McConnell: Senate won't act on Obama Supreme Court nominee

[flowers]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/

Washington (CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued his most definitive statement on Tuesday: There will be no Supreme Court nominee confirmed in President Barack Obama's final year in office.

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court.

"Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," McConnell said. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it."

The announcement prompted sharp criticism from Democrats, who contended that the GOP-led Senate was failing to do its job and would be risking its tenuous hold on the majority in the fall elections.

Liar.

[libertybele]

... hmm... trying to recall when McConnell actually told the truth. We're supposed to believe that McConnell won't sell us out - why?

[ArneFufkin]

Good. 

As Lady Thatcher admonished H.W.: "Don't go wobbly George ..."

[Free Vulcan]

All you have to do McConnell, is do. See if that jello spine of yours can transmute back to bone on at least one issue.

[flowers]

... hmm... trying to recall when McConnell actually told the truth. We're supposed to believe that McConnell won't sell us out - why?

Exactly! 

[Longiron]

This first part of the RINOGOPe CAVE starting to be put in place. Make it look like we will FIGHT this and then we say we exhausted all forms a trying to STOP this but it is just to overwhelming and we have to CAVE this just one more time to look like we are reaching across the aisle to be bipartisan. All BS and SHOWTIME and they will expect people to believe this act.

[sinkspur]

The cynicism on this thread is braindead.

McConnell's drawn a line in the sand and he'll hold to it.

[Relic]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/joe-biden-supreme-court-senate-republicans/

Liar.

Unless the donor class leans on us, or if the press begins being really mean, telling us we're obstructionists.

Then we'll have to give Obama whatever he wants.

Not for you! All for me! It's the GOPe!

[Relic]

The cynicism on this thread is braindead.

McConnell's drawn a line in the sand and he'll hold to it.

It's funny, you dislike certain candidates because they don't use facts, and hurl insults freely. I'm reminded of the pot and the kettle.

http://spectator.org/articles/61885/mitch-mcconnell-caves
http://www.teaparty.org/full-mcconnell-cave-senate-passes-dhs-funding-bill-68-31-immigration-restrictions-86185/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/02/that-fighting-spirit-mitch-mcconnell-caves-says-same-sex-marriage-now-law-of-the-land/

[Lando Lincoln]

McConnell's drawn a line in the sand and he'll hold to it.

I agree.

[sinkspur]

Unless the donor class leans on us, or if the press begins being really mean, telling us we're obstructionists.

Then we'll have to give Obama whatever he wants.

Not for you! All for me! It's the GOPe!

Why would the "donor class" (a slur) care about the Supreme Court?

[sinkspur]

It's funny, you dislike certain candidates because they don't use facts, and hurl insults freely. I'm reminded of the pot and the kettle.

http://spectator.org/articles/61885/mitch-mcconnell-caves
http://www.teaparty.org/full-mcconnell-cave-senate-passes-dhs-funding-bill-68-31-immigration-restrictions-86185/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/02/that-fighting-spirit-mitch-mcconnell-caves-says-same-sex-marriage-now-law-of-the-land/

You know, it seems people here don't know how the Senate works.  Don't fund DHS (shut down the government), fight over same sex marriage when it IS the law of the land, defund Obamacare (when Obama would never sign such a bill).

McConnell can't get bills signed that Obama doesn't like, no matter how much you want him to.  But he can stop Supreme Court nominees and I think he will.

[Relic]

Why would the "donor class" (a slur) care about the Supreme Court?

You just asked that because you wanted to point out that I used what you consider a slur.
There is a donor class, is there not? Calling something what it is, is a slur? That's some pretty liberal thinking there.

If I have to explain to you why someone in America would want to influence the makeup of the SCOTUS, you're probably posting on the wrong forum.

[Relic]

You know, it seems people here don't know how the Senate works.  Don't fund DHS (shut down the government), fight over same sex marriage when it IS the law of the land, defund Obamacare (when Obama would never sign such a bill).

McConnell can't get bills signed that Obama doesn't like, no matter how much you want him to.  But he can stop Supreme Court nominees and I think he will.

I disagree. I think he will fold to the pressure of the media.
The old school GOP still believes that it's important to make the media like you. They never figured out that the mere existence of Republicans brings hate from the media.

[sinkspur]

I disagree. I think he will fold to the pressure of the media.
The old school GOP still believes that it's important to make the media like you. They never figured out that the mere existence of Republicans brings hate from the media.

And I disagree.

[Relic]

And I disagree.

That's fair. We'll find out soon enough.

[andy58-in-nh]

This is an easy one for McConnell - all he needs do is nothing, and it is in his political interest to do just that.

There will be a couple of GOP squishes (e.g. - Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins) who will get the vapors and rub their hands raw worrying about what the New York Times will say about them. But for the most part, every Republican in the Senate remembers which party is responsible for the word "Bork" being used as a verb and have not forgotten how Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer prevented George W. Bush's Federal Court nominees from getting a hearing during the last 1 1/2 years of his presidency.   

[Lando Lincoln]

That's fair. We'll find out soon enough.

Indeed.  And respectfully, I hope you don't mind that I'd prefer you be wrong on this one! 

[GAJohnnie]

McConnell's drawn a line in the sand and he'll hold to it.

Agreed. Once all the obstructionism on Judicial appointments by Dems from Obama/Biden on down was pointed out, the ability to sell the "President's deserves a vote" spin line from the Left became untenable. It was too obviously hypocritical.

[Relic]

Indeed.  And respectfully, I hope you don't mind that I'd prefer you be wrong on this one!

Don't mind at all. In fact, we both hope I'm wrong.

[aligncare]

Don't mind at all. In fact, we both hope I'm wrong.

It's just that when you see the sun rise every morning you come to expect it.

[Lando Lincoln]

It's just that when you see the sun rise every morning you come to expect it.

Yes, in some ways that can be disconcerting.

[MACVSOG68]

This is an easy one for McConnell - all he needs do is nothing, and it is in his political interest to do just that.

There will be a couple of GOP squishes (e.g. - Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins) who will get the vapors and rub their hands raw worrying about what the New York Times will say about them. But for the most part, every Republican in the Senate remembers which party is responsible for the word "Bork" being used as a verb and have not forgotten how Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer prevented George W. Bush's Federal Court nominees from getting a hearing during the last 1 1/2 years of his presidency.

It's really in Grassley's court (so to speak), and neither of those you mentioned is on the Judiciary Committee.  Unless the nominee is from a state both with Democrat senators, the nomination can be blocked at that time.   The only possibility of the Judiciary Committee sending a nominee to the full Senate would be if Hatch and Graham voted with the Democrats to pass a nominee on to the full Senate.  Even then, manipulations by members of the Committee can stall it.  And then it would take McConnell to schedule it.  If the nominee gets to the full Senate, anyone can stall it by means of a filibuster thus requiring a 60 senator cloture vote.  I don't think seating a justice this term is a likely scenario.

[Lando Lincoln]

It's really in Grassley's court (so to speak), and neither of those you mentioned is on the Judiciary Committee.  Unless the nominee is from a state both with Democrat senators, the nomination can be blocked at that time.   The only possibility of the Judiciary Committee sending a nominee to the full Senate would be if Hatch and Graham voted with the Democrats to pass a nominee on to the full Senate.  Even then, manipulations by members of the Committee can stall it.  And then it would take McConnell to schedule it.  If the nominee gets to the full Senate, anyone can stall it by means of a filibuster thus requiring a 60 senator cloture vote.  I don't think seating a justice this term is a likely scenario.

C'mon MAC, admit it... you were teacher's pet in civics class, weren't you?

Thanks for that!

[MACVSOG68]

C'mon MAC, admit it... you were teacher's pet in civics class, weren't you?

Thanks for that!

She was so hot!