Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
The difference is that Alito came up for a vote and I think he was actually confirmed. Within min. of his death (before the family even announced it) Cruz was saying that Pres. Obama shouldn't nominate anyone and let the next Pres. do that. Should have kept his mouth shut (along with McConnell). Let Pres. Obama nominate someone and then vote him down until there is no more time left in his term. Apples and Oranges.
RIP Alito.
|
Alito was confirmed. As were Obama's 2 nominees. Sometimes there is cooperation, sometimes there is not (see Robert Bork). Bush had a nominee get rejected by his own party, can't remember her name, but the GOP wouldn't even give her a hearing.
I don't think I would have advised anyone to start talking tough 5 minutes after his death was announced, either. Poor taste.
The GOP controls the Senate. And Obama is a guy who seems to think he can ignore the parts of the Constitution he doesn't happen to like (religious liberty, for example). If Obama wants to replace Gindburg with another radical leftie activist, fine, that doesn't shift the court. If Obama wants to replace Scalia with Rachael Maddow, then I want the Senate to stop him.
I see no huge difference between refusing to hold ahearing, and having a hearing but unanimously rejecting someone. Same outcome. If having the hearings soothes otherwise ruffled feathers, the GOP should do that. In the end, every TV station except one i sgoing to portray them as hatemongering, racist obstructionists, no matter what they do. So they have little to lose, by acting like Republicans, for a change.
Obama isn't getting anyone in, unles she nominates the next Scalia, which he would never do. But the media will spin it they were they always do, and it will give a lift to the Dems in November, both in terms of winning the Presidency and in terms of re-taking the Senate.
It is a freebie to the Dems at a fortunate time. You were 100% correct, lousy timing for the GOP.