Dear Republicans:

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

So you’ve just had a meeting in which you decided that you definitely would not have ANY hearings for a new Supreme Court justice until after Obama leaves office (clearing the way for Obama himself to be nominated should a Democrat win, but never mind that.)

The excuse, given by the Majority whip John Conryn–when asked if Obama would be allowed to select the next member of SCOTUS–was: “No, after the next president is selected. That way the American people have a voice in the process.”

Please understand that I say this will all due respect:

WE ALREADY HAD A VOICE IN THE PROCESS, YOU ÃSSHØLÊ! WE ELECTED OBAMA IN THE FIRST PLACE, REMEMBER?! WE ELECTED HIM TWICE! NOW GET OUT OF HIS WAY AND LET HIM DO HIS GØÐÐÃMN JOB, YOU FÙÇKWÍT!

Thanks for listening.

PAD

22 comments on “Dear Republicans:”

  2. PAD: Didn’t you see the revision to the constitution? “When a Democratic president is in his last year of office, his powers of appointment shall be curtailed”? At least with Bork, it did come to the Senate. This preemptive strike is just plan wrong. At least consider the appointment before rejecting it. Reagan appointed Kennedy in his lame duck term, and as far as I can see nothing prevents any president from exercising his authority while in office.

  3. If they’re going to use the “let the people decide” argument, then why aren’t any of them pointing out the fact that they won back the Senate just 15 months ago? Why not rest your argument on a given fact rather than bank on a future election that you may or may not win? As a matter of fact, this is *exactly* how the system of checks and balances at the core of our system is *supposed* to work. The people chose a Democratic president and a Republican Senate. Obama can’t nominate a wildly liberal candidate because the Senate won’t approve him or her. The Republicans won’t get a wildly conservative candidate to confirm because a Democratic president won’t nominate one.

    And all of this wrangling over the one seat is somewhat of a moot point, given that there are going to be one or two more Supreme Court vacancies to fill relatively soon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was carved from magical, living granite, but even she can only last so long.

    1. I think it would be great if senators were elected for 4 year terms instead of 6 offset by 2 years from the presidential elections. That would make the argument of the “the people spoke on the midterm election” more valid. 17 states did not vote for a senator on 2014.

  4. I feel like I’ve been missing something in this whole controversy, because I really don’t understand why Republicans have taken the position that they won’t even consider an Obama nominee. I mean, they have a solid majority in the Senate, so if they don’t like Obama’s pick, they can just vote ’em down, right? At least then they could say they gave it all due consideration and voted nay based on this or that bûllšhìŧ objection. Can anyone explain to me why it’s better to just stonewall, given the backlash that strategy is generating?

    1. Because stonewalling Obama is what they do. It’s all they do. For seven dámņëd years, that’s all they’ve done. They did it the first term in order to try and make sure he wouldn’t have a second, and they’ve done it the second because they’re šhìŧš. There is no other explanation for it: they’re šhìŧš.

      PAD

    2. I’m guessing the Republicans have become so reflexively obstructionist, they wouldn’t want to present even the illusion of considering an Obama nominee.

    3. They’re doing it because it works. They’ve pulled this total-obstruction strategy for 7 years, and repeatedly won big because of it — especially in 2010 & 2014. In 2008, The Republican party was in disgrace, The Democrats controlled The House, The Senate (with a super-majority!), and The Presidency. Now Democrats only control The Presidency. Republicans also have 31 governors, and a lock on a majority of state legislatures. Of course, The Republicans have been helped a lot by The Democrats who mostly seem to still cower rather than trumpet their successes and Republican failures, and run away from their own policies and party when attacked rather than fight back. (The media’s love of blaming both sides no matter how insane and disingenuous The Republican position is also continues to give The Republicans great cover.) The Republicans have done a masterful job of lying and distracting voters with fake issues (Benghazi!, Baby Parts!, etc.) in order to ruthlessly win with a very weak hand, while Democrats have repeatedly done the opposite.

      1. Of course, The Republicans have been helped a lot by The Democrats who mostly seem to still cower rather than trumpet their successes and Republican failures, and run away from their own policies and party when attacked rather than fight back.

        Exactly right. The Republicans have had their wins because the Democrats have repeatedly let them.

  5. Careful, sir. Don’t get too twisted up, it’s just Politics, right?.
    Let’s be respectful of those who might not’ve voted for Obama and let the System work this out as it will. It’s a dance.
    There’s a reason that there’s a majority Republican House and Senate now.

    2. “Don’t get too twisted up, it’s just Politics, right?”

      No, is petulance. Politics is compromise, working together to find a path.

      This is just more Republicans acting like infants.

  6. I guess that pretty much paves the way for a recess appointment. Obama can now argue that the GOP-led judiciary committee has gone on record that they will not even meet with a potential nominee, so the president can argue that not only can he make a recess appointment, he has a constitutional responsibility to do so.

  7. I fully expect that on November 9th, after they’ve lost the presidential election (and hopefully lost the Senate)
    I look forward to the day after they lose the election for them to say that they won’t even vote on a nominee until after the next president leaves office.

    Because you fûçkìņg know they’ll do it.

  8. The problem with Republicans and Obama isn’t that they disagree with him (which they do — and so do some (many?) Democrats — which is part of political discourse) but that want to tell themselves he’s not *really* the President. We first saw this with Karl Rove on Fox News, when he refused to believe Obama had won. Then we had the Birthers, proclaiming that he wasn’t an actual American citizen but a long-reaching plot going back to Kenyan birth certificates. (I used to think this was racist, until Trump levied similar charges against both Cruz and Rubio.) Then there was the meeting during his first term when Republican leaders decided that since Obama had run on the hope of bipartisanship, if Republicans voted lock-step against everything Obama would propose (without even knowing what it was) that would weaken him. There have been all sorts of whispers and statements that he’s not “one of us” (despite all the evidence to the contrary — and two successful elections), whether they declare him a socialist, tyrant, or secret Muslim. When Scalia died, Republicans stated absolutely that they would oppose anyone Obama nominated — before Obama had actually nominated anyone. And on the campaign trail, Rubio recently declared that he couldn’t think of anything he and Obama agreed on. (Really? Keeping Americans safe? Improving the economy? You could disagree with how these are done, but there’s *nothing* you two have in common? If Obama said water was wet, would you insist he was wrong and water is actually sand?)

    Stephen Colbert’s idea of truthiness — knowing something “from the gut” regardless of and often in opposition to facts or evidence — is 100% on with those who don’t just dislike the fact that Obama won the presidency (twice) but, seven years in, refuse to believe he became the president (twice).

    1. “I used to think this was racist, until Trump levied similar charges against both Cruz and Rubio.”

      That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a racist response to Obama.

    2. “If Obama said water was wet, would you insist he was wrong and water is actually sand?”

      Yes. They literally have been that opposing at times.

  9. “That way the American people have a voice in the process.”

    And people are taking the “sincerity” they’re attaching to that line seriously? I wonder what they’re excuse to stonewall and stall will be after they lose the election come November?

  10. By the way, seen the news out of Nevada? Poll workers showing up in Trump slogan covered clothing while collecting ballots from voters and running out of ballots.

    This may get fun by the weekend.

  11. By the way, seen the news out of Nevada? Poll workers showing up in Trump slogan covered clothing while collecting ballots from voters and running out of ballots.

    This may get fun by the weekend.

  12. The Republican party has devolved into a full-out cult. This is not the party that Lincoln helped found, nor the one that Reagan and Goldwater exemplified. These fûçkërš aren’t even trying to hide the fact that their stated intentions are purely partisan and political.

Comments are closed.