT.

[BlueStateSaint]

Lurking DUmmies . . .

In 2018, there's a total of 33 US Senate seats up for re-election.  Here's the breakdown:

2 Independent (one of whom caucuses with the Dems--Hell, he's running for President!)

8 Republican

Guess how many Democrat seats are up?

25.

If the Senate swings back to the Dems in the 2016 election, odds are it's going to swing the other way two years later.

[thundley4]

If the Dems go this route, the USSC might be completely empty in 25 years or so.

[jukin]

Lurking DUmmies . . .

In 2018, there's a total of 33 US Senate seats up for re-election.  Here's the breakdown:

2 Independent (one of whom caucuses with the Dems--Hell, he's running for President!)

8 Republican

Guess how many Democrat seats are up?

25.

If the Senate swings back to the Dems in the 2016 election, odds are it's going to swing the other way two years later.

IMHO, the senate will go donk in 2016 because of what the GOPe has done/not done. I'm not betting against it staying DONK in 2018 because of what the GOPe will do in 2017-18.

[RayRaytheSBS]

sofa king (9,577 posts)
8. We can do that, too.

Seriously, it's called "refusing to seat," and if we regain control of Congress we can totally do it in the next mid-terms, to prevent the GOP from filibustering in the Senate, for example.

Normally, one doesn't entertain such thoughts for fear of reprisal, but there is hardly a Republican left under the age of 45 now, they're having trouble winning statewide elections even with gerrymandering and vote theft, and their policies are killing dumb rednecks so much faster than I thought possible that someday statisticians are going to call this decade the Republican Holocaust.

It looks like we're going to bag the Senate and never again give it back. The House is ours in 2022, when the census shows exactly how many Republicans died to make rich people richer. And the rich people themselves will be headed off for Dubai shortly thereafter, when their taxes go as high as mine are now.

We won by letting the Republicans kill stupid Americans. It's disgusting and I'm not gloating, but the tragic truth is unavoidable, now.

This DUche almost gets it right. Problem is, he identified the real issue,  but did nothing to address it. If he thinks taxes are high under this administration,  just wait until the NEXT dem gets in office and completely destroys what little is left that might be recognizable as America.   

[SVPete]

And Senate Ds blocking votes on court justices would be unique? They did it to both Presidents Bush. How would this be in any way new?