It seems simple to me..

[quietfan 233]

Allowing the President to do his duty and submit a name for nomination; vetting that nominee's character, experience, and credentials; giving him or her a Hearing, i.e., job interview; then giving your advise and consent or dissent via an open debate and an up-down vote, all in a timely manner, is Constitutional process at its best.

Blatantly refusing to consider any nominee of the President; preemptively rejecting a nominee before a name is even proposed; and implying that the President shouldn't have the right to do so until you have a chance to elect a President more to your liking is both a rejection of the Constitution and a dereliction of the duties of your office.

[AURaptor 1,129]

Unfortunately, dereliction of office has afflicted all of DC. No one is immune.

[quietfan 233]

Unfortunately, dereliction of office has afflicted all of DC. No one is immune.

I totally agree!

[homersapien 11,590]

This is more about Mitch McConnell pandering to the base than it is anything.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-winship/does-mitch-mcconnell-real_b_9323766.html

[AURaptor 1,129]

Did Biden pander to his base as well ?

[AFTiger 282]

It is about the Senate performing its advise and consent role.

[Grumps 3,705]

This is more about Mitch McConnell pandering to the base than it is anything.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-winship/does-mitch-mcconnell-real_b_9323766.html

I completely agree with you, homer!!!!!! My prediction is that Obama will nominate someone and the senate committee will pretend go through the motions and make it seem like they will reject the nomination and then at the last minute make a deal to approve the nomination for some minor bone thrown to them by Obama.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Allowing the President to do his duty and submit a name for nomination; vetting that nominee's character, experience, and credentials; giving him or her a Hearing, i.e., job interview; then giving your advise and consent or dissent via an open debate and an up-down vote, all in a timely manner, is Constitutional process at its best.

Blatantly refusing to consider any nominee of the President; preemptively rejecting a nominee before a name is even proposed; and implying that the President shouldn't have the right to do so until you have a chance to elect a President more to your liking is both a rejection of the Constitution and a dereliction of the duties of your office.

Allowing the President to do his duty and submit a name for nomination; vetting that nominee's character, experience, and credentials; giving him or her a Hearing, i.e., job interview; then giving your advise and consent or dissent via an open debate and an up-down vote, all in a timely manner, is Constitutional process at its best.

Blatantly refusing to consider any nominee of the President; preemptively rejecting a nominee before a name is even proposed; and implying that the President shouldn't have the right to do so until you have a chance to elect a President more to your liking is both a rejection of the Constitution and a dereliction of the duties of your office.

The key is the word "timely." The Constitution doesn't set a timeline and the time for the process is also not defined. It's all a matter of one's opinion unfortunately.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

This is more about Mitch McConnell pandering to the base than it is anything.

http://www.huffingto..._b_9323766.html

OMG. McConnell pandering to his base? Obama, Reid , Pelosi, etc., would never do that.

[JoeBags7277 741]

To understand that this is classic GOP pandering at it's finest, ask yourself one simple question: If it were Ginsburg instead of Scalia being replaced, would there be such an outcry?

This is about tipping the balance of the court. It's about the moss-covered, fuddy-duddy GOP Old Guard wanting to professionally lose presidential elections by putting up crap candidates and yet not pay the consequences of losing said elections.

As in so many other cases, it's another self inflicted wound.

[alexava 6,974]

It's very simple and needlessly debated. He can nominate who he wants, the senate can reject anyone they want. Running off at the mouth is not needed( McConnell).A lot of people wasting time debating this. Repubs just being a**holes, it is discouraged butt allowed.

[AUDub 11,219]

Yep. The optics look bad for the GOP. Obama played them like a fiddle with the supposed vetting of Sandoval.

[quietfan 233]

Beyond the chore of getting nominated (which isn't a factor for McConnell), I've never seen the logic of pandering to one's base (on either side of the political spectrum).

Presumably one's base is already locked in. (It's not like hard right wingers are going to defect to Bernie or Hillary, or that the hard left would ever vote for Trump/Cruz/etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the moderate, undecided vote rather than continuing the fellatio of supporters already firmly rooted in your camp?

Of course, "sense" has little to do with action in Washington.

[homersapien 11,590]

Beyond the chore of getting nominated (which isn't a factor for McConnell), I've never seen the logic of pandering to one's base (on either side of the political spectrum).

Presumably one's base is already locked in. (It's not like hard right wingers are going to defect to Bernie or Hillary, or that the hard left would ever vote for Trump/Cruz/etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the moderate, undecided vote rather than continuing the fellatio of supporters already firmly rooted in your camp?

Of course, "sense" has little to do with action in Washington.

He needs the wacko votes to ensure he remains majority leader.

[AUFAN78 3,945]

Beyond the chore of getting nominated (which isn't a factor for McConnell), I've never seen the logic of pandering to one's base (on either side of the political spectrum).

Presumably one's base is already locked in. (It's not like hard right wingers are going to defect to Bernie or Hillary, or that the hard left would ever vote for Trump/Cruz/etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the moderate, undecided vote rather than continuing the fellatio of supporters already firmly rooted in your camp?

Of course, "sense" has little to do with action in Washington.

He needs the wacko votes to ensure he remains majority leader.

That could be said of many. Reid and Pelosi immediately come to mind.

[homersapien 11,590]

Beyond the chore of getting nominated (which isn't a factor for McConnell), I've never seen the logic of pandering to one's base (on either side of the political spectrum).

Presumably one's base is already locked in. (It's not like hard right wingers are going to defect to Bernie or Hillary, or that the hard left would ever vote for Trump/Cruz/etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the moderate, undecided vote rather than continuing the fellatio of supporters already firmly rooted in your camp?

Of course, "sense" has little to do with action in Washington.

He needs the wacko votes to ensure he remains majority leader.

That could be said of many. Reid and Pelosi immediately come to mind.

A few Democrats may exhibit wackiness, but there's enough Republican wackos to organize and take over their party.

[AUFAN78 3,945]

Beyond the chore of getting nominated (which isn't a factor for McConnell), I've never seen the logic of pandering to one's base (on either side of the political spectrum).

Presumably one's base is already locked in. (It's not like hard right wingers are going to defect to Bernie or Hillary, or that the hard left would ever vote for Trump/Cruz/etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the moderate, undecided vote rather than continuing the fellatio of supporters already firmly rooted in your camp?

Of course, "sense" has little to do with action in Washington.

He needs the wacko votes to ensure he remains majority leader.

That could be said of many. Reid and Pelosi immediately come to mind.

A few Democrats may exhibit wackiness, but there's enough Republican wackos to organize and take over their party.

Let's hope not.

[Grumps 3,705]

Beyond the chore of getting nominated (which isn't a factor for McConnell), I've never seen the logic of pandering to one's base (on either side of the political spectrum).

Presumably one's base is already locked in. (It's not like hard right wingers are going to defect to Bernie or Hillary, or that the hard left would ever vote for Trump/Cruz/etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the moderate, undecided vote rather than continuing the fellatio of supporters already firmly rooted in your camp?

Of course, "sense" has little to do with action in Washington.

He needs the wacko votes to ensure he remains majority leader.

That could be said of many. Reid and Pelosi immediately come to mind.

A few Democrats may exhibit wackiness, but there's enough Republican wackos to organize and take over their party.

Do you not think that both parties have already been taken over?

[AuburnNTexas 7,211]

Beyond the chore of getting nominated (which isn't a factor for McConnell), I've never seen the logic of pandering to one's base (on either side of the political spectrum).

Presumably one's base is already locked in. (It's not like hard right wingers are going to defect to Bernie or Hillary, or that the hard left would ever vote for Trump/Cruz/etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the moderate, undecided vote rather than continuing the fellatio of supporters already firmly rooted in your camp?

Of course, "sense" has little to do with action in Washington.

In some states or districts if you are a Democrat you win in others if you are a Republican you win. In those areas the fight is to win your parties nomination Primaries tend to have smaller turnouts and the most radical groups of each party tend to turn out in the Primaries. That is why Pelosi and Reed ruled with Iron Fists when they were in charge and why McConnell is doing the same thing. Reed. Pelosi, McConnell were pandering to the radical side of their parties to guarantee they would be re-elected. Reed has decided to step down he made that decision when he thought Sandoval was going to run against him. Now that Sandoval has said he is not running Reed probably wishes he had stayed in.

[homersapien 11,590]

Beyond the chore of getting nominated (which isn't a factor for McConnell), I've never seen the logic of pandering to one's base (on either side of the political spectrum).

Presumably one's base is already locked in. (It's not like hard right wingers are going to defect to Bernie or Hillary, or that the hard left would ever vote for Trump/Cruz/etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the moderate, undecided vote rather than continuing the fellatio of supporters already firmly rooted in your camp?

Of course, "sense" has little to do with action in Washington.

He needs the wacko votes to ensure he remains majority leader.

That could be said of many. Reid and Pelosi immediately come to mind.

A few Democrats may exhibit wackiness, but there's enough Republican wackos to organize and take over their party.

Let's hope not.

Little late for hope. It's time to watch.

[homersapien 11,590]

Beyond the chore of getting nominated (which isn't a factor for McConnell), I've never seen the logic of pandering to one's base (on either side of the political spectrum).

Presumably one's base is already locked in. (It's not like hard right wingers are going to defect to Bernie or Hillary, or that the hard left would ever vote for Trump/Cruz/etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the moderate, undecided vote rather than continuing the fellatio of supporters already firmly rooted in your camp?

Of course, "sense" has little to do with action in Washington.

He needs the wacko votes to ensure he remains majority leader.

That could be said of many. Reid and Pelosi immediately come to mind.

A few Democrats may exhibit wackiness, but there's enough Republican wackos to organize and take over their party.

Do you not think that both parties have already been taken over?

By whom?

[AUFAN78 3,945]

Beyond the chore of getting nominated (which isn't a factor for McConnell), I've never seen the logic of pandering to one's base (on either side of the political spectrum).

Presumably one's base is already locked in. (It's not like hard right wingers are going to defect to Bernie or Hillary, or that the hard left would ever vote for Trump/Cruz/etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the moderate, undecided vote rather than continuing the fellatio of supporters already firmly rooted in your camp?

Of course, "sense" has little to do with action in Washington.

He needs the wacko votes to ensure he remains majority leader.

That could be said of many. Reid and Pelosi immediately come to mind.

A few Democrats may exhibit wackiness, but there's enough Republican wackos to organize and take over their party.

Do you not think that both parties have already been taken over?

By whom?

Politicians?

[quietfan 233]

Beyond the chore of getting nominated (which isn't a factor for McConnell), I've never seen the logic of pandering to one's base (on either side of the political spectrum).

Presumably one's base is already locked in. (It's not like hard right wingers are going to defect to Bernie or Hillary, or that the hard left would ever vote for Trump/Cruz/etc.) Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the moderate, undecided vote rather than continuing the fellatio of supporters already firmly rooted in your camp?

Of course, "sense" has little to do with action in Washington.

He needs the wacko votes to ensure he remains majority leader.

That could be said of many. Reid and Pelosi immediately come to mind.

A few Democrats may exhibit wackiness, but there's enough Republican wackos to organize and take over their party.

Do you not think that both parties have already been taken over?

By whom?

Politicians?

Personally, I think most of both parties, indeed most of our system, has been taken over by those with money to pass around. Politicians are just their whores, selling to the highest bidder.

[AURaptor 1,129]

Personally, I think most of both parties, indeed most of our system, has been taken over by those with money to pass around. Politicians are just their whores, selling to the highest bidder.

And none other has made more money in less time via political promises exchanged for huge sums of cash than Hillary.