Senate GOP: No Hearings or Vote on Potential Obama Supreme Court Pick

[Frodo]

It seems everyone in the Senate GOP Caucus is now on the same page:

Senate GOP: No hearings or vote on Obama Supreme Court pick
Senior Republicans said they are committed to cutting off any White House effort to fill out the bench.

[Bojack Horseman]

[ElectionsGuy]

Ron Johnson has doubled down too. Looks like this is going to be a LONG fight.

[Iosif]

The will relent after Trump clinches the nomination and Hillary is leading him in GE polling by 15%.

Yes.

The Republicans would rather give up their Senate majority than the Supreme Court. Which makes sense, but they're betting big on Donald Trump.

[This account no longer in use.]

The will relent after Trump clinches the nomination and Hillary is leading him in GE polling by 15%.

Trump will lead Clinton by 30%, and $anders by even more.

[Gass3268]

I guess Obama is a 3/5ths President.

[dead0man]

I don't understand why Obama and his fans care what the GOP says or does on this issue.  Pick a good judge, one that most Americans (not most Democrats) can accept and let the chips fall where they may.  The more unappealing the pick, the worse it will be for the Dems.  The better the pick, the worse it will be for the Pubs.  All Obama has to do is pick a good one and you can't lose.

[DrScholl]

What if a Republican doesn't get elected President in November? Is the vacancy going to be held open until whenever a Republican gets elected?

[Vosem]

What if a Republican doesn't get elected President in November? Is the vacancy going to be held open until whenever a Republican gets elected?

As long as we continue to hold the Senate, then yeah. There's some precedent at the state level recently and from the early Republic at the federal level.

There's no way this'll harm Republicans. We've been running on an openly obstructionist agenda since 2009, and since then we've gained both Houses of Congress, and uncounted Governor's Mansions and state legislatures. How will carrying out our promises to the voters make us less appealing to them? It simply won't. The idea that not confirming someone is an electoral loser is simply fantasy from those who wish obstructionism wasn't a winner.

[Reaganfan]

What if a Republican doesn't get elected President in November? Is the vacancy going to be held open until whenever a Republican gets elected?

If Romney was running for re-election, and the Democrats controlled the Senate, I guarantee they'd be saying "Wait until after November".

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

What if a Republican doesn't get elected President in November? Is the vacancy going to be held open until whenever a Republican gets elected?

McConnell has said "whoever the next president is" will choose. So I guess a Hillary nominee would at least get hearings. Of course we know that a Goodwin Liu or Eric Holder would never be allowed through, but Merrick Garland might have a shot (the fact that he's in his 60's would probably help with R's).

[DrScholl]

What if a Republican doesn't get elected President in November? Is the vacancy going to be held open until whenever a Republican gets elected?

As long as we continue to hold the Senate, then yeah. There's some precedent at the state level recently and from the early Republic at the federal level.

There's no way this'll harm Republicans. We've been running on an openly obstructionist agenda since 2009, and since then we've gained both Houses of Congress, and uncounted Governor's Mansions and state legislatures. How will carrying out our promises to the voters make us less appealing to them? It simply won't. The idea that not confirming someone is an electoral loser is simply fantasy from those who wish obstructionism wasn't a winner.

Where is the constitutional precedent? There isn't one. Anyway, I would be careful about assuming that this will not hurt Republicans. A presidential year is not a midterm and holding a Supreme Court vacancy open for an entire year without a hearing is electoral poison for Republicans running in blue states. I would not be surprised if they didn't eventually back down off of this, because it's a good idea.

[DrScholl]

What if a Republican doesn't get elected President in November? Is the vacancy going to be held open until whenever a Republican gets elected?

McConnell has said "whoever the next president is" will choose. So I guess a Hillary nominee would at least get hearings. Of course we know that a Goodwin Liu or Eric Holder would never be allowed through, but Merrick Garland might have a shot (the fact that he's in his 60's would probably help with R's).

I seriously doubt that McConnell will call any hearings if a Republican is not elected to the presidency. Some other excuses will be contrived, because that is how his mind works.

[Joe Republic]

What if a Republican doesn't get elected President in November? Is the vacancy going to be held open until whenever a Republican gets elected?

As long as we continue to hold the Senate, then yeah. There's some precedent at the state level recently and from the early Republic at the federal level.

There's no way this'll harm Republicans. We've been running on an openly obstructionist agenda since 2009, and since then we've gained both Houses of Congress, and uncounted Governor's Mansions and state legislatures. How will carrying out our promises to the voters make us less appealing to them? It simply won't. The idea that not confirming someone is an electoral loser is simply fantasy from those who wish obstructionism wasn't a winner.

How is krazen these days?  I kinda miss him. 

[Taco Truck 🚚]

What if a Republican doesn't get elected President in November? Is the vacancy going to be held open until whenever a Republican gets elected?

If Romney was running for re-election, and the Democrats controlled the Senate, I guarantee they'd be saying "Wait until after November".

Difference is they would allow hearings and a vote.

The Democratic base wouldn't support the Senate just saying no to anything and everyone.  There comes a time when you must accept the will of the people.  I didn't vote for GWB but when he got reelected I just shrugged and went on with my life.  He was the people choice.  I may think those people are idiots but in the end it is up to them.  Some politicking is fine but to preemptively say, no regardless of what is put on the table really takes a Republican.

[windjammer]

The overreaction from the medias and the forumites is hillarious.

It's not going to matter.

[Virginiá]

Difference is they would allow hearings and a vote.

The Democratic base wouldn't support the Senate just saying no to anything and everyone.  There comes a time when you must accept the will of the people.  I didn't vote for GWB but when he got reelected I just shrugged and went on with my life.  He was the people choice.  I may think those people are idiots but in the end it is up to them.  Some politicking is fine but to preemptively say, no regardless of what is put on the table really takes a Republican.

This!! You know, I can be pretty partisan myself and I absolutely dread another generation of a conservative Supreme Court, but if the people elect a Republican by almost 5 million votes, I'm not going to say "keep it vacant until we get someone I like".

If one side of this country can't accept the other side winning and the powers that come with that, then everything is completely f**k*d. I get that both sides obstruct from time to time, but the Republicans, since 2009, have taken it to a whole other level never before seen in history - Their entire rationale is based around, "well, a liberal president keeps winning, so we have to stop him at any cost, regardless if the people wanted him and his agenda more".

It's selfish as hell and it has to stop.

[anvi]

I'm a chronically slow learner.  Though I knew they wouldn't confirm anyone, t really thought they would at least hold hearings, just to live up to their supposed loyalty to the Constitution.  And there I went overestimating them again.  "The president shall nominate, and the Senate shall refuse to advise."  What a festoon of hacks.

[The Arizonan]

Mitch McConnell seriously needs to get bent for this bulls**t.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in an election year, 1988.

Republican Presidential nominee Hughes actually handed a Supreme Court slot to his opponent Wilson in June 1916, when he stepped down from the court.

[Ogre Mage]

What if a Republican doesn't get elected President in November? Is the vacancy going to be held open until whenever a Republican gets elected?

As long as we continue to hold the Senate, then yeah. There's some precedent at the state level recently and from the early Republic at the federal level.

There's no way this'll harm Republicans. We've been running on an openly obstructionist agenda since 2009, and since then we've gained both Houses of Congress, and uncounted Governor's Mansions and state legislatures. How will carrying out our promises to the voters make us less appealing to them? It simply won't. The idea that not confirming someone is an electoral loser is simply fantasy from those who wish obstructionism wasn't a winner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/

I would not assume that the Republican Senate Majority and Presidential Candidate will not suffer political damage.  This is a presidential election year when the Democratic base actually turns out and trust me, our base will be extremely angry and motivated in November if the Senate GOP continues to allow no hearings as the months drag on.  You are defending 24 Senate seats in this cycle to our 10 including many in Democratic and swing states (Illinois, Wisconsin, Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.).  And it looks like there is a solid chance that Trump will be your party's Presidential Nominee.  If this obstruction continues our party's presidential nominee will not let the issue be forgotten.  So if the Senate GOP wants to continue to ignore Article II of the Constitution then please proceed.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is gonna haunt GOP going into Nov. All but Pat Toomey are exposed, who has a terrible candidate running Sestak; Ayotte, Portman, Johnson & Kirk, are vulnerable.

[MK]

What if a Republican doesn't get elected President in November? Is the vacancy going to be held open until whenever a Republican gets elected?

As long as we continue to hold the Senate, then yeah. There's some precedent at the state level recently and from the early Republic at the federal level.

There's no way this'll harm Republicans. We've been running on an openly obstructionist agenda since 2009, and since then we've gained both Houses of Congress, and uncounted Governor's Mansions and state legislatures. How will carrying out our promises to the voters make us less appealing to them? It simply won't. The idea that not confirming someone is an electoral loser is simply fantasy from those who wish obstructionism wasn't a winner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/

I would not assume that the Republican Senate Majority and Presidential Candidate will not suffer political damage.  This is a presidential election year when the Democratic base actually turns out and trust me, our base will be extremely angry and motivated in November if the Senate GOP continues to allow no hearings as the months drag on.  You are defending 24 Senate seats in this cycle to our 10 including many in Democratic and swing states (Illinois, Wisconsin, Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.).  And it looks like there is a solid chance that Trump will be your party's Presidential Nominee.  If this obstruction continues our party's presidential nominee will not let the issue be forgotten.  So if the Senate GOP wants to continue to ignore Article II of the Constitution then please proceed.

Who's really motivated to put Hillary Clinton into the whitehouse?   

[Mehmentum]

What if a Republican doesn't get elected President in November? Is the vacancy going to be held open until whenever a Republican gets elected?

As long as we continue to hold the Senate, then yeah. There's some precedent at the state level recently and from the early Republic at the federal level.

There's no way this'll harm Republicans. We've been running on an openly obstructionist agenda since 2009, and since then we've gained both Houses of Congress, and uncounted Governor's Mansions and state legislatures. How will carrying out our promises to the voters make us less appealing to them? It simply won't. The idea that not confirming someone is an electoral loser is simply fantasy from those who wish obstructionism wasn't a winner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/

I would not assume that the Republican Senate Majority and Presidential Candidate will not suffer political damage.  This is a presidential election year when the Democratic base actually turns out and trust me, our base will be extremely angry and motivated in November if the Senate GOP continues to allow no hearings as the months drag on.  You are defending 24 Senate seats in this cycle to our 10 including many in Democratic and swing states (Illinois, Wisconsin, Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.).  And it looks like there is a solid chance that Trump will be your party's Presidential Nominee.  If this obstruction continues our party's presidential nominee will not let the issue be forgotten.  So if the Senate GOP wants to continue to ignore Article II of the Constitution then please proceed.

Who's really motivated to put Hillary Clinton into the whitehouse?    

No, but this is exactly the point.  This is the perfect motivator to compensate for Clinton not being an inspiring candidate.  The Democrats could nominate a potato and get massive turnout to stop Trump and take control of the Supreme Court.

[SteveRogers]

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot: If a president was at the beginning of their term, a justice died, and the President decided they were happy with the new balance of the Court and flat out refused to nominate anyone to fill the vacancy (possibly hoping for a more favorable Senate after the midterms), what would happen? Because I think congress would be well within their rights to consider impeachment.