General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAfrican-American Voters See Court Fight as Affront to Obama
Watching the fight unfold between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans over who should choose the next Supreme Court justice, Michael A. Bowden got angry at what he saw at the latest affront to the first black president.
And then his thoughts turned from Washington to his own state.
Obama won't be on the ballot this fall, but Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Pat Toomey will and Bowden has made defeating him in November a priority.
"This kind of thing really burns me to the core," said Bowden, a 56-year-old Air Force veteran from Philadelphia. "I've already started planting the seed in people's heads that Sen. Toomey is one of those people in lockstep with the Republicans. This could give him a wake-up call that he could be vulnerable as well."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/african-american-voters-court-fight-affront-obama-37257323
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)This shows the absolute fucking stupidity of the Republican and faux Christians. The can't comprehend basics, an amazing inability to put themselves in anyone's shoes.
The level of motivation will vary, but all Obama supporters will be pissed off, add the ethnicity of the eventual SC appointee and millions will be motivated to vote as a big FU to the Repiggies.
Rex
(65,616 posts)it would be hard to miss.
mia
(8,363 posts)The coinciding presidential election will have a significant impact on the elections for U.S. Senate. There are several U.S. senators up for re-election in 2016 who have made their presidential ambitions public in 2015. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have all declared their presidential candidacies.[2] Of those senators running for president, only Rubio and Paul are up for re-election in 2016. Rubio did not seek re-election to the U.S. Senate, while Paul sought both the presidency and re-election. The Republican Party of Kentucky decided Rand Paul could run simultaneous campaigns for president and the Senate. In a 111-36 vote, the partys central committee approved a presidential caucus to replace its presidential primary, thereby preventing Paul from appearing on two ballots and violating Kentucky campaign law. Paul has since suspended his presidential campaign, making this a non-issue.[3]
The unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016, places even greater importance on the 2016 Senate elections. Confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice requires 60 votes in the Senate, meaning that the Republican controlled Senate can and likely will deny any nominee chosen by President Barack Obama. Several Republican senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have declared that the next president should have the responsibility of appointing the new justice. McConnell said in a statement, "The American people? should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."[4]
Assuming that the Senate does block any nominee of President Obama, confirmation will be left to the newly elected Senate in 2017. This puts increased pressure on both parties to win the Senate in 2016, as the chamber will have the ability to confirm or deny the next president's nominees. This could also raise the issue of Republican obstructionism in battleground states and potentially harm Republican incumbents who need to appeal to more moderate voters in order to win re-election. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of the issue, "I believe that many of the mainstream Republicans, when the president nominates a mainstream nominee, will not want to follow Mitch McConnell over the cliff. The American people don't like this obstruction. When you go right off the bat and say, 'I don't care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,' that's not going to fly."[4][5]
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Ugly, racist Republicans control the House and Senate.
mia
(8,363 posts)The coinciding presidential election is likely to have a significant impact on the elections for U.S. House. Presidential election years lead to increased voter interest and turnout, which has an effect all the way down the ballot. In the past decade, presidential elections have led to Democratic gains in the U.S. House, while midterms have helped Republicans. If the trend holds, Democrats should look to pick up some seats in November.[3]
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016
Warpy
(111,367 posts)because that's exactly what it is, a bunch of racist old farts doing what a bunch of other racist old farts put them into office to do.
It's disgraceful.
Even if Obama had only one day left in office, it's still his job to nominate the next Justice. It's their job to make sure the nominee is qualified.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
malaise
(269,200 posts)Rec
Zambero
(8,974 posts)They already have more than twice as many Senate seats to defend as do Democrats, putting them in a somewhat shaky defensive mode given their current narrow 4-seat majority . Their obstructive tactics will ultimately motivate more PO-ed Democrats to the polls to (hopefully) retire a significant number of these "strict Constitutionalists", in addition to increasing the number of votes cast for the top of the ticket. In a very close presidential race, it could tip the results to affect the future make-up of the Supreme Court itself. Republicans are greedy monkeys these days, grabbing so much fruit that they won't be getting their clenched hand out of the hollowed-out coconut containing it. If they pay dearly for it come November, it won't come as a great surprise, but indeed a delayed blessing of sorts.
virgogal
(10,178 posts)I often wonder why this fact is ignored so much.
Deuce
(959 posts)The one-drop rule is a social and legal principle of racial classification that was historically prominent in the United States asserting that any person with even one ancestor of sub-Saharan-African ancestry ("one drop" of black blood) is considered to be black (Negro in historical terms). This concept evolved over the course of the 19th century and became codified into law in the 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
brer cat
(24,621 posts)on the census form instead of mixed.
virgogal
(10,178 posts)I have mixed race grandchildren-------and they identify as mixed race,which honors both parents.
Obama seems to have favored the father who abandoned him.
Odd !