Observer

Stupid lives matter.

That might be true but when he picked Palin, it was the decision that turned a loss into a blowout. She gave a great first press conference when nobody knew who she was (I even called my wife in to watch the replay). And from that point on, she was the conductor on the crazy train.

VP doesn't win elections, despite all the pre-jizz that happens around the choice. It can only lose them. "My name is John McCain and I endorse that last sentence."

Cruz won't win a delegate count vs Clinton. He'll do no better than Mitt state by state and likely worse. Can he win Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia? Negative. Can he bring into play any of the other Dem-leaning potential swing states of Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? Negative. He's the wrong choice to beat Clinton for sure. Kasich would probably beat her but he won't win the nomination.

Sri Srinivasan.

Might be a bigger bump to Kasich. Every dropout is a blow to Trump but it might be too late. They all hung on to hope for far too long. And Rubio staying on in Florida will almost certainly give it to Trump, which is a major blow to the anti-Trump movement.

He completed 5 passes to Bills in a half. I am all for Geno-ball.

Clinton is Perot's fault.

I was not referring to the Supreme Court being understaffed but the wider federal judiciary. Obama will not nominate Scalia junior but nor will he nominate Ginsberg Jr. I suspect he'l put up a Liberal version of Roberts.

No doubt. And which party will do the right thing first? Calling for leadership...anyone? Anyone?

I supported Rubio until recently. Two things sunk him: The Christie attacks at the debate were completely withering. Second, his willingness to take the low road and play Trump's game exposed him as a shapeshifter. Of the remaining people, I prefer Kasich by a landslide but it appears Trump will win the nomination. How Republicans could get behind Trump even in a "hold your nose" moment is beyond me. I had no trouble voting for Romney but W-Bush never got my vote. I certainly can't have a Trump vote on my conscience. And no I can't see me pulling the lever for Clinton. I'll vote but it will boil down to third part candidate vs "how afraid am I of Trump." Clinton scares me but in a "Devil I know" sort of way. Trump scares me as in a "this guy will leave the country in utter shambles" way.

The "responsibilities" are in play right now at this moment (actually not until Obama nominates) and it's the GOP Senate in focus. If you're going to use "Bush bad" logic, it's gator's game. The constant wrangling over judicial nominees by both parties is abhorrent and has lead to understaffing of the federal judiciary for 20 years.

I have retired from the Trump prediction game.

"The other side did it" is not a reasoned argument. It's a rubber-glue argument.

It's not acceptable but it's how the system is supposed to work. And Obama is not about to nominate a dead-on-arrival nominee. He's looking for a middle-ground person. He knows he can't get away with a far left nominee. Now, given the Sentate's refusal to do its duty, who knows who Obama will nominate. Maybe he can nominate Bernie Sanders so Clinton can relax and get ready for her double digit win over Trump. They don't have to do a damn thing except "advise and consent" as required by the Constitution. If you're a DC-Tomist, your argument is that the Senate has to do its duty under the Constitution but on whatever procedural terms it wants to and in fact can put a 350 year delay into the procedure if it desires, and can also choose to advise on nominees who can pass the Saltine test.

US manufacturing output is at an all time high. The problem is not that we're not making anything, the problem is that Mr. Roboto is taking many of the jobs in manufacturing. No one in the US wants to make most of what is made in China.

The GOP has said they won't do what you just said.

Yes. The process is actually that simple and the GOP will hurt their credibility with their stance. Obama is just waiting for the right moment in the campaign to make the nomination. The 15th as Trump more or less sows up nomination would be a good time.

You have me wrong. You're all being quite flexible with the Constitution. I too believe in a living, breathing, and changing Constitution. Just not one where the Senate can ignore its job. Let's come at this another way since we're just running in circles: At what point does not holding a hearing to "advise and consent" on a president's nominee become not "advising and consenting" as required by the Constitution. We both agree that the Senate must do something regarding a nomination, and that something is advice and consent. What could the Senate do that would violate that duty? Rubio or Kasich maybe. Cruz will have a tough time because he'll never carry swing states. Trump...I'm done making predictions about Trump. I have a sting of wrong predictions about him in this cycle. Going to quit while I'm behind.

The Senate is not obligated to advise first--we agree on that, although it's interesting that George Washington did it the other way around. You said earlier that the Senate ADVISED the president not to nominate. That is not the "advise" portion of their Constitutional role. Their advise role kicks in once there's a nomination. This issue is really not important to the nomination process--advise and consent clearly follows the nomination. May I assume that you're a DCTom-ist and don't think that there's any Constitutional mandate that a Senate ever act on a nominee (procedure doesn't specify a time so I assume they can let all the Justices just die off)? And Tom you're wrong when you say, "But once the nomination is received from the President, the Senate is under absolutely no Constitutional obligation to do anything with it." The Constitution says the Senate must "advise and consent" on the nomination. Doing nothing is not an option. Although you will point out that they can effectively do nothing for 1000 years, that is a far cry from what the drafters intended and that's not an activist interpretation.

If you're an Originalist, you're getting it wrong. The president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint." The President must nominate. And then the Senate must advise and consent (or not consent). The Senate doesn't get to not go through the Constitutional process once there's a nominee. The Senate can always reject (not consent) to the nominee. It's gamesmanship with the Constitution. We all know it. Maybe you don't have a stake in the gamesmanship but you know that's what it is. Asking this group to vouch for you (or anyone) is a dangerous request.

So you think the Senate is doing its job in refusing to consider a President's nominee? You don't see this as a dangerous game we're playing with our founding document? Because I sure do. And you don't get to change the past when it's convenient. In the history of this process, the "advice" always comes after the nomination (except Washington) and the process often takes place in the year of an election. You know this is gamesmanship. Just admit it and also admit you like the game being played because you don't like Obama. Be that honest about things. Stepford Voters for Trump!

Has the Senate said that it will not advise and consent on Obama's pick? Yes. They can hide behind procedure but what they are doing is a child's game and not worthy of a Supreme Court nomination moment. If they shoot down a candidate, they are at least doing their job. Of course, Obama hasn't yet put them to the test as there's no nominee.

Cruz's argument amounts to, "I don't like Obama so I get to ignore the Constitution." He wants to take his ball and go home. I get it. But that's not the way the system is supposed to work. The president gets to nominate and the Senate advises and consents. Works no matter who is president. There's no clause that says, "If the president pisses off Ted Cruz, the Senate doesn't have to advise and consent." That editorial is not the work of the strong legal mind that I think Ted Cruz has--it's the work of a poor loser who doesn't like that he's holding ten high vs three queens.

Trump and Sanders both want walls, just different kinds of walls. Neither of them support a free market economy. Sanders believes that focusing resources of the 5% inwards will elevate the 95%. Trump thinks we should build a wall and then...well who knows what thinks will happen then. Ask him 5 times and get 5 answers. Can't take his positions seriously.