GG Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 So Biden and MConnell et al are all wrong. Using a procedural maneuver to block a president from appointing a Supreme Court Justice nomination by a sitting president is base politics, epsecially for a party that pretends to want to uphold the Constitution. "Advise and consent" does not mean "ignore and obstruct." Isn't Senate advising POTUS not to nominate at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Isn't Senate advising POTUS not to nominate at this point? Ah! The new originalism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Just trying to figure out the weakest of the weak spots to try and shed a little enlightenment into the PPP environment. Try looking in the mirror. What you'll see staring back at you is not only the weakest weak spot, but it's the only thing that finds you "enlightened". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Try looking in the mirror. What you'll see staring back at you is not only the weakest weak spot, but it's the only thing that finds you "enlightened". @ u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Obama is going to nominate some well qualified moderate candidates, if the Republican controlled Senate refuses to give a hearing they will be seen as the obstructionist that they have been, if they give hearings and vote two or more moderates downs they better pray their Presidential candidate wins because neither Hillary or Sanders would be under any obligation to nominate a moderate or they could nominate the same moderates that Obama nominated showing the previous refusal to confirm was just personal animus towards Obama not about any convictions about the quality of the candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) He will nominate a minority, who they claim to be moderate. This will not be done for the good of the court, but for the democrat party. The Republicans will not suffer any fallout from this, other than in the NY/DC beltway newsrooms. This is in thanks to the demonstrable hypocrisy of Reid, Biden, Schumer. There will be no hearings, or "vote downs"...............sorry GOP Judiciary: No hearing on Obama court nominee. Edited February 24, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Obama is going to nominate some well qualified moderate candidates, if the Republican controlled Senate refuses to give a hearing they will be seen as the obstructionist that they have been, if they give hearings and vote two or more moderates downs they better pray their Presidential candidate wins because neither Hillary or Sanders would be under any obligation to nominate a moderate or they could nominate the same moderates that Obama nominated showing the previous refusal to confirm was just personal animus towards Obama not about any convictions about the quality of the candidate. Giving a moderate to Barry because you *may* have to give a less moderate one to Hillary is stupid even when you sign in as ...lybob and not gatorman. Why give one to Barry at all if there is still a good chance you won't have to give one to Hillary? (Get over Sanders, okay? Hillary has the Superdelegates and it. is. over. for Bernie) Besides, whatever you perceive as obstructing Barry has won the GOP both houses and a crapload of states. No one fears being seen as an obstructionist, no matter how many times you try to make it sound bad. No one cares about obstructing Barry anymore except the race baiters, and no one cares about the race baiters anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Obama Will Have A Tough Time Rallying Support To Replace Scalia FTA: As The Washington Post reports, at least four national polls have been conducted on whether Obama should appoint Scalia's successor. Two polls found the public evenly split, 47-46 and 43-42, in Obama's favor. The other two polls found even larger shares supporting a 2016 appointment (54 percent and 62 percent), but...those polls included wording that specifically laid out the underlying logic of both sides of the argument. If the public remains evenly divided...the White House is more unlikely to benefit from highlighting the issue. So why can't the president influence public opinion more? For one, he's not the only person or group making an appeal. Research specifically on the mechanics of going public about Supreme Court nominees finds that the president operates in an inherently competitive environment....In our present-day scenario, interest groups are very likely to work against Obama's eventual nominee even if he nominates a moderate. (Excerpt) Read more at fivethirtyeight.com ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 He will nominate a minority, who they claim to be moderate. This will not be done for the good of the court, but for the democrat party. Yes, and the GOP wants a Conservtive on the court for the good of the country, ya sure. You should hear yourself sometime Obama Will Have A Tough Time Rallying Support To Replace Scalia FTA: As The Washington Post reports, at least four national polls have been conducted on whether Obama should appoint Scalia's successor. Two polls found the public evenly split, 47-46 and 43-42, in Obama's favor. The other two polls found even larger shares supporting a 2016 appointment (54 percent and 62 percent), but...those polls included wording that specifically laid out the underlying logic of both sides of the argument. If the public remains evenly divided...the White House is more unlikely to benefit from highlighting the issue. So why can't the president influence public opinion more? For one, he's not the only person or group making an appeal. Research specifically on the mechanics of going public about Supreme Court nominees finds that the president operates in an inherently competitive environment....In our present-day scenario, interest groups are very likely to work against Obama's eventual nominee even if he nominates a moderate. (Excerpt) Read more at fivethirtyeight.com ... This will change when Obama fulfills his Constitutional duty and the Senate refuses to do so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Obama is going to nominate some well qualified moderate candidates, if the Republican controlled Senate refuses to give a hearing they will be seen as the obstructionist that they have been, if they give hearings and vote two or more moderates downs they better pray their Presidential candidate wins because neither Hillary or Sanders would be under any obligation to nominate a moderate or they could nominate the same moderates that Obama nominated showing the previous refusal to confirm was just personal animus towards Obama not about any convictions about the quality of the candidate. No he's not, for several reasons: 1) As a "legal scholar," he can only nominate someone who's as equally "scholarly" as he is (because no one else would be qualified for the job.) Even if he nominates someone with a more "moderate" outlook on the law, it'll be a matter of degree, not type. I doubt he even knows any actual moderates. 2) In the last year of his presidency, he's most concerned with "cementing his legacy." He's not going to rope-a-dope the Republican Senate. 3) The entire history of Obama's appointees is one of appointing liberal minorities. In fact, if history is any guide, Obama's going to appoint a minority woman who's the daughter of poor working-class immigrants, who was both educated at and taught in Ivy League schools, is single, and has a demonstrated history of judgement based ethnic identity and preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Giving a moderate to Barry because you *may* have to give a less moderate one to Hillary is stupid even when you sign in as ...lybob and not gatorman. Why give one to Barry at all if there is still a good chance you won't have to give one to Hillary? (Get over Sanders, okay? Hillary has the Superdelegates and it. is. over. for Bernie) Besides, whatever you perceive as obstructing Barry has won the GOP both houses and a crapload of states. No one fears being seen as an obstructionist, no matter how many times you try to make it sound bad. No one cares about obstructing Barry anymore except the race baiters, and no one cares about the race baiters anymore. So you're saying Bernie has no chance of being the Democrat presidential nominee? are you willing to give me odds ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 So you're saying Bernie has no chance of being the Democrat presidential nominee? are you willing to give me odds ? I wouldn't say no chance. But given that Die Partei is doing everything it can to hand Hillary the nomination, I'd say it's unlikely as hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 No he's not, for several reasons: 1) As a "legal scholar," he can only nominate someone who's as equally "scholarly" as he is (because no one else would be qualified for the job.) Even if he nominates someone with a more "moderate" outlook on the law, it'll be a matter of degree, not type. I doubt he even knows any actual moderates. 2) In the last year of his presidency, he's most concerned with "cementing his legacy." He's not going to rope-a-dope the Republican Senate. 3) The entire history of Obama's appointees is one of appointing liberal minorities. In fact, if history is any guide, Obama's going to appoint a minority woman who's the daughter of poor working-class immigrants, who was both educated at and taught in Ivy League schools, is single, and has a demonstrated history of judgement based ethnic identity and preference. So Srinivasan is not a moderate in your book? just out of curiosity, who do you consider as a good moderate to be nominated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) So you're saying Bernie has no chance of being the Democrat presidential nominee? are you willing to give me odds ? I wouldn't say no chance, but the only way Bernie gets the nomination is if Hillary gets indicted, and for Hillary to get indicted, the FBI will have to find something so egregious that the WH...the very WH that spent weeks explaining to the world that Benghazi was caused by a Youtube video...would have no choice but to take her out and line up Bernie with Fauxcahontas. But Hillary already has the superdelegates lined up, their debates are essentially SNL's Delicious Dish, and even if there was a chance, Bernie doesn't have the nutsack to attack her. When her ONLY competitor says he's tired of the email flap, you'd have to be logged in as gatorman to not see the obvious. Edited February 24, 2016 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I wouldn't say no chance, but the only way Bernie gets the nomination is if Hillary gets indicted, and for Hillary to get indicted, the FBI will have to find something so egregious that the WH...the very WH that spent weeks explaining to the world that Benghazi was caused by a Youtube video...would have no choice but to take her out and line up Bernie with Fauxcahontas. But Hillary already has the superdelegates lined up, their debates are essentially SNL's Delicious Dish, and even if there was a chance, Bernie doesn't have the nutsack to attack her. When her ONLY competitor says he's tired of the email flap, you'd have to be logged in as gatorman to not see the obvious. so are you saying a hundred to one odds or greater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 So Srinivasan is not a moderate in your book? just out of curiosity, who do you consider as a good moderate to be nominated. I consider him moderate (a little left of moderate, actually...most of the arguments I've seen for calling him moderate come down to "clerked for O'Conner," which is a truly retarded argument.) But I highly doubt he gets nominated - his parents are poor, working-class immigrants, and he has the Ivy League pedigree and history if ethnically-based arguments...but he's not a single female. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 He will nominate a minority, who they claim to be moderate. This will not be done for the good of the court, but for the democrat party. The Republicans will not suffer any fallout from this, other than in the NY/DC beltway newsrooms. This is in thanks to the demonstrable hypocrisy of Reid, Biden, Schumer. There will be no hearings, or "vote downs"...............sorry GOP Judiciary: No hearing on Obama court nominee. This. All this talk of "fallout" reminds me of when the Repubs allegedly shut down the government and how they was going to be fallout from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Mark KnollerVerified account @markknoller 2h2 hours ago In Oval Office photo op, Pres says it'll be difficult for @SenateMajLdr to explain if blocking SCOTUS confirmation for political reasons. Fortunately Mr. Obama, you already know plenty of people who could help explain........................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Obama considering a Republican for the Court https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_pp-nevada-115pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 so are you saying a hundred to one odds or greater? I'm not saying anything other than the gig is rigged for Hillary and the Democratic party doesn't give a crap what you think about it. Obama considering a Republican for the Court https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_pp-nevada-115pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory It's like we elected a child to the WH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts