BREAKING: GOP Does Not Want To Work, Just Wants To Bang On Drum All Day

wake up and do your job

If you were just sitting around today wondering if Senate Republicans were going to think about doing their goddamn job on, well, anything really, wonder no more: they have indeed done something, which is to get together and take a vote on ... not doing their goddamn job.

Yes, the best and the brightest that Republicans have to offer, led by chinless and dickless wonder Mitch McConnell, have declared that even if Obama nominates the Baby Jesus or Ted Cruz or Zombie Scalia, that person shall not get a confirmation vote, no how no way no where.

"We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame duck president," said Majority Whip John Cornyn.

When asked if they would start the process after the new president took office or if they would consider doing it in the lame duck session, Cornyn replied "No, after the next president is selected. That way the American people have a voice in the process."

Sen. Lindsey Graham said that "there's no use starting a process that's not going to go anywhere and we are going to let the next president decide," when asked why there would be no hearings.

That is a full Greek chorus of stupid right there. As we have to keep explaining to you passel of idiots, the American people did decide as to who they wanted to nominate Supreme Court judges, and that person is the Kenyan Muslin imposter currently occupying the White House. We realize this is hard for you to take. We realize that you've spent the last 7 years in the sort of profound denial that people end up in therapy for 20+ years to get over. But it is, regrettably for you, true.

Setting aside the profound obstructionist stupidity of all of this, do any of you nitwits realize what a profound crisis this creates for the judiciary? This means no ninth justice for the rest of this term and most, if not all, of the Court's next term, because your jackoff fantasy President Trump, Cruz, or Rubio wouldn't be able to even nominate someone until January 2017. This means lots of huge decisions going 4-4, which means that the lower court decision stands. (You might know that if you had the vaguest idea how the judiciary works, you fucks.) This also means that you are going to have to rethink this strategy if and when a President Sanders or a President Clinton wins. Or are you thinking to just refuse all votes on any nominee for the following 8 years? Oh god wait. You probably would, because if a Democrat wins the presidency, she or he will somehow be an invalid leader in the eyes of the GOP.

"Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent. In this case, the Senate will withhold it," McConnell said. "The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they've already started making today."

So what's the cutoff there, Mitch? I mean, your bright shining boy Rubio pretty much started running for president circa 2013, so would you and your equally dumb ilk have refused to hold a vote way back then? Do you have hold of some secret part of the Constitution that sets a date for when a president is a lame duck and effectively doesn't get to nominate a SCOTUS replacement? Is it somewhere tucked in the Second Amendment, which seems to be the only part of the Constitution you actually like and respect?

Oh oh oh! Also, if you are in a purple-ish swing-y sort of state and want to do something cool like get re-elected, GOP senators, you might wish to rethink this strategy.

In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, a majority of voters want to see a new justice confirmed this year. Among Ohioans, 58 percent want to see a new justice this year, while 35 percent would prefer to wait. Pennsylvania residents feel the same way, by a 57 percent to 40 percent margin. As PPP notes, independent voters, who could sway a tight Senate race, are even more supportive of approving a replacement this year, by 70 percent to 24 percent in Ohio and 60 percent to 37 percent in Pennsylvania.

In both states, 52 percent of respondents said they were less likely to reelect their current senator if the senator refuses to confirm any replacement no matter whom is nominated. Only 25 percent said a blanket refusal to confirm an Obama nominee would make them more likely to vote for reelection. Among independents, again, the numbers are even worse for Portman and Toomey.

Hmmm. So you're saying that this steadfast refusal to perform the most basic of tasks may cost Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey their jobs? Suddenly we feel a little better about your approach.

Scratch that. No we don't. Do your job. Do your fucking job. Do your goddamn job and stop whining about Robert Bork, who wasn't confirmed because he was a terrifying nutball, not because the Democrats were being obstructionist jagoffs like you are. Do. Your. Job.

[ TPM / Mother Jones ]