Ask tough questions, and maybe, in the absence of GOP senators, have one of the Democratic senators play the role that someone usually does in preparing a presidential candidate for a debate.
Senate Republicans have given him absolutely no reason to play nice with them nor observe the asinine gentility that obfuscates the partisan rancor of that institution.
As a consequence of endless Republican obstructionism, voters are frustrated and angry with Washington. This has led to the rise of Donald Trump as a Republican presidential candidate, and a civil war within the party.
U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., on Monday broke ranks with Republican leaders by saying he recognizes President Barack Obama's right to nominate a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and that the GOP-controlled Senate should consider the nominee.
The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has led, almost immediately, to extensive and partisan political fighting in Washington. This is, in part, a fitting tribute to a man who served on the Supreme Court for almost thirty years, and whose greatest contributions in that capacity were ultimately more political than judicial.
The annual reading of President Washington's message continues to be relevant today: our senators should put country before party.
Ron Reagan and Ron Christie debate a week of huge news -- will the Nevada and South Carolina contests lead to a Clinton-Trump showdown that'd determine control of two branches of government? By refusing to consider any nominee this year, is the Senate GOP treating Obama as "three-fifths of a president?" And is Scalia's legacy "colossal"(GWill) or, "Like the confederate flag, a venerated relic," (MGreen)?
This week, the political fallout of Justice Scalia's death continued. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wasted no time declaring that, even with eleven months left in Obama's presidency, "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." President Obama pledged to fulfill his "constitutional responsibilities" by making a nomination, and called on the Senate to "fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote." Jeb Bush broke with Republican orthodoxy and said he would "probably nominate" someone, and John Kasich said he'd nominate someone if he were president (while saying Obama, who is the president, shouldn't). What's amazing isn't only how dysfunctional our system has become, but how openly that dysfunction is now proclaimed. And how much we've come to accept it as the new normal. And that seems likely to continue, until we make our leaders pay a price for not actually leading.
The death of Antonin Scalia has offered Cruz the opportunity to refocus conservative attention on the future of the Supreme Court and increase the urgency of his message.
From day one, as if they won!
Before Justice Scalia's body was even cold, Republicans started obstructionism and pledged to block any Obama appointment. Apparently, a dying conservatism cares not a fig about the constitution -- just clinging to power.
It is the president's obligation to fill vacancies on the federal bench and the Senate's duty to provide "advice and consent" on those nominations. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution is straightforward, and does not contain a limit on the president's power to fill vacancies on the federal bench, especially of the kind Republicans are now demanding.
So you think you're a wonk? A political junkie? Here are ten questions to test your strategic genius and 2016 election acumen. Every choice, drawn from The Standard Table of Influence, has an element of truth, but one is closer than the others.
For at least the last four decades now I feel like I've been living in Beached America: a nation that has lost its values, even as it writhes in violent agitation, inflicting its military on the vulnerable regions of the planet.
It's a little known fact, but there are legal arguments against President Obama being able to make his Supreme Court pick.