General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs Blocking Merrick Garland the Latest Act of Republican Self-Destruction?
Is Blocking Merrick Garland the Latest Act of Republican Self-Destruction?
By Kurt Eichenwald On 3/16/16 at 4:00 PM
snip//
The big question in all of this is, why did the Republicans declare before a nominee was put forward that they would oppose anyone? Are they really that dumb strategically? Yes, they got a few weeks of cheers from the Tea Party types. But why not just wait until there was a nominee, then break out the fainting couch by pretending no one could have ever imagined Obama would nominate so-and-so? That, at least, could have been portrayed as being a typical process in a constitutional government, not a declaration of some brand-new not in an election year standard clearly made up for pure politics.
By jumping the gun in their opposition, the Republicans will have to constantly repeat their line for the next 237 days that, because it is an election year, the people should have a voice in naming the next justice for the court. Thats all theyve got. Democrats are then set up for a rat-a-tat-tat of responses:
the move is unprecedented;
the people already had a voice when they re-elected Obama;
presidents have had nominees confirmed in election years throughout American history;
the Republicans are refusing to do their job;
they are sacrificing government to politics;
they are crippling the court through at least 2017;
they are continuing their attempts to block Obamas judicial selections with laughable excuses (such as when they fought to shrink the size of a major federal appeals court by suddenly declaring it was too big after a vacancy opened up);
they sacrifice government to politics, and cannot be trusted.
The political attack ads against every Republican in a close Senate race this year almost write themselves. The news stories will be relentless, with reporters asking uncomfortable questions like, What day in a presidents last term should no more nominees be considered? and Why did the Republican National Committee start fundraising off of the idea of blocking any nominee even before Obama named one? The GOP will be forced, again and again, to mutter its feeble justification for what will become increasingly evident was nothing more than a naked power grab.
And this gift to the Democrats will likely keep on giving. If Trump wins the nomination, expect to see hundreds of political ads showing the Republican standard-bearer insulting women, calling for blocking all Muslims from coming to the United States and talking about his penis, followed by the tagline, Is this who you want to select the next Supreme Court justice? Republicans have plans to help their at-risk Senators distance themselves from Trump, but if those candidates are simultaneously arguing that the next president should select the new Supreme Court justice, they are tying themselves directly to the man that party leaders have already called a cancer, a buffoon and dangerous.
more...
http://www.newsweek.com/merrick-garland-gop-self-destruction-437578
Wounded Bear
(58,656 posts)TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)the first place.
So yes.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)its like no one was alive in 92 ...
C_U_L8R
(45,002 posts)... in checkmating themselves once again.
No matter what, they lose. And it's pretty funny.
They should just give up because they really
suck at this governing thing.
babylonsister
(171,065 posts)enough
(13,259 posts)The idea that this will self-destruct the GOP is delusional.
OhioBlue
(5,126 posts)what they are doing and why it is ridiculous are probably already in our camp or are hardcore party faithful that will overlook it.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)when they're making a mistake. Why are so many people here trying to help the Republicans by giving them good advice?
Gothmog
(145,239 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I'd think they'd jump at the chance to get someone they've already approved and had done this before.
malaise
(268,998 posts)K & R
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)Shouldn't they, by their own standard, approve whoever the next President nominates?
Does anybody ask them about this most probable scenario?
They are not worried about walking back the whole position. If it wasn't something completely hypocritical, they would not be Republicans.