1. How has Mitch McConnell's announcement of plans to prevent Obama's replacement of Scalia shifted the debate over the choice of a replacement?
2. Why does the coming election make this position even more dangerous for Republicans?
3. What predicament are conservative Senators in when deciding how to respond to an Obama appointee?
4. WHAT'S UP WITH MITCH McCONNELL'S FACE?!
5. How often have SCOTUS justices had to be replaced in election years?
6. What claim is Senator Chuck Grassley making? What truth is in this claim?
7. What are the problems with Democratic claims that replacing a judge in an election year is normal?
8. Why was Anthony Kennedy confirmed so late in Reagan's last year as president?
9. How has party polarization changed the confirmation process?
10. What solutions does the Constitution have for gridlock over judicial nominees?
1. The Senate Republicans seem obstinate and unfair after McConnnell's biased statement in that he says he would block ANYONE that Obama nominates. This ain't gon' be good for the Republican Senate, ifyaknowwhati'msaying.
2. The Republicans face the harsh reality that this debate over Scalia stuff has only been hurting them, and they have to now very really fear the possibility of loosing the Senate. This would be even more detrimental, if they lost the presidency to a Democrat as well.
3.If they deny Obama's appointee, they look bad for obstructing and being biased to their own beliefs not looking for the betterment of the nation or whatever). If they agree to an Obama appointee, they lose anyway, since a liberal justice, which they really, really don't want would be on the court.
4.That man can't believe what's happening. LOLS (It's okay fam, things might get better. Probably not. You a thot.)
5. They have been replaced more than a dozen times in election years.
6. He claims that there is an 80-year tradition of not approving a justice in an election year. This is not true, however, since Justice Kennedy was approved in an election year, It is true, though, that a justice seat was not vacated and replaced in an election year for 80 years.
7. In modern times, it virtually hasn't happened. A situation similar to this has not happened since a very long time ago. It as been at least 80 years since the last time something like this has happened, so it is hard for the Democrats to claim that something like approving a justice this fast is normal and happens all the time.
8. He was approved so late, since Reagan tried to appoint someone else, but the democrats in the senate rejected him.
9. The confirmation process has become much more intricate and difficult when polarization leads to opposite parties in the presidency and senate. The two parties have to work together somewhat to get someone approved in the court, who "works" for both parties. Although this is true, the president has more influenc in the swing of the judge than the senate can.
10. There is really nothing written in. We just have to hope that the parties can agree and get someone in (of qualified standards). (We learned earlier this year at some point, however, that for the Supreme Court to operate, there must be at least six judges present. So, if a situation got really bad, where the appointed judges by the president were not approved, I guess the Supreme Court could shut down or something for a while? I could see how that could be a potential problem,)
No comments:
Post a Comment