Posted on 02/22/2016 2:31:08 PM PST by SMGFan
(R-Ill.) broke with his party on Monday to back giving President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote.
"I also recognize my duty as a senator to either vote in support or opposition to that nominee following a fair and thorough hearing along with a complete and transparent release of all requested information," Kirk wrote in a Chicago Sun-Times op-ed.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Nope, the Senate may simply ignore any and all of Obama’s nominees which is exactly what they should do. That’s all it takes since it is the Senate who ultimately decides who gets on the Court.
Trump is the result of decades of Republicans pulling this crap, working hand-in-hand with Democrats, reaching across the aisle, so the NY Times won't call them meanies. If I lived in IL, and thank God I don't, I would never give a chump like Kirk or any IL Republican my time or money.
Sen. Kirk, what a coincidence!! You will be getting a vote soon as well. Yours, however, will likely not go as well as Obama’s nominee. Not enough spineless RINO’s to save your arse.
Paging Rinse and Wash Pre-bus. Is this the GOPe not betraying us? Just curious.
Really? Why didn’t Obama have “an obligation” to vote up or down on Bush’s nominees?
Obligations, they’re not just for Republicans any more!
No one has been nominated yet ... right ?
We're debating whether we should vote on a ghost .. a wisp .. a vapor ???
How many senators need to be blackmailed? If there is a vote, Obama will win it.
I heard Linda say, the President isn’t getting anyone through unless it’s a consensus choice. My first thought is why is it ever anything different? You don’t let in a hardcore Liberal loon just because you “differ” to the President. THAT is not your job!
0bama’s bumboy, whatever it may be, should get the back of the hand.
Nothing more.
No, you do want him to win, because a Rep majority in the Senate is essential to keep any Dem from appointing any lib they want. Give the nominee a vote, and if the candidate is exceptional, fair and not a lib, I could see voting for him/her. If not, vote the nominee down. We will face the same issue when Ginsberg retires, but in reverse - she is a reliable lib vote, and will tip the balance. If the Reps win the Pres and the Senate, we can replace Ginsberg with a conservative and have a net gain.
Many Senate Republicans will want Obama’s pick just to “balance” a Cruz or Trump President...I really believe they are that evil.
If so, why not a year long process to a no vote?
And the GOPe wonders why we despise them!
Which is quite remarkable when you consider that the Republicans are in power in the Senate. What a joke
Exactly. No Democrats came out pushing for a vote on Bush's nominees. As a matter of fact, Democrats have always pushed for no vote on nominees during election years, when it was a Republican in the White House. They said it was the right thing not to vote in a nominee during an election year.
Are you really this slow? If having power in the Senate means you have to go along with Leftists to keep power in the Senate then does it REALLY matter who has power?
I know they won’t have any trouble finding 14 Vichy Republicans willing to confirm.
The survival of the GOP will depend on Grassley not letting it out of committee or McConnell not letting it onto the floor.
GOP-RIP
Well, I *do* live in Illinois (not for much longer, thank God) and I've *never* given Mark Kirk or any other ALLEGED Republican in this state a thin dime of my money.
Illinois Republicans = Democrats by any other name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.