• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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!

GOP Senator: 'Nobody Really Believes' That Next Prez Should Get SCOTUS Pick

imyoda

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
GOP Senator: 'Nobody Really Believes' That Next Prez Should Get SCOTUS Pick


Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) made admissions that could be awkward for his Republican Senate colleagues trying to block President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

In an interview published Monday, Flake conceded that nobody in the Republican Party "really believes" that late Justice Antonin Scalia's Supreme Court seat should be left for the next president to fill. As proof, he flipped the scenario around and envisioned a Republican president currently in the White House and nearing the end of his term.

"Our position shouldn’t be that the next president ought to decide. Nobody really believes that, because if this were the last year of a Republican presidency nobody would say that," Flake told the Daily Beast.

He added that the Senate's position "ought to be to confirm the most conservative justice to replace Scalia," to maintain balance, even if that means confirming President Obama's Supreme Court nominee

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeff-flake-merrill-garland-supreme-court

Oh how things change as the soon to be elected HRC become more apparent ………..

And how it has changes the Senate GOP “No compromise – The only the next president has the right to make the next SCOTUS appointment…………

But don’t think of it as hypocrisy………….but is just SOP for the GOP
 
The President nominates, the Senate advises and then consents. The consent part includes saying no, or more accurately, not consenting. That's what the Senate is doing now, not consenting. Should they go ahead and have hearings and then a floor vote on Obama's nominee? That's a political question, not a Constitutional question, because they have, and are, meeting their responsibility. What they are also doing is setting precedence, and that's what Flake is saying concerns him. However, the Democrats set the beginning of this precedence with a Senator named Biden under a President named Bush. These things tend to have a way of biting everyone in the ass eventually. There's no clean actors here, politically, but none have acted UN-Constitutionally.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The President nominates, the Senate advises and then consents. The consent part includes saying no, or more accurately, not consenting. That's what the Senate is doing now, not consenting. Should they go ahead and have hearings and then a floor vote on Obama's nominee? That's a political question, not a Constitutional question, because they have, and are, meeting their responsibility. What they are also doing is setting precedence, and that's what Flake is saying concerns him. However, the Democrats set the beginning of this precedence with a Senator named Biden under a President named Bush. These things tend to have a way of biting everyone in the ass eventually. There's no clean actors here, politically, but none have acted UN-Constitutionally.
Click to expand...

In order to "not consent" don't they actually have to consider the person first...have hearings?

It reminds me years back when my son was a toddler. He would have silent tantrums. No screaming and crying....he would just flop down on the floor and make pouty faces,:lamo

Realistically, if Scalia had died closer to the election...I do not think there would be any major discussion, But he died in February.
 
I've been saying it would be hard to find a worse judge at any court than scalia, so they can confirm their "conservative judge," or leave it vacant, and whatever. But yeah everything he said was obvious right away since Garland had been near unanimous support of republicans up to the moment he was attached to Obama. This kind of **** right here is why they have 9% approval

But watch Hillary push a much more liberal nominee as revenge and SCOTUS hold the senate in contempt if they don't do their job as ordered by the constitution
 
imyoda said:
GOP Senator: 'Nobody Really Believes' That Next Prez Should Get SCOTUS Pick


Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) made admissions that could be awkward for his Republican Senate colleagues trying to block President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

In an interview published Monday, Flake conceded that nobody in the Republican Party "really believes" that late Justice Antonin Scalia's Supreme Court seat should be left for the next president to fill. As proof, he flipped the scenario around and envisioned a Republican president currently in the White House and nearing the end of his term.

"Our position shouldn’t be that the next president ought to decide. Nobody really believes that, because if this were the last year of a Republican presidency nobody would say that," Flake told the Daily Beast.

He added that the Senate's position "ought to be to confirm the most conservative justice to replace Scalia," to maintain balance, even if that means confirming President Obama's Supreme Court nominee

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeff-flake-merrill-garland-supreme-court

Oh how things change as the soon to be elected HRC become more apparent ………..

And how it has changes the Senate GOP “No compromise – The only the next president has the right to make the next SCOTUS appointment…………

But don’t think of it as hypocrisy………….but is just SOP for the GOP
Click to expand...

The Senate isn't just a rubber stamp and is most certainly not required to confirm ANY nomination put forward by the POTUS. That is part of our check and balance system. In fact, if the Senate approved a liberal to SCOTUS, they would be failing their responsibility to keep it balanced.

Senator Flake is 100% wrong.
 
MaggieD said:
The Senate isn't just a rubber stamp and is most certainly not required to confirm ANY nomination put forward by the POTUS. That is part of our check and balance system. In fact, if the Senate approved a liberal to SCOTUS, they would be failing their responsibility to keep it balanced.

Senator Flake is 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

The GOP gets the **** end no matter who wins. I like it.
 
MaggieD said:
The Senate isn't just a rubber stamp and is most certainly not required to confirm ANY nomination put forward by the POTUS. That is part of our check and balance system. In fact, if the Senate approved a liberal to SCOTUS, they would be failing their responsibility to keep it balanced.

Senator Flake is 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

Senator Flake is saying/suggesting the GOP will be coming off their previous position of not confirming the Obama selection.............because they fear who HRC may/will ram down their throats.......

Further, there is a need for 9 sitting justices and/or if left at 8......with the predictable 4-4 tie most of the cased heard by SCOTUS will not be precedent of much value........

Further more..........

If the election is so close..........and is to be challenged so as we have another Bush v Gore........... with there being just 8 on the court a 4-4 tie is inevitable............and there will be a constitutional crisis of serious import............to say the least
 
Last edited:
imyoda said:
Senator Flake is saying/suggesting the GOP will be coming off their previous position of not confirming the Obama selection.............because they fear who HRC may/will ram down their throats.......

Further, there is a need for 9 sitting justices and/or if left at 8......with the predictable 4-4 tie most of the cased heard by SCOTUS will not be precedent of much value........

Further more..........

If the election is so close..........and is to be challenged so as we have another Bush v Gore........... with there being just 8 on the court a 4-4 tie is inevitable............and there will be a constitutional crisis of serious import............to say the least
Click to expand...

They would be opposed by Trump, too. (Or vice-versa).
 
imyoda said:
Congratulations...........you made the cut

Do have a nice life
Click to expand...

62170242.jpg
 
MaggieD said:
The Senate isn't just a rubber stamp and is most certainly not required to confirm ANY nomination put forward by the POTUS. That is part of our check and balance system. In fact, if the Senate approved a liberal to SCOTUS, they would be failing their responsibility to keep it balanced. Senator Flake is 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

Senator Flake says nothing close to 'rubber stamping' President Obama's nominee. I read it as he thinks they should vote, up or down as is their duty as I see it. I disagree with other posters who feel not advising and voting is the Senate's Constitutional duty. (Biden being wrong doesn't make McConnell correct- only in a somewhat warped mind does two wrongs make a right)

Perhaps the Do Nothing GOP sees a 4 to 4 Supreme Court as better than a the full court. I guess it depends on which lower court makes the ruling and just how bitter the far right is toward 'un-elected lawyers ruling for life'.

We live in interesting times... :peace
 
year2late said:
In order to "not consent" don't they actually have to consider the person first...have hearings?
Click to expand...
No.

year2late said:
It reminds me years back when my son was a toddler. He would have silent tantrums. No screaming and crying....he would just flop down on the floor and make pouty faces,:lamo
Click to expand...
**SMH**

year2late said:
Realistically, if Scalia had died closer to the election...I do not think there would be any major discussion, But he died in February.
Click to expand...
If Ginsberg would have died, it wouldn't have been a problem and Obama would have gotten his appointment confirmed. But it was Scalia. So, it's more than just a problem. It's the future of the Nation for at least one, maybe two, generations.
 
Beaudreaux said:
No.

**SMH**

If Ginsberg would have died, it wouldn't have been a problem and Obama would have gotten his appointment confirmed. But it was Scalia. So, it's more than just a problem. It's the future of the Nation for at least one, maybe two, generations.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...so there are different rules when replacing conservative vs liberal judges. At least you acknowledge a hypocritical position exists
 
Beaudreaux said:
The President nominates, the Senate advises and then consents. The consent part includes saying no, or more accurately, not consenting. That's what the Senate is doing now, not consenting. Should they go ahead and have hearings and then a floor vote on Obama's nominee? That's a political question, not a Constitutional question, because they have, and are, meeting their responsibility. What they are also doing is setting precedence, and that's what Flake is saying concerns him. However, the Democrats set the beginning of this precedence with a Senator named Biden under a President named Bush. These things tend to have a way of biting everyone in the ass eventually. There's no clean actors here, politically, but none have acted UN-Constitutionally.
Click to expand...

The OP didn't mention "un-constitutionally" but really your rant is even wrong about that. The GOP committed itself to blocking any nominee, which is by definition NOT legitimate advisement nor consent.

Declaring that "there's[sic] no clean actors here" is just stupid, you cannot simply make democrats guilty by association through congress, you laid out literally no way in which democrats did anything wrong.

Further, it's a stupid political move, because President Obama has been reasonable in his picks, while it's unlikely a Clinton presidency would be so generous.
 
Absentglare said:
The OP didn't mention "un-constitutionally" but really your rant is even wrong about that. The GOP committed itself to blocking any nominee, which is by definition NOT legitimate advisement nor consent.

Declaring that "there's[sic] no clean actors here" is just stupid, you cannot simply make democrats guilty by association through congress, you laid out literally no way in which democrats did anything wrong.

Further, it's a stupid political move, because President Obama has been reasonable in his picks, while it's unlikely a Clinton presidency would be so generous.
Click to expand...

Hey, look on the bright side. At least the GOP is getting screwed no matter which of the morons running for President ends up winning.
 
I don't know why Sen. Flake or any other Republican Senator would think that. The Constitution gives them power to determine whether a person the President may nominate is appointed to the Supreme Court, and they should use that power to reject a nominee if they do not approve of his judicial philosophy. Flake and the rest are dealing with a lawless ideologue in Mr. Obama, and there is no room for being so damned concerned about comity. This is a fight, pure and simple, and they should resolve to win it.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The President nominates, the Senate advises and then consents. The consent part includes saying no, or more accurately, not consenting. That's what the Senate is doing now, not consenting.
Click to expand...

Oh please.

That's more ridiculous than "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is." They aren't not consenting, they are refusing to follow the procedures by which they express either consent or lack thereof. That is straight avoidance of their constitutional duty.
 
MaggieD said:
The Senate isn't just a rubber stamp and is most certainly not required to confirm ANY nomination put forward by the POTUS. That is part of our check and balance system. In fact, if the Senate approved a liberal to SCOTUS, they would be failing their responsibility to keep it balanced.

Senator Flake is 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

True, but their job is to at least have hearings, so what is now, October, still waiting. Personally I think conservatives would be better off looking at Obama's selections than waiting for Hillary who might actually have the Senate on her side. But hey who knows, Trump might still win, sorry, just kidding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom