• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House: Obama 'regrets' decision to filibuster Supreme Court Justice Alito

upsideguy said:
Interesting, as it was obvious to some of us in 2002 what a sham of a war this was. BTW, you never bought into the WMD ruse, I hope (even the Bush admin knew it didn't sell too well, that is why they had to suggest that WMD included nuclear, wish they knew was a complete lie). The war was not about WMD nor was it about 911. It was about some misguided, yet noble idea, that the neocons believed that they could solve the middle east crisis by democratizing it, starting with Iraq. All the other stuff was complete noise to sell it to low information voters still in fear after 911.

Now most us now are clear on what a sham it was. To bad that little lapse of judgement cost us $2 to $6T (and counting) to knock off a two bit dictator. Yes, the guy needs to acknowledge that he might a slight error....Sorry, I am digressing. Happy to take this somewhere else.
Click to expand...
You're about as sorry as Obama was in his 'regrets'.
 
upsideguy said:
Interesting, as it was obvious to some of us in 2002 what a sham of a war this was. BTW, you never bought into the WMD ruse, I hope (even the Bush admin knew it didn't sell too well, that is why they had to suggest that WMD included nuclear, wish they knew was a complete lie). The war was not about WMD nor was it about 911. It was about some misguided, yet noble idea, that the neocons believed that they could solve the middle east crisis by democratizing it, starting with Iraq. All the other stuff was complete noise to sell it to low information voters still in fear after 911.

Now most us now are clear on what a sham it was. To bad that little lapse of judgement cost us $2 to $6T (and counting) to knock off a two bit dictator. Yes, the guy needs to acknowledge that he might a slight error....

Sorry, I am digressing. Happy to take this somewhere else.
Click to expand...

how about this you actually respond to something that is on topic and leave bush out of it since we aren't discussing bush.
I don't think you can because you can't make an argument.

the fact is that Obama has filibustered other SC nominee's in the past.
now he is getting mad because republicans (with good reason) are pretty much going to stop any liberal hack he try's to nominate.
 
SMTA said:
They are all hypocrites - just look around with an open mind and use common sense.

No story here.
Click to expand...

it is a minor story seeing how all the crying that democrats and Obama are starting to do about the GOP
not wanting to place a SCOTUS judge right now.
 
upsideguy said:
Interesting, as it was obvious to some of us in 2002 what a sham of a war this was. BTW, you never bought into the WMD ruse, I hope (even the Bush admin knew it didn't sell too well, that is why they had to suggest that WMD included nuclear, wish they knew was a complete lie). The war was not about WMD nor was it about 911. It was about some misguided, yet noble idea, that the neocons believed that they could solve the middle east crisis by democratizing it, starting with Iraq. All the other stuff was complete noise to sell it to low information voters still in fear after 911.

Now most us now are clear on what a sham it was. To bad that little lapse of judgement cost us $2 to $6T (and counting) to knock off a two bit dictator. Yes, the guy needs to acknowledge that he might a slight error....

Sorry, I am digressing. Happy to take this somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Nope. That is, what some would like to believe, though.
 
ludin said:
how about this you actually respond to something that is on topic and leave bush out of it since we aren't discussing bush.
I don't think you can because you can't make an argument.


the fact is that Obama has filibustered other SC nominee's in the past.
now he is getting mad because republicans (with good reason) are pretty much going to stop any liberal hack he try's to nominate.
Click to expand...



Jack Fabulous said:
There are a lot of intellectual hoops and hurdles that need to be navigated in this post to get to a point where one can excuse Obama's disingenuous plea to ignore that he once, willingly, played the role of obstructionist.

But... if it helps you sleep better, I guess.
Click to expand...

Back to the main point, the deed got done. He did not obstruct. Moreover, his issue was with a particular justice, not a blanket ANYONE the president puts up will get obstructed, which is what he is dealing with now. I not sure people can't grasp these are not analogous. The filibuster has its place, but that place does not include filibustering everything.

If it helps you sleep better supporting a party that isn't doing its job by grasping at straws for validation.... well, you should lie awake.
 
Of COURSE he regrets it. NOW.

How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeenient....

I love that people are already talking about a plan to call the same actions he took 'racist' when applied to him.
 
imyoda said:
As I have predicted a few days ago………

The President will nominate a candidate for SCOTUS….

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on President’s nominee……

And approve sending his/her name to the full Senate for a vote…

A bi-partisan super-majority will vote for cloture ending any Cruz filibuster….

And in the end approve the President’s nominee for the empty SCOTUS seat on the court
Click to expand...

If that happens, then the Republicans might as well as be Democrats.
 
upsideguy said:
Back to the main point, the deed got done. He did not obstruct. Moreover, his issue was with a particular justice, not a blanket ANYONE the president puts up will get obstructed, which is what he is dealing with now. I not sure people can't grasp these are not analogous. The filibuster has its place, but that place does not include filibustering everything.

If it helps you sleep better supporting a party that isn't doing its job by grasping at straws for validation.... well, you should lie awake.
Click to expand...
He voted to filibuster. The fact that there were not enough votes to filibuster is irrelevant to what his INTENTION was.

He was an obstructionist any way you slice it.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
He voted to filibuster. The fact that there were not enough votes to filibuster is irrelevant to what his INTENTION was.

He was an obstructionist any way you slice it.
Click to expand...

He voted to filibuster a specific selection. If the Cons wish to filibuster a particular liberal selection, it is within their prerogative. To suggest that they would not approve ANYONE, is what we are objective.
 
upsideguy said:
He voted to filibuster a specific selection. If the Cons wish to filibuster a particular liberal selection, it is within their prerogative. To suggest that they would not approve ANYONE, is what we are objective.
Click to expand...
Lot's of things get "suggested" in politics. It's called bluster and posturing.


We'll see what happens once Obama actually nominates someone, which I have no doubt that he will. If he nominates an ideologue I expect the Republicans will move to block it. If he nominates a moderate then things could get interesting.
 
ludin said:
it is a minor story seeing how all the crying that democrats and Obama are starting to do about the GOP
not wanting to place a SCOTUS judge right now.
Click to expand...

It's a bull**** story - every politician lies and drips hypocrisy.

Anyone, like the OP, who only cracks on one, while ignoring the rest, is an easily manipulated fool.
 
upsideguy said:
Back to the main point, the deed got done. He did not obstruct. Moreover, his issue was with a particular justice, not a blanket ANYONE the president puts up will get obstructed, which is what he is dealing with now. I not sure people can't grasp these are not analogous. The filibuster has its place, but that place does not include filibustering everything.

If it helps you sleep better supporting a party that isn't doing its job by grasping at straws for validation.... well, you should lie awake.
Click to expand...

Which is the point of him "coming clean" about how Alito's nomination process was handled by himself and Senate Democrats by then. All Pres. Obama is saying is he should have made a stronger argument on the merits rather than use Senate process to stall Alito's confirmation - a point that's purposely ignored here. From the article:

“What the president regrets is that Senate Democrats didn't focus more on making an effective public case about those substantive objections,” he said. “Instead, some Democrats engaged in a process of throwing sand in the gears of the confirmation process. And that's an approach that the president regrets.”
Click to expand...

So, it's like upsideguy said...despite then Senator Obama's use of the filibuster to slow the confirmation process, in the end, Alito was confirmed and his nomination was not obstructed - by a Democrat-controlled Senate.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
He voted to filibuster. The fact that there were not enough votes to filibuster is irrelevant to what his INTENTION was.

He was an obstructionist any way you slice it.
Click to expand...

He tried go obstruct a specific nominee. It seems republicans have been vowing to obstruct any nominee. Not the same thing.

If his regret is genuine, good for him, reflecting on his action as a junior senator from the other side of the equation. If his regret is not genuine, okay, he's being a slimy politician. But tell me, how can you tell one from the other with certainty ?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Lot's of things get "suggested" in politics. It's called bluster and posturing.We'll see what happens once Obama actually nominates someone, which I have no doubt that he will. If he nominates an ideologue I expect the Republicans will move to block it. If he nominates a moderate then things could get interesting.
Click to expand...
Few may want to be the nominee under these circumstances,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom