This Is Why Republicans Can’t Win

Antonin_Scalia,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait  With the unexpected death of conservative stalwart, Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, the battle is on to fill his seat on the bench.  But the battle is not yet reached the point of vetting a nominee, instead the battle is over whether or not President Obama should, or should not be the one to nominate the next Justice.

Of course many Republicans are saying it would be wrong for a lame-duck president to nominate a justice to the bench for life. They argue that the nomination should be made by the next president. Even that is still a long shot, that a Republican will be president.

This is exactly why Republicans can’t win people over to the GOP. The hypocrisy, and cowardice is endless. So many Republicans are continually talking about the Constitution, and about how this president has trampled upon it, yet instead of following the procedure for replacing a Supreme Court Justice, as enumerated in Article II, sec. 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, they are calling on the President to abdicate his authority.

And why? Well because they can’t win. They lost the elections and President Obama won, and now he gets to nominate the next Justice. Notice that the Constitution does not say the President gets to appoint Judges of the supreme court, “only if he is not a lame-duck president”.

Instead of trying to talk the President out of appointing a nominee, maybe the Republicans, who by the way control the Senate, should simply wait for the nominee, and then judge them on their merit. And if they find fault with their qualifications, then have the spine to vote no!

The real problem is, the Republicans in the Senate, don’t want to have to vote no, the spineless bastards would rather subvert the Constitutional authority bestowed on the office of the President.

One has to wonder, what would Justice Scalia say about the tactic the Republicans are taking? After all, Justice Scalia lived his entire judicial life protecting the original intent of the Constitution. Would he be in favor of a President, of any party, ignoring their duty?

And just in case my fellow Republicans aren’t having enough trouble sleeping, thinking about how President Obama’s nominee would change the face of the court for decades, try this one on for size.

Ruth Bader ginsburg Everyone had expected Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be the next Justice to retire, or to pass away due to her age and health issues.

Now imagine if you will, not only does Pres. Obama nominate Justice Scalia’s replacement, but he convinces Justice Ginsburg to retire, and places another nominee on the bench. Just think of the conversation between the President and the Justice. “If you retire we can mold this court in our vision for decades.” Food for thought.

So my advice to Republicans in the Senate, like candidate Ted Cruz, who by the way claims to have such high respect for the Constitution, shut up about the President holding off on nominating, and focus on doing your job, and if the nominee is unacceptable, then reach down and find yourself, and vote no!


26 Comments on "This Is Why Republicans Can’t Win"

  1. Middleman says:

    I’m guessing the President will nominate a lower court judge that the Republicans previously confirmed unanimously then sit back and watch them make fools of themselves and thereby hand the election to the Dems.

  2. Frank's Smarter Half says:

    Cuz Bork.

    You stupid, pathetic, mealy mouthed toady jackass. Applying political pressure and flexing partisan muscle in these kinds of instances is as old a concept as democracy itself. Get a clue kiddo. The sides aren’t supposed to get along. That’s the whole fucking point. Gridlock is s GOOD thing. It means less government. Tool.

  3. Honi Soit says:

    The definition of “lame duck” seems to be a moving (read expanding) target. Used to be that it referred to an elected official who continues to hold office during the period between an election and the inauguration of a successor.

  4. Frank Knotts says:

    To FSH, caution friend. Obviously you are a Trump supporter considering your language skills. Where did I say that the Republicans are not supposed to oppose the Demicrats? What I said was they are spineless bastards because they would rather subvert the Constitution than have to stand up and vote no. And if you think we can fix or reverse the problems we have in this nation simply by gridlock, then you are not only a Trump supporter, you should be running his campaign.

  5. Js says:

    Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution

    …He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

    FSH Frank is right on this one. Note that the Constitution doesn’t say “can”; it doesn’t say “may”: it says “shall”. The president doesn’t have a “right” to appoint (as I’ve heard some pundits say) he has a duty to appoint. To suggest that the president not fulfill that duty isn’t politics, it is unconstitutional. Having said that, the appointment has to be done with the “advice and consent” of the Senate . It is the Senate’s duty to advise the president in regard to the appointment and then consent to the appointment. One need only look at Obama’s track record in appointing Attorneys General to know that he needs all the advice he can get and even then the Senate must consent to the appointment. Any Senator that fears, because of “political” fallout, withholding his consent is truly spineless.
    The apparent concern is that the president may send the Senate the name of a judge that they recently confirmed and the Dems can claim that that Republicans are obstructionist if they don’t confirm. The answer to that is to point out that the Senate had confirmed Clarence Thomas to the DC Court of Appeals only 16 months before he was nominated to the Supreme Court. The responsibilities of a Court of Appeals Judge pale in comparison to a Supreme Justice’s. A Senator who is unwilling to withhold his consent because he fears political fallout is violating his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States

  6. fightingbluehen says:

    Glad to see the blog site is up and running again.

    I say don’t cave at all. Not letting the court to be stacked is actually keeping with the spirit and integrity of of the Constitution. Both sides inevitably would love to stack the court in there favor, and it is a good thing that the Constitution gives the Senate the tool of “advice and consent” so that one set of beliefs and motivations don’t end up outweighing the collective interest of “We the People”.

    Of course the “cliché dissenting” Democrats, are going to cry fowl. There will be accusations of obstruction and possibly even racism, but that is to be expected, and the good thing is that they can’t blame Trump for it.

    I’ve already discussed the angle of Ginsburg retiring, and I think that there could be an amicable deal struck between the president and the senate on this that would give Obama his third Supreme Court appointee.

  7. Rick says:

    The real problem is, the Republicans in the Senate, don’t want to have to vote no, the spineless bastards would rather subvert the Constitutional authority bestowed on the office of the President…

    Well, I would agree that the establishment wing of the GOP (the wing that Frank endlessly supports) are spineless, but they are only saying what Chuck Shumer said a few years ago concerning a late Bush appointment- that we should wait until after the next election.

    I would expect Obama to nominate one of the fairly recent appointments he made to the D.C. Circuit, one of which passed unanimously. A supposed “moderate,” but one who will tilt the balance of the court. If this happens, you can kiss the right of the individual to own a firearm goodbye. The Left already has socialized medicine- guns and private property are next on the list.

    I would reject every candidate Obama presents, and then make the appointment the central issue of the election. Let’s see if the American people want a Soviet-style political court.

    Of course, Obama will have a window to make a recess appointment in the weeks between the November election and the inauguration. Sure, a lot of damage can be done before this judge is removed by the Senate once they are in session. But for conservatives, this might be the only way to save the court- and the nation.

    Yeah, I’m putting a lot of faith in McConnell. Luckily, Cruz dominates the Judiciary Committee.

    Notice how Frank’s “moderate” candidate (who has spent how many millions) is doing? You see, all of us conservatives are out of step but Frank.

    “We” aren’t going to lose. Either the lunatic socialist or the serial liar/criminal is going to lose.

  8. fightingbluehen says:

    The new technology concerning encrypted devices is now causing a dilemma with the whole search and seizure process concerning the federal government and your encrypted devices.

    Apple is refusing to comply with the federal court rulings that demand that the company give the government the ability to figure a way around the encryptions.
    Lower court rulings on this will inevitably be appealed to the highest court in the land (the Supreme Court).
    Watch for the administration to figure out the talking points on this in next couple of days, and make it a crisis situation that demands a timely appointment to the Supreme Court so that a ruling can be made. After all, national security is at stake, right.

  9. Fish Bites says:

    “Of course, Obama will have a window to make a recess appointment in the weeks between the November election and the inauguration.”

    It’s not just the recess. There is a new Senate which convenes on January 3, and then 17 more days until Obama’s term ends.

    Of the Senate seats up for grabs in 2016, 10 are currently held by Democrats and 24 by Republicans.

  10. mouse says:

    Interesting how working class republicans are so anxious to replace a guy who works against them in every way with the same

  11. Frank Knotts says:

    Rick, if you were paying attention, you would know that my pick is John Kasich, and my prediction was Bush. Either would be better than your mad dog candidate.
    FBH, glad to be back, been crazy at work, and fall asleep pretty much as soon as I get home.

  12. Rick says:

    Like I said, out of step with mainstream conservatives, who are going to pick Trump or Cruz.

  13. mouse says:

    Trump is a pandering theist which scare most people who went past 12th grade

  14. mouse says:

    Oops, I mean Cruz. Trump is an interesting character who has traditional liberal positions on many issues but he panders to racist and religious resentments. Seems that most people who call themselves Republican have no real core issues except resentment

  15. Frank Knotts says:

    Rick, they may seem like mainstream Republicans to you , but they are fringe to the rest of us. Time will tell.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Has anyone read Delaware Liberal lately? They have closed the door on everyone who disagrees with them. Their just debating against themselves, typical Dems; Close minded lemmings!!!

  17. pandora says:

    Your comment confuses me, anonymous. I went behind the scenes to check if any comments or commenters had been banned or moderated and found none. In the past we have pulled comments and banned commenters who have not adhered to our site’s rules. (Our house, our rules), but I can’t find any of what you are claiming recently. If I’m wrong and you’ve been banned/moderated please email me at and I will correct the problem. Thanks.

  18. mouse says:

    They they like to be victims

  19. Anonymous says:

    @ Pandora. “your house, your rules” It would be nice if you and DD, Jason and others would adhere to your own “rules”.

    @ Mouse “Interesting how working class republicans are so anxious to replace a guy who works against them in every way with the same” Great day when Obama is out of office!

  20. pandora says:

    @Anonymous, I offered to address the situation and this is your response? Is there actually a situation to address?

  21. Anonymous says:

    @ Pandora. DL has cut out all users, who do not agree with DL’s views!!

  22. pandora says:

    Yeah… I’m done. You got nothing, and everyone sees it. What is it with you guys and conspiracy theories?

  23. mouse says:

    Got to love these talk radio educated less government types who shill for the robber baron against government and regulation and cheer the corporate polluters who contaminate drinking water and give kids cancer

  24. Nick says:

    no matter who Obama picks you won’t loose your guns. Even your machine guns. All you need is a chunk of aluminum. Take it to a reliable machine shop, order the rest, and fire away. It’s past the point of “outlawing guns”, No worries.

  25. mouse says:

    But without the absurd and paranoid canards to energize the people who the party needs to win then they can’t win. If the uneducated lower middle class actually was willing and capable of digesting their own interests and that of their kids, none of them would vote for a party whose policies enrich the rich at average people’s expense.

  26. mouse says:

    I still don’t understand why my right to have a nuclear tipped Stinger missile is denied.

Got something to say? Go for it!