Informal Poll: Will the Senate Approve Any Obama SC Nominee?

[awesome guy]

B. Tough for them to tout the constitution and not do their very clearly stated constitutional duty and hold a vote.

I'm not sure anyone on the R side is saying to not hold discussion and votes.
My impression was that affirmative votes would be hard to come by. Very hard to come by.

I've heard quite a few R's quoted as saying no vote should be held for an Obama appointee. As in seen with my own eyes. That tells me that they don't want to vote period. They at least are supposed to vote Yea/Nay.

No they're not. They can legally and rightfully ignore a nomination.

[Hokie CPA]

B. Tough for them to tout the constitution and not do their very clearly stated constitutional duty and hold a vote.

I'm not sure anyone on the R side is saying to not hold discussion and votes.
My impression was that affirmative votes would be hard to come by. Very hard to come by.

I've heard quite a few R's quoted as saying no vote should be held for an Obama appointee. As in seen with my own eyes. That tells me that they don't want to vote period. They at least are supposed to vote Yea/Nay.

No they're not. They can legally and rightfully ignore a nomination.

That would be a monumentally BAD idea. They need to play out the process. Have hearings. Ask the tough questions. And cook up a reason to vote against the nominee. Ignoring the nomination altogether would be a huge mistake.

[awesome guy]

B. Tough for them to tout the constitution and not do their very clearly stated constitutional duty and hold a vote.

I'm not sure anyone on the R side is saying to not hold discussion and votes.
My impression was that affirmative votes would be hard to come by. Very hard to come by.

I've heard quite a few R's quoted as saying no vote should be held for an Obama appointee. As in seen with my own eyes. That tells me that they don't want to vote period. They at least are supposed to vote Yea/Nay.

No they're not. They can legally and rightfully ignore a nomination.

That would be a monumentally BAD idea. They need to play out the process. Have hearings. Ask the tough questions. And cook up a reason to vote against the nominee. Ignoring the nomination altogether would be a huge mistake.

That's not the point. El Wrongo is saying they have to vote. That's just not true.

[ElbertoHokie]

B. Tough for them to tout the constitution and not do their very clearly stated constitutional duty and hold a vote.

I'm not sure anyone on the R side is saying to not hold discussion and votes.
My impression was that affirmative votes would be hard to come by. Very hard to come by.

I've heard quite a few R's quoted as saying no vote should be held for an Obama appointee. As in seen with my own eyes. That tells me that they don't want to vote period. They at least are supposed to vote Yea/Nay.

No they're not. They can legally and rightfully ignore a nomination.

That would be a monumentally BAD idea. They need to play out the process. Have hearings. Ask the tough questions. And cook up a reason to vote against the nominee. Ignoring the nomination altogether would be a huge mistake.

Agree. Dems can just roll it out as exhibit A for their obstructionist storyline. It might not cost them in the Prez. election, but the congressman and senators that are up for re-election in november would be sweating it a bit more. They stand to lose more if they don't go through the motions and vote no.

[Mcl3 Hokie]

Since the Dems used the nuclear option in the Senate to get things they wanted, I think the Republicans are on firm ground to not acknowledge any Supreme Court Candidate put forth by the President.

How many bills were never heard by the Senate because Harry Reid wouldn't let them come up?

B. Tough for them to tout the constitution and not do their very clearly stated constitutional duty and hold a vote.

I'm not sure anyone on the R side is saying to not hold discussion and votes.
My impression was that affirmative votes would be hard to come by. Very hard to come by.

I've heard quite a few R's quoted as saying no vote should be held for an Obama appointee. As in seen with my own eyes. That tells me that they don't want to vote period. They at least are supposed to vote Yea/Nay.

No they're not. They can legally and rightfully ignore a nomination.

That would be a monumentally BAD idea. They need to play out the process. Have hearings. Ask the tough questions. And cook up a reason to vote against the nominee. Ignoring the nomination altogether would be a huge mistake.

Agree. Dems can just roll it out as exhibit A for their obstructionist storyline. It might not cost them in the Prez. election, but the congressman and senators that are up for re-election in november would be sweating it a bit more. They stand to lose more if they don't go through the motions and vote no.

[RiverguyVT]

Since the Dems used the nuclear option in the Senate to get things they wanted, I think the Republicans are on firm ground to not acknowledge any Supreme Court Candidate put forth by the President.

How many bills were never heard by the Senate because Harry Reid wouldn't let them come up?

Exactly! And how many judges during Bush's 2 terms?

[ElbertoHokie]

You guys are republican and that's how you feel. The card carrying dems will vote no matter what. These are the people that don't vote but in elections except every 4 years and don't vote in any primaries that they are worried about losing. And the liberal media can run this over and over and try to sway those people.

[awesome guy]

You guys are republican and that's how you feel. The card carrying dems will vote no matter what. These are the people that don't vote but in elections except every 4 years and don't vote in any primaries that they are worried about losing. And the liberal media can run this over and over and try to sway those people.

The good news of the republicans blocking another libtard justice? That would be great for the republicans.

[ElbertoHokie]

You guys are republican and that's how you feel. The card carrying dems will vote no matter what. These are the people that don't vote but in elections except every 4 years and don't vote in any primaries that they are worried about losing. And the liberal media can run this over and over and try to sway those people.

The good news of the republicans blocking another libtard justice? That would be great for the republicans.

I just don't think the average schmo is as tied into Rush Limbaugh as you guys are. The average, disinterested voter doesn't realize the laundry list of things obama has blocked. They just remember the government shutdown and they'll remember the press screaming in their ear for the past 4 months that the Republicans aren't holding a vote on a candidate Obama put forth despite that the constitution says the Senate will approve/disprove any candidate.

If you think that 80% of the 300M Americans share your zeal/viewpoint/and apparent lack of a job, then you're mistaken.

[awesome guy]

You guys are republican and that's how you feel. The card carrying dems will vote no matter what. These are the people that don't vote but in elections except every 4 years and don't vote in any primaries that they are worried about losing. And the liberal media can run this over and over and try to sway those people.

The good news of the republicans blocking another libtard justice? That would be great for the republicans.

I just don't think the average schmo is as tied into Rush Limbaugh as you guys are. The average, disinterested voter doesn't realize the laundry list of things obama has blocked. They just remember the government shutdown and they'll remember the press screaming in their ear for the past 4 months that the Republicans aren't holding a vote on a candidate Obama put forth despite that the constitution says the Senate will approve/disprove any candidate.

If you think that 80% of the 300M Americans share your zeal/viewpoint/and apparent lack of a job, then you're mistaken.

You guys keep issuing these harsh warnings of the perils blocking judges or shutting down the government, but the last time the republicans did it, they were rewarded with the Senate. You fail to recognize that the nation isn't plugged into your dailykos brand of hate. Most people don't even know such things are happening, much less act out politically over it.

[Mcl3 Hokie]

1. I've never listened to Limbaugh once.
2. You're admitting that the media is biased.
3. I think you'd be surprised what independent voters think of Obama.
4. Can independents really stomach voting for the slimiest, most dishonest politician to every run for President? My guess is Hillary will be her own worst friend in the actual campaign.

And wtf are you talking about a lack of a job?

You guys are republican and that's how you feel. The card carrying dems will vote no matter what. These are the people that don't vote but in elections except every 4 years and don't vote in any primaries that they are worried about losing. And the liberal media can run this over and over and try to sway those people.

The good news of the republicans blocking another libtard justice? That would be great for the republicans.

I just don't think the average schmo is as tied into Rush Limbaugh as you guys are. The average, disinterested voter doesn't realize the laundry list of things obama has blocked. They just remember the government shutdown and they'll remember the press screaming in their ear for the past 4 months that the Republicans aren't holding a vote on a candidate Obama put forth despite that the constitution says the Senate will approve/disprove any candidate.

If you think that 80% of the 300M Americans share your zeal/viewpoint/and apparent lack of a job, then you're mistaken.

[awesome guy]

1. I've never listened to Limbaugh once.
2. You're admitting that the media is biased.
3. I think you'd be surprised what independent voters think of Obama.
4. Can independents really stomach voting for the slimiest, most dishonest politician to every run for President? My guess is Hillary will be her own worst friend in the actual campaign.

And wtf are you talking about a lack of a job?

You guys are republican and that's how you feel. The card carrying dems will vote no matter what. These are the people that don't vote but in elections except every 4 years and don't vote in any primaries that they are worried about losing. And the liberal media can run this over and over and try to sway those people.

The good news of the republicans blocking another libtard justice? That would be great for the republicans.

I just don't think the average schmo is as tied into Rush Limbaugh as you guys are. The average, disinterested voter doesn't realize the laundry list of things obama has blocked. They just remember the government shutdown and they'll remember the press screaming in their ear for the past 4 months that the Republicans aren't holding a vote on a candidate Obama put forth despite that the constitution says the Senate will approve/disprove any candidate.

If you think that 80% of the 300M Americans share your zeal/viewpoint/and apparent lack of a job, then you're mistaken.

He's a idiot, take it for what it's worth.

[VoiceOfReason]

1. I've never listened to Limbaugh once.
2. You're admitting that the media is biased.
3. I think you'd be surprised what independent voters think of Obama.
4. Can independents really stomach voting for the slimiest, most dishonest politician to every run for President? My guess is Hillary will be her own worst friend in the actual campaign.

And wtf are you talking about a lack of a job?

You guys are republican and that's how you feel. The card carrying dems will vote no matter what. These are the people that don't vote but in elections except every 4 years and don't vote in any primaries that they are worried about losing. And the liberal media can run this over and over and try to sway those people.

The good news of the republicans blocking another libtard justice? That would be great for the republicans.

I just don't think the average schmo is as tied into Rush Limbaugh as you guys are. The average, disinterested voter doesn't realize the laundry list of things obama has blocked. They just remember the government shutdown and they'll remember the press screaming in their ear for the past 4 months that the Republicans aren't holding a vote on a candidate Obama put forth despite that the constitution says the Senate will approve/disprove any candidate.

If you think that 80% of the 300M Americans share your zeal/viewpoint/and apparent lack of a job, then you're mistaken.

Answers to your Mcl3's questions:
1. I've never listened to Limbaugh once. - I have, plenty of times... but that's not really germane to the topic.
2. You're admitting that the media is biased. - No, what I believe he is saying is that the media focuses on big events of national interest. The blocking of a SC nominee is BIG NEWS. What Dems and GOPs did/are doing with district court nominees does not move the needle, thus gets far less attention. It's not the media's job to make the case for GOP talking points (or Dems talking points)... just report what is happening that is of major interest. IMHO, this is what you guys call the "liberal media"... boo hoo hoo
3. I think you'd be surprised what independent voters think of Obama. - no doubt. The idea that Obama has been the "WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER." has obviously gone unchallenged during the GOP debates. This will change during the general election phase. The GOP nominee will surely try to make that case, but the Dem nominee will respond with some inconvenient facts to dispute that theory. Whatever the middle believes... who knows... but it's surely not what is said on here about Obama.
4. Can independents really stomach voting for the slimiest, most dishonest politician to every run for President? My guess is Hillary will be her own worst friend in the actual campaign. - Are you referring to Trump or Hillary here? LOL. If those are the choices, the fireworks should be amazing, LOL
5. And wtf are you talking about a lack of a job? he was responding to AwesomeTroll, who posts so often on here... he clearly has no significant role in life other than to spew personal insults and be wrong all the time

[nolanvt]

3. I think you'd be surprised what independent voters think of Obama. - no doubt. The idea that Obama has been the "WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER." has obviously gone unchallenged during the GOP debates. This will change during the general election phase. The GOP nominee will surely try to make that case, but the Dem nominee will respond with some inconvenient facts to dispute that theory. Whatever the middle believes... who knows... but it's surely not what is said on here about Obama.

If he were eligible to run, Obama would be a #LOCK to win re-election.

[133743Hokie]

3. I think you'd be surprised what independent voters think of Obama. - no doubt. The idea that Obama has been the "WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER." has obviously gone unchallenged during the GOP debates. This will change during the general election phase. The GOP nominee will surely try to make that case, but the Dem nominee will respond with some inconvenient facts to dispute that theory. Whatever the middle believes... who knows... but it's surely not what is said on here about Obama.

If he were eligible to run, Obama would be a #LOCK to win re-election.

nope, not even close

[HokieJoe]

3. I think you'd be surprised what independent voters think of Obama. - no doubt. The idea that Obama has been the "WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER." has obviously gone unchallenged during the GOP debates. This will change during the general election phase. The GOP nominee will surely try to make that case, but the Dem nominee will respond with some inconvenient facts to dispute that theory. Whatever the middle believes... who knows... but it's surely not what is said on here about Obama.

If he were eligible to run, Obama would be a #LOCK to win re-election.

You have no way of knowing that. The dynamics of this election are nothing like 2008 or 2012. Principally, he'd be running against a bigger celebrity than himself in one case; or two Latinos who represent a larger demographic than blacks. Not saying either would get all ofthem, but the magic ~35% number is much more likely with either Cruz or Rubio.

[Major Kong]

If he were eligible to run, Obama would be a #LOCK to win re-election.

Prove it in a real election.

[nolanvt]

3. I think you'd be surprised what independent voters think of Obama. - no doubt. The idea that Obama has been the "WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER." has obviously gone unchallenged during the GOP debates. This will change during the general election phase. The GOP nominee will surely try to make that case, but the Dem nominee will respond with some inconvenient facts to dispute that theory. Whatever the middle believes... who knows... but it's surely not what is said on here about Obama.

If he were eligible to run, Obama would be a #LOCK to win re-election.

You have no way of knowing that. The dynamics of this election are nothing like 2008 or 2012. Principally, he'd be running against a bigger celebrity than himself in one case; or two Latinos who represent a larger demographic than blacks. Not saying either would get all ofthem, but the magic ~35% number is much more likely with either Cruz or Rubio.

Presidents like Reagan, Clinton, and Obama would have won third terms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HokieJoe]

3. I think you'd be surprised what independent voters think of Obama. - no doubt. The idea that Obama has been the "WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER." has obviously gone unchallenged during the GOP debates. This will change during the general election phase. The GOP nominee will surely try to make that case, but the Dem nominee will respond with some inconvenient facts to dispute that theory. Whatever the middle believes... who knows... but it's surely not what is said on here about Obama.

If he were eligible to run, Obama would be a #LOCK to win re-election.

You have no way of knowing that. The dynamics of this election are nothing like 2008 or 2012. Principally, he'd be running against a bigger celebrity than himself in one case; or two Latinos who represent a larger demographic than blacks. Not saying either would get all ofthem, but the magic ~35% number is much more likely with either Cruz or Rubio.

Presidents like Reagan, Clinton, and Obama would have won third terms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So says conventional thinking. This election is anything but conventional.

[VoiceOfReason]

Presidents like Reagan, Clinton, and Obama would have won third terms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reagan for sure. Bush the Elder won on a "kinder, gentler" Reagan platform.

Clinton probably... but there was some bimbo backlash that affected Gore. Given the close nature of the Bush v. Gore election, I suspect Slick Willy would have pulled it out.

Obama? Well... it's not like the GOP could be any more crazy mad at him in 2016 then they were in 2012. Hard to say... it's possible but I would not say it's a given. At least until we see who the GOP nominates.

[USN_Hokie]

If the Senate caves and confirms an Obama nominee - I'm out. I'm done with the Republican party. If they can't do this, they're worthless. I put odds at 50/50 - toss up.

[ip_law-hokie]

In other threads, this topic has been talked to death. So let's go on record - without arguing what SHOULD happen. These questions are about what WILL happen? Remember, your reputations for political astuteness are on the line:

Once President Obama nominates a SC Justice, the Senate will:

A) Refuse to hold a vote for the rest of Obama's term
B) Hold a vote, reject the candidate and then continue to reject all subsequent nominees for the rest of Obama's term
C) Hold a vote and eventually confirm a SC Justice (possibly after rejecting one or more nominees).

=====

My prediction is C - the Senate will likely reject the first one (to save face) but eventually approve the second or third candidate.

What say you? What WILL happen?

B. With the eventual nominee confirmed being more liberal than the nominees rejected under Obama.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nolanvt]

If the Senate caves and confirms an Obama nominee - I'm out. I'm done with the Republican party. If they can't do this, they're worthless. I put odds at 50/50 - toss up.

Any nominee whatsoever?

[USN_Hokie]

If the Senate caves and confirms an Obama nominee - I'm out. I'm done with the Republican party. If they can't do this, they're worthless. I put odds at 50/50 - toss up.

Any nominee whatsoever?

Any Obama nominee is a shift from a balanced court to a leftist court. Anyone who is not a leftist ideologue should support the Senate waiting until the next session to consider any confirmations.

[UpstateSCHokie]

If the Senate caves and confirms an Obama nominee - I'm out. I'm done with the Republican party. If they can't do this, they're worthless. I put odds at 50/50 - toss up.

Any nominee whatsoever?

Any Obama nominee is a shift from a balanced court to a leftist court. Anyone who is not a leftist ideologue should support the Senate waiting until the next session to consider any confirmations.

This! Why is it so hard for some of the so-called conservatives to understand this.