Yeah, I totally don't get the constitutional argument here. The constitution says the president nominates and the Senate confirms. It doesn't say the president has to nominate, and it doesn't say the Senate has to confirm.
Printable View
Yeah, I totally don't get the constitutional argument here. The constitution says the president nominates and the Senate confirms. It doesn't say the president has to nominate, and it doesn't say the Senate has to confirm.
It is an amusing argument to watch, because quite a few people on both sides said exactly the opposite under the Republican president.
That said, I understand a nomination after the election but before the inauguration would be blocked. I also understand that the Senate would block a candidate they think is too left or rightwing when elections are not far away. But this is pretty much a good nominee who would generally be acceptable right? I don't see why that should be blocked 10 months before a new president starts.
Because he's probably a Muslim, why else would Obama pick him??
What's really amusing is that back when Kagan was nominated, Orrin Hatch publicly lamented that Obama couldn't have picked a moderate who the GOP would happily confirm, like Garland. He'd said the same think back during the Clinton administration. And he repeated the sentiment two or three weeks ago, saying it was a shame Obama wouldn't select someone like Garland. And now Hatch is sitting there, having to oppose Garland because that's what the GOP wants and no doubt stewing at Obama for doing this to him.
Welcome to party politics 2016.
At first I was lmao but then I read what that idiot is saying in defense of this idiocy and now I'm sad :(
The stupid thing is that the Republicans are odds-on to lose the Presidential election and Hillary will be under no obligation to renominate Garland at that point and could easily nominate someone who is clearly qualified but more liberal. Then what is the Senate to do? Keep blocking the newly elected Presidents nominations?
Sadly its true though if the Republican primary voters can their heads out of their ass and realize that Trump is the worst possible fucking thing that could happen to the party and nominate ANYONE else they have a decent shot against Clinton. Clinton has a lot of baggage and there is also an outside chance of an indictment.
Nah I don't think that would happen - you've been watching too much House of Cards. This was a pretty straightforward attempt to embarrass Republicans by picking someone who was actually recommended by Republicans as a potential nominee earlier in his time in office. Nominating someone only to withdraw them because there was too much support... ugly politics and damages Obama's 'legacy.'
Well, you know 'Today's Republican Party' is totally messed up when even Republicans agree.
That's what I've been trying to say for years, despite criticisms from certain posters for how I've said it. :bored:
Bump.
Today's Republican Party is.....fairly well fucked up. The "leader" of the Republican party is POTUS, but he's fucked up, too. Is this what a constitutional crisis looks like?
Parties in the US are relatively weak organizations. The media and most people like to forget this.
bump
Today's Republican Party is FUBAR
They only hold the Presidency, Senate, House, over two thirds of state governors, over two thirds of state Houses, over two thirds of state Senates. Plus indirectly a majority of SCOTUS.
If you mean the state parties in control decide, then yeah.
I disagree with your statement that US political parties are "relatively weak organizations". We have two very powerful parties that consume all the oxygen, and force others, even Independents, to run as Republicans or Democrats. The Tea Party and Bernie Sanders are good examples for that.
It's a broad church. Same with the Democrats.
What is the one thing that fractious mess came together to pass last year, and in record time given the complexity of the legislation? That's what the Republican party represents -- all the repercussions and consequence of the bill, everyone and everything it will affect, and despite what all the angry rural, disaffected voters thought they were voting for.
With Trump as the "leader" of the GOP, if there aren't Republicans jumping ship and/or demanding censure and/or impeachment (especially after his latest shithole covfefe) they can all go to hell. They're nothing more than opportunistic power mongers, making excuses for a white supremacist in the White House who will sign any bill they put on his desk. :(
Trump isn't the "leader" of the GOP. That's not how your party system works.
Also, Trump wouldn't be president if he hadn't won the Republican Party's nomination first....
He may be the foremost Republican with the most de facto power but he can't either de facto or de jure control how other Republicans vote. He can't force Senators or Governors or other elected Republicans to back him in the same way that a party leader can here with our whipping system.
He can't force them, but he enjoys a national bully pulpit (no congressman does), has the loyalty of the base, and has significant control over the budget and political appointments. Historically, that's been enough to "convince" wayward congressmen. So yes, you can't compare a president to a prime minister in terms of party control, but the president is the most visible representative of a party and has more power over it than anyone else.