How did the Republicans get away with blocking Obama from filling the vacant supreme court seat?
They used the Senate rules and the constitution to their benefit, all entirely legal and above board.This relies on two things:1: the constitution says that the president nominates and the senate must confirm an appointment. Without a confirmation by the senate the nominee does not become a justice. Note that does not require a yes/no vote, a hearing or anything else. They senate must affirm otherwise the discussion is over2: the Senate decides its rules and what it will vote on. And the Senate rules provide that the party in charge gets to set the agenda. McConnell said that he would not hold a vote on the nominee should Mr. Obama submit a nomination. The senate is well within its rights to do so.That’s all there is. You can say that they abrogated their responsibility, maybe. Btu the rules are fairly simple and straightforward. The Senate chose to not have a vote and without a yes vote Garland did not become a justice.Edit: Now that the question has been changed to ask how the Republican got away with blocking Garland, I’ll add this.they got away with it because the rules allowed them to “get away with it” although the question now phrases it as if this was some kind of sinister thing that they hid from everyone. and as the former president said when he was elected, “Elections have consequences”
Would Robert Kennedy have become president had he not been assassinated?
It can't be known. Humphrey was leading in delegates at the time, even with Kennedy having just won California. Some rumors are that Mayor Daley had already told Kennedy that he'd throw Illinois his way even though he was supposedly a Humphrey supporter. (In those days, Illinois operated under the principal of "One Person One Vote", with the one person being Mayor Daley.) The New York Primary was coming up; had Kennedy won that he'd likely have an easy road to the nomination. Had McCarthy won NY, then the nomination would be a floor fight most likely between the charismatic Kennedy and the more union establishment Humphrey with anti-war McCarthy playing kingmaker. McCarthy would have won policy points which would have altered the campaign and further split the country by generation and by view of the war. With older establishment men being the more likely to vote, the Democrats would have needed much higher voting rates from young voters and women to have won. Kennedy would have accomplished that much better than Humphrey was able to, though remember that the voting age was still 21 at the time. I believe that Kennedy would have been elected, but it is all imaginary now.
Why do most racists vote republican?
Because they became Republican in protest of their dixiecrat Brother LBJ doing the right thing in the 60"s and because the Republican Party's platform is a buffet of racist, homophobic and misogynistic policies.
What political party should I vote for in the general election?
I've turned 18 this year so this will be my first voting general election. I come from a working glass background (lower middle class, if you believe in a class system) and I haven't a clue who to vote for... Does anyone have any ideas of who would be a good party to vote for to meet my needs? Thanks :)
Why couldn't Obama select the last Supreme Court nominee even though he was the president?
President Obama did select a nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. What followed was the absolutely unprecedented action of the Republicans refusing to even hold hearings regarding his fitness and qualifications for the Supreme Court. This has never happened before in the history of our Republic and is considerably outside the established norms of conduct in the Senate.As to why they did it? I suspect the answer can be found in the actions of the past week, when Senate Democrats did go forward with hearings, did invoke a filibuster, and then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell claimed that this fiilibuster was both unprecedented and called the proper function of the Senate into question. The rules could not be changed mid-term without that point of order.I have seen a great deal of Republican projection the past few decades, accusing Democrats of tactics which they themselves have used or are planning to use. In this case, I suspect that Republicans projected that this was what would happen if hearings were held and Republicans filibustered, so they stopped Democrats from even holding hearings instead.No previous president has had a nominee blocked before the way that Judge Garland was blocked, even in the earliest days of the Republic when the job was a lot less prestigious, not even when Democrats held Congress while a Republican was in the White House.President Obama could not get a nominee heard during his final year due to unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans. What bothers me most about this is that they were rewarded at the ballot box for not doing their jobs, meaning they are not very likely to do their jobs well.What do people want? A functional government that works for We the People, or a dysfunctional government that generally works for Them the Wealthy and leaves the rest of us with crumbs?