Obama To Name Court Pick Today

[B-Man]

Nothing has changed...........................except of course the hilarious fact that Gator is now using RedState as a source..

 

Fabulous hypocrisy

 

 

 

Following Trump's win, Senate leader reaffirms Garland opposition http://reut.rs/1X8M4C2

 

[Tiberius]

Nothing has changed...........................except of course the hilarious fact that Gator is now using RedState as a source..

 

Fabulous hypocrisy

 

Following Trump's win, Senate leader reaffirms Garland opposition http://reut.rs/1X8M4C2

 

Yes, how dare I use red state! You Trumpsters are mindless cretins

[Deranged Rhino]

Yes, how dare I use red state! You Trumpsters are mindless cretins

[DC Tom]

Yes, how dare I use red state! You Trumpsters are mindless cretins

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

It was so obvious that I (incorrectly) even thought that Gator would see it

 

 

He constantly disregards well thought out articles without even reading them,

 

because it is a "right-wing" source

 

 

 

But no.

 

 

He goes with the weak-ass fake outrage response.

 

 

.

Edited May 5, 2016 by B-Man

[Magox]

 

 

 

 

Following Trump's win, Senate leader reaffirms Garland opposition http://reut.rs/1X8M4C2

 

 

Damn "establishment", always rolling over for Obama.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Magox

[ALF]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday held firm on his refusal to act on President Barack Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court even as some conservative activists called on senators to confirm Merrick Garland now that Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee

Since Obama nominated Garland in March, McConnell has refused to allow a confirmation vote, saying it should be up to the next president to fill the court's vacancy left by the February death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-garland-idUSKCN0XV24G

Mitch McConnell wants Clinton to nominate a younger more liberal judge?

The Democratic nominee for president has a 70 percent chance to win in November.

That’s according to an aggregator of betting markets, PredictWise, as of midday today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/upshot/if-clintons-chances-are-70-percent-why-is-merrick-garland-still-at-0.html

Edited May 6, 2016 by ALF

[Tiberius]

 

 

It was so obvious that I (incorrectly) even thought that Gator would see it

 

 

He constantly disregards well thought out articles without even reading them,

 

because it is a "right-wing" source

 

 

 

But no.

 

 

He goes with the weak-ass fake outrage response.

 

 

.

You are an idiot

[Deranged Rhino]

You are an idiot

[Cugalabanza]

Yes, I'm resurrecting an old thread...

 

Is anyone else surprised that Democrats are not playing the Merrick Garland card more aggressively? I would think it could be effective to hit it hard in Senate races. Or is it happening, but only in isolated areas that I'm not seeing?

 

I expected it to get a lot of bandwidth in the pres. race too, but it hasn't.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Cugalabanza

[B-Man]

Yes, I'm resurrecting an old thread...

 

Is anyone else surprised that Democrats are not playing the Merrick Garland card more aggressively? I would think it could be effective to hit it hard in Senate races. Or is it happening, but only in isolated areas that I'm not seeing?

 

I expected it to get a lot of bandwidth in the pres. race too, but it hasn't.

 

 

No................Garland is never mentioned, but the Supreme Court is, and I expect it to be brought up even more in the last debate and the following two weeks

 

However, what I posted earlier to Gator still holds true.

 

Here is what is likely to happen.

 

If a Republican wins in November, then the GOP Senate strategy is fulfilled.

 

If Hillary or Bernie wins, then the voters have shown their preference towards who fills the Court seat.

 

NOW the Republicans will then decide if they will try and bring Garland up for a vote.......because they think its best for the U.S. ?

 

No...........it would be the best option left for the PARTY, because Bernie/Hillary would want someone even farther left.

 

The funny part is................its rather predictable that then the DEMOCRATS would block Garland's nomination in hopes to get a more liberal candidate.

 

 

because its the best thing for them.

 

 

All this "why aren't they doing their job" B.S. is just another squirrel

 

.

Edited October 14, 2016 by B-Man

[Cugalabanza]

No................Garland is never mentioned, but the Supreme Court is, and I expect it to be brought up even more in the last debate and the following two weeks

 

However, what I posted earlier to Gator still holds true.

Apart from the question of whether it's the (R-majority) Senate duty to "do its job," I think the Republicans have played their hand badly. They would have done well to take the relatively moderate choice offered to them.

 

If Hillary becomes President and nothing was ever done about Garland and she decides to pick a different nominee, then that's reasonable. How could it be anything other than sour grapes for Republicans to whine about it that point?

Edited October 14, 2016 by Cugalabanza

[B-Man]

Apart from the question of whether it's the (R-majority) Senate duty to "do its job," I think the Republicans have played their hand badly. They would have done well to take the relatively moderate choice offered to them.

 

If Hillary becomes President and nothing was ever done about Garland and she decides to pick a different nominee, then that's reasonable. How could it be anything other than sour grapes for Republicans to whine about it that point?

 

Well, you are correct, but it's still not a "rubber stamp" situation.

 

If Hillary nominates a judge with a long record of Left positions and a belief in a "living Constitution, I would have no problem opposing the nomination if I was a Senator.

 

But you certainly could not make the same argument as last spring about Obama's choice............that bridge is burned.

[Cugalabanza]

Well, you are correct, but it's still not a "rubber stamp" situation.

 

If Hillary nominates a judge with a long record of Left positions and a belief in a "living Constitution, I would have no problem opposing the nomination if I was a Senator.

 

But you certainly could not make the same argument as last spring about Obama's choice............that bridge is burned.

I see what you're saying, but I think that Republicans have eroded their credibility a bit as far as their ability to oppose a nomination, even if it's someone very far left. Even though their reasons for opposing the two nominees would be different, it's still somewhat a "crying wolf" situation and the public will have lost some patience with these Senators who already are viewed as untrustworthy.

 

That's why I think the Republicans have dug themselves a deep hole and also why I'm surprised the Democrats have not used this more to their advantage. Maybe you're right, it will show up more in the next couple weeks.

[KD in CA]

Apart from the question of whether it's the (R-majority) Senate duty to "do its job," I think the Republicans have played their hand badly. They would have done well to take the relatively moderate choice offered to them.

 

If Hillary becomes President and nothing was ever done about Garland and she decides to pick a different nominee, then that's reasonable. How could it be anything other than sour grapes for Republicans to whine about it that point?

 

I don't think the Republicans have played a hand well since Lee Atwater died.

[Magox]

I said this many months ago, when we knew that Trump was going to win the nomination that they should have just accepted Garland. But no!!!!! People were hell bent on opposing him until after the elections because that's what talk radio and the rest of the so-called conservative talking heads were saying. Rather than have a relatively centrist Democrat Justice who isn't a spring chicken, now Hillary will be emboldened to go with some younger uber progressive.

 

Good job GOP!!!!!

[Cugalabanza]

I said this many months ago, when we knew that Trump was going to win the nomination that they should have just accepted Garland. But no!!!!! People were hell bent on opposing him until after the elections because that's what talk radio and the rest of the so-called conservative talking heads were saying. Rather than have a relatively centrist Democrat Justice who isn't a spring chicken, now Hillary will be emboldened to go with some younger uber progressive.

 

Good job GOP!!!!!

Yes, they will be burned by their own stubbornness.

[DC Tom]

I said this many months ago, when we knew that Trump was going to win the nomination that they should have just accepted Garland. But no!!!!! People were hell bent on opposing him until after the elections because that's what talk radio and the rest of the so-called conservative talking heads were saying. Rather than have a relatively centrist Democrat Justice who isn't a spring chicken, now Hillary will be emboldened to go with some younger uber progressive.

 

Good job GOP!!!!!

 

In theory, the Senate could still approve him. (In practice, I think they're in recess, and they'd never get a quorum this soon before the election.)

 

Wouldn't that be fun to watch, though? The Republican Senate trying to get everyone back to vote on the Democratic nominee, the Democrats in the Senate actively trying to prevent his approval, the President wondering if he can veto the approval of his own nominee...?

[Azalin]

 

In theory, the Senate could still approve him. (In practice, I think they're in recess, and they'd never get a quorum this soon before the election.)

 

Wouldn't that be fun to watch, though? The Republican Senate trying to get everyone back to vote on the Democratic nominee, the Democrats in the Senate actively trying to prevent his approval, the President wondering if he can veto the approval of his own nominee...?

 

If something like that could ever happen, I suspect this would be the year for it.

[Magox]

 

In theory, the Senate could still approve him. (In practice, I think they're in recess, and they'd never get a quorum this soon before the election.)

 

Wouldn't that be fun to watch, though? The Republican Senate trying to get everyone back to vote on the Democratic nominee, the Democrats in the Senate actively trying to prevent his approval, the President wondering if he can veto the approval of his own nominee...?

 

 

That would be hilarious.