Posted on 02/17/2016 2:45:48 AM PST by detective
President Obama called on Senate Republicans Tuesday to give his eventual Supreme Court nominee a fair hearing in his bid to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, as cracks emerged in the Republican leadership's position of automatically blocking any nominee.
"I expect them to hold hearings. I expect them to hold a vote," Mr. Obama said at a press conference. "There's no unwritten law that says it can only be done on off years."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I was under the impression that this is a political forum where one can express their opinion. That’s my opinion. Perhaps you can get permission to act like a brown shirted jackboot and prevent anyone from mentioning Trumps name.....
The GOPe wants the beautiful people to like them.
The GOP works for the current administration.
“this is not a sign of caving. This is posturing for an election. “
This is one of the biggest problems we have, the constant posturing for the next election instead of doing what’s right for the American people that elected them. Perfect example of why we need term limits on these people.
From Grassley’s campaign website:
...Grassley is also making plans to attend events for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, Gerber said, who added that the senator offered to appear at events for every GOP candidate.
Though Grassley has endorsed in previous years - he backed former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) in 1988 and then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush in 2000 - he will not do so this year...
Carpe Scrotum.
Seize their gonads, and their hearts and minds will follow.
Just because a bully gets humbled in the schoolyard, that does not keep him from ambushing his previous victim on the way home from school.
Remember the epic battle between Ralphie and Scut Farkus in the movie, “A Christmas Story”? McConnell has to be Ralphie, going after Reid as Scut Farkus. Harry Reid has to be shown that simply saying “Boo!” doesn’t work any more.
Mentioning his name? His name dominates each and every thread.
I thought Cruz did.
It's much more simple and straightforward to believe that most elected Republicans AGREE with most elected Democrats on fundamentals and have minor differences on strategy.
The ruling coalition is united around several things that the people are against. They are skilled at setting up phony issues (or issues that don't concern the Federal government) to break up the formation of any possible other coalition.
Republicans and Democrats agree that the purpose of the State is redistribution. How much, and to whom, and under what circumstances, there are disagreements. But no elected officials of either Party believe that it is wrong to take from you and give to another of their own choosing, for reasons that make sense to them.
Republicans and Democrats agree that you have "rights" - lots of them. They also agree that any question ABOUT your "rights", or whether or not something IS a "right", should not be decided by a political process because that is "divisive". So, they both agree that the voice of "the People" as contemplated in Articles IX and X can only be voiced by nine unelected life tenure judges, and that five of them, at any time or for any reason, can give new "rights" and take away old ones, particularly if those old ones arise out of majority voting.
Republicans and Democrats all believe in "diversity". They, ignoring completely the results of all social science research on this subject, and contrary to millennia of human experience and wisdom, believe that the more "diverse" our country, its institutions, and any private entities within her become, the more cohesive and productive we will become.
Republicans and Democrats almost all believe in "free trade" and "immigration". These things are good for various constituencies of both parties while they wreck the economy and the nation.
Many of the People, perhaps a majority, do not believe in any of these things. But in our existing system, captive as it is to the MSM-mandated "process" for choosing two candidates for POTUS neither of whom will change a thing, leaves the People with no voice.
Something's gonna blow.
I’m sure it’s some of both.
The NSA is not a national defense tool. It is a political tool wielded by those who control it for political purposes.
0bama sent out pillows to all GOP Senators.
McConnell is the reason Rand Paul went down in flames, just as Schumer is the reason Rubio will go down in flames.
I understand what you’re saying but I don’t think they would necessarily use the NSA to get dirt on people because that would leave a trail. I think they would use unconventional methods.
“”There’s no unwritten law that says it can only be done on off years.”
Leftist scum embrace the law when it advances their agenda and also violate the law to advance their agenda.
I wish that idiot so-called conservatives in Congress would understand that.
Great post. You have encapsulated a lot of the problems. The federal government has seized powers not granted it in our Foundational documents and majority, although by no means unanimous, consent.
The 30,000 foot view question is how do we fix it? Again, from a very macro view, do we elect someone who is, essentially for aggressively using the power of the executive to ram through an agenda, however conservative we believe it to be, or do we try to elect someone who will try to adhere to a stricter interpretation of the power of the executive.
I posit that, as a conservative, the latter is better choice.
The government is best which governs least. Jefferson
From your lips to God’s ears!
Pretty presumptuous on your part to insinuate God will punish me because I don’t support Cruz. You are only helping make Stephen King’s point.
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.