Do Republicans hate the constitution?

[InvestigatorIL]

Nowadays Republicans hate just about everything except guns and Jesus don't they?

 

[djacobox372]

Yes, he's wrong, just like the dems were wrong.

It's disengenuous for the Democrats to complain about a practice they have engaged in.

False equivalency. The dems were the minority so obstructism was the only tool they had to prevent extremely right wing judges from being confirmed. And they only obstructed once Bush had nominated a far-right judge that they didn't like. I wouldn't fault the GOP if they were in the same position.

The GOP is the majority, which puts them in a very different position. There's zero chance that Obama could sail any socialist liberal judges through confirmation, yet they've made a BLANKET proclamation that they won't allow anything to move forward regardless of who he nominates. This is unprecedented.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

False equivalency. The dems were the minority so obstructism was the only tool they had to prevent extremely right wing judges from being confirmed. And they only obstructed once Bush had nominated a far-right judge that they didn't like. I wouldn't fault the GOP if they were in the same position.

The GOP is the majority, which puts them in a very different position. There's zero chance that Obama could sail any socialist liberal judges through confirmation, yet they've made a BLANKET proclamation that they won't allow anything to move forward regardless of who he nominates. This is unprecedented.

Everything is "unpresidented" and "unheard of" when the repulicans threaten to do it, but the democrats didn't have any other choice when they did it?????

I think it's pretty evident that the ball is in Obama's court - if he nominates a liberal then they aren't getting confirmed.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

It's pretty different. Eliminating the electoral college (which would be excellent) would require changing the constitution. This is a question of who is following the constitution and who isn't.

My personal feeling is that the Senate is not constitutionally obligated to approve any of Obama's nominees. Mostly because the constitution is relatively vague on what happens if the Senate refuses to do so, likely because the founders didn't anticipate an opposition party that refuses to do anything. The Senate has spent most of its history being a very gentlemanly, collegial body that simply didn't do things like this. That hasn't been true since W's administration (regardless of who was in power), but it really screws things up because a lot of the workings of the Senate are dependent upon people following traditions and forms. Even if Hillary or Bernie are elected if the Dems don't take back the Senate I'm not sure there's any constitutional reason the GOP couldn't reject all their nominees for the entirety of their terms without offering any explanation. Of course, that would leave a lot of liberal lower court decisions stand so they're better off approving a moderate liberal, but they don't seem that far sighted.

In all fairness they did this under Truman


Didn't he coin the phrase "do nothing congress"

So this did exists before W was president.

 

[supra57]

Hmmm I cant think of any republicans who have changed the constitutional laws by executive order but I know one democrat who has. So hmmmmm who really hates the constitution?

 

[Uchi Mata]

In all fairness they did this under Truman


Didn't he coin the phrase "do nothing congress"

So this did exists before W was president.

Yeah, it comes and goes. Earl Warren resigned early so that LBJ could appoint his successor rather than Nixon, though it worked out poorly. But I do think our current era of partisanship really heated up under W, with roots in the Contract With America GOP Congresses of the 90s. Things were pretty serene for the most part in the 70s and 80s (in terms of Senate manners and following protocol), Bork not withstanding.