Supreme Court Nomination

[andy7171]

I say, go ahead and let him get vetted, and put to a vote. Who really gives a fuck. If he passes the sniff test let him in. Next POTUS is going to nominate 2 more, prolly.

[dbackjon]

So what. A 4-4 tie means the lower court decision is upheld.

Duh. And that's not what the system is designed to do.

Yes, because we want one circuit court to rule one way, another circuit court to rule the opposite, and have both rulings stand based on a 4-4 split. Genius idea

[AZGrizFan]

Yup. Still surprising that he didn't pick someone that would be more painful for the GOP to block. No one's really going to get upset that this guy doesn't get a real consideration. He isn't a real darling of the far left, he doesn't excite any particular group, and he's not such a superstar legal mind that the GOP would be remiss to not allow to the bench. I think Obama went with it because he was a fellow Chicagoan.

I would've liked Srinivasan instead.

I don't know where you came up with this line of argument. Garland's legal acumen is solid -- at least as good as Srinivasan, and better than the third candidate. Not enough far-left Indians around to get agitated about ol' Sri getting passed over. I think it was a perfect pick for Obama to make his point.

All well and good, but he's a white male, over 40. NEEEEEXXXXXTTTTTT....

[CAA Flagship]

This is a complete Obamination.

[dbackjon]

I don't know where you came up with this line of argument. Garland's legal acumen is solid -- at least as good as Srinivasan, and better than the third candidate. Not enough far-left Indians around to get agitated about ol' Sri getting passed over. I think it was a perfect pick for Obama to make his point.

All well and good, but he's a white male, over 40. NEEEEEXXXXXTTTTTT....

Straight, White, Male, Over 40.

Does he post on here?

[Grizalltheway]

This is a complete Obamination.

2008 called, they want their joke back.

[CAA Flagship]

This is a complete Obamination.

2008 called, they want their joke back.

No, it is still applicable now.
Much like you shitting in your pants then, and now.

[BDKJMU]

"Biden Rule"
[youtube]https://youtube.com/watch?v=N1SUn0zTGUQ[/youtube]

[BDKJMU]

The last time a SCOTUS vacancy occured DURING an election year and the Senate controlled by the OPPOSITE party of the president held confirmations hearings on a nominee- 1888.

[dbackjon]

Last time a nominee was refused a hearing - NEVER

[dbackjon]

Keep obstructing - then President Clinton or Sanders can nominate a real liberal with a Democratic Majority in the Senate.

[kalm]

Again, the Republicans should clearly wait until they occupy the White House. Regardless of when that is. I'm a pure constructionist.

[JohnStOnge]

Just read this, 6 times in the last 100 years the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court judge in the final year of a President's term. Ted Cruz & the other blowhards talk about being Constitutional scholars, well did they re-write the Constitution lately?

Given that I don't think the Washington Post is a shill for the Republicans I think it might be good to read the article at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... omination/.

I think this is the bottom line:

According to the Congressional Research Service, “By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.”

The Senate IS doing its job if the majority of its members decides it is better not to consider a nomination and opts to take that course.

If the Senate thinks that refusing to consider a nomination during the last year of a Presidency is best and decides to take that course it is doing its job by making a decision consistent with that belief.

[93henfan]

"Biden Rule"
[youtube]https://youtube.com/watch?v=N1SUn0zTGUQ[/youtube]

/discussion

[SDHornet]

I like how Obama is playing chess and the conks are playing checkers in this one. With Trump more than likely to be the nominee (assuming the establishment can't successfully rip it from him in the open convention) they are going to be looking at 3 Justices selected by hilldog. If this SCOTUS nominee is palatable, conks should jump all over it.

And the people screaming about the Senate needing to do its job; where the fuck were you when Reid didn't bother to take any of the bills that passed the House to the Senate floor?!?

[kalm]

Just read this, 6 times in the last 100 years the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court judge in the final year of a President's term. Ted Cruz & the other blowhards talk about being Constitutional scholars, well did they re-write the Constitution lately?

Given that I don't think the Washington Post is a shill for the Republicans I think it might be good to read the article at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... omination/.

I think this is the bottom line:

According to the Congressional Research Service, “By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.”

The Senate IS doing its job if the majority of its members decides it is better not to consider a nomination and opts to take that course.

If the Senate thinks that refusing to consider a nomination during the last year of a Presidency is best and decides to take that course it is doing its job by making a decision consistent with that belief.

The constitution says all that???

[YoUDeeMan]

Given that I don't think the Washington Post is a shill for the Republicans I think it might be good to read the article at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... omination/.

I think this is the bottom line:



The Senate IS doing its job if the majority of its members decides it is better not to consider a nomination and opts to take that course.

If the Senate thinks that refusing to consider a nomination during the last year of a Presidency is best and decides to take that course it is doing its job by making a decision consistent with that belief.

The constitution says all that???

It is hidden in the fibers...Shroud of Turin type of thing.

[BDKJMU]

I like how Obama is playing chess and the conks are playing checkers in this one. With Trump more than likely to be the nominee (assuming the establishment can't successfully rip it from him in the open convention) they are going to be looking at 3 Justices selected by hilldog. If this SCOTUS nominee is palatable, conks should jump all over it.

And the people screaming about the Senate needing to do its job; where the **** were you when Reid didn't bother to take any of the bills that passed the House to the Senate floor?!?

No they shouldn't.
-If Trump wins the election, no liberal nominee.
-If Clinton wins the election but Republicans maintain control of the Senate, they can Bork every liberal Clinton puts up. Remember Reagan in 87', his 1st nominee denied by the donks in the Senate. His 2nd noinee- denied. It was until his 3rd nominee, Kennedy, did he get a confirmation.
-If Clinton wins the election AND the donks win back the Senate conks in the Senate could still confirm Garland in the 2 1/2 months between the election unless Obama withdraws his nomination.
-Only IF Clinton wins the election AND the donks win back the Senate AND Obama withdraws the nomination AND Hillary decides to go with someone else will this maybe backfire.

On top of all that, this guy has a pretty liberal track record. And he is anti 2nd Amendment. That is the #1 issue for many conks and even non conks (ex 93). Not really gonna get worse than him vis a vi the right to keep and bear arms. So no, conks shouldn't jump all over this nomination.

After all, how STUPID would the senate conks look if they confirmed this guy and then Trump won the election.

[SDHornet]

I like how Obama is playing chess and the conks are playing checkers in this one. With Trump more than likely to be the nominee (assuming the establishment can't successfully rip it from him in the open convention) they are going to be looking at 3 Justices selected by hilldog. If this SCOTUS nominee is palatable, conks should jump all over it.

And the people screaming about the Senate needing to do its job; where the **** were you when Reid didn't bother to take any of the bills that passed the House to the Senate floor?!?

No they shouldn't.
-If Trump wins the election, no liberal nominee.
-If Clinton wins the election but Republicans maintain control of the Senate, they can Bork every liberal Clinton puts up. Remember Reagan in 87', his 1st nominee denied by the donks in the Senate. His 2nd noinee- denied. It was until his 3rd nominee, Kennedy, did he get a confirmation.
-If Clinton wins the election AND the donks win back the Senate conks in the Senate could still confirm Garland in the 2 1/2 months between the election unless Obama withdraws his nomination.
-Only IF Clinton wins the election AND the donks win back the Senate AND Obama withdraws the nomination AND Hillary decides to go with someone else will this maybe backfire.

On top of all that, this guy has a pretty liberal track record. And he is anti 2nd Amendment. That is the #1 issue for many conks and even non conks (ex 93). Not really gonna get worse than him vis a vi the right to keep and bear arms. So no, conks shouldn't jump all over this nomination.

After all, how STUPID would the senate conks look if they confirmed this guy and then Trump won the election.

I didn't bother looking at the nominee's record so if its someone conks would never consider then yeah, stay the course.

Regarding how the elections will play into this, my money is on the bolded above. Conks have shown a propensity of shitting the bed wrt political maneuvers since 2010 so I was speaking mostly with that in mind. Obama will absolutely withdraw the nomination when it looks like hilldog will prevail, and hilldog most likely only be able to win with a good turnout which will likely result in conks losing seats.

The last quirk in all of this is we still have no idea who or which type of person Trump would nominate to SCOTUS, so there is also that. Bottom line is the conks seem to be putting a lot at risk when they should be leveraging what they currently have into a palatable nominee.

[GannonFan]

Regarding how the elections will play into this, my money is on the bolded above. Conks have shown a propensity of shitting the bed wrt political maneuvers since 2010 so I was speaking mostly with that in mind. Obama will absolutely withdraw the nomination when it looks like hilldog will prevail, and hilldog most likely only be able to win with a good turnout which will likely result in conks losing seats.

The GOP's been messing things up so much since 2010 that all they've done is win everything other than the Presidency. If they are really doing things wrong then they should keep doing it.

As for the SCOTUS, they really can Bork every candidate they want to until they get one they can tolerate. It's an awful way to govern, but the GOP's not really been concerned with governing well as of late. We could be a long way from seeing someone get through the gauntlet.

[SDHornet]

Regarding how the elections will play into this, my money is on the bolded above. Conks have shown a propensity of shitting the bed wrt political maneuvers since 2010 so I was speaking mostly with that in mind. Obama will absolutely withdraw the nomination when it looks like hilldog will prevail, and hilldog most likely only be able to win with a good turnout which will likely result in conks losing seats.

The GOP's been messing things up so much since 2010 that all they've done is win everything other than the Presidency. If they are really doing things wrong then they should keep doing it.

As for the SCOTUS, they really can Bork every candidate they want to until they get one they can tolerate. It's an awful way to govern, but the GOP's not really been concerned with governing well as of late. We could be a long way from seeing someone get through the gauntlet.

This is exactly my point. conks have controlled congress and did absolutely nothing with it. Hell, Obama dominated conks even more when they took over both sides. The fact that conks find themselves in the current predicament regarding a POTUS candidate verifies my point. This election should have been a cake walk for conks, and they completely shat down their leg leading up to and now during this whole ordeal. Why should I expect anything different from these clowns going forward?

[GannonFan]

The GOP's been messing things up so much since 2010 that all they've done is win everything other than the Presidency. If they are really doing things wrong then they should keep doing it.

As for the SCOTUS, they really can Bork every candidate they want to until they get one they can tolerate. It's an awful way to govern, but the GOP's not really been concerned with governing well as of late. We could be a long way from seeing someone get through the gauntlet.

This is exactly my point. conks have controlled congress and did absolutely nothing with it. Hell, Obama dominated conks even more when they took over both sides. The fact that conks find themselves in the current predicament regarding a POTUS candidate verifies my point. This election should have been a cake walk for conks, and they completely shat down their leg leading up to and now during this whole ordeal. Why should I expect anything different from these clowns going forward?

What's so different about this year? They had a poor candidate in 2012 and in 2008. They win every other election other than the one for President. A cake walk? Says who? All we hear is how the electoral map favors the Democrats more and more every cycle, especially if nothing else changes. Why would that reverse itself and not be the case this year? And what is Obama dominating? He's a lame duck President who's going to have a fairly lackluster record when all this is over - a Presidency begun with so much promise makes the reality that much more disappointing.

[kalm]

I'll remind you all that Climton is a center right politician. It's not like she would nominate Karl Marx to the SCOTUS. She hates lefties....

[BDKJMU]

I'll remind you all that Climton is a center right politician. It's not like she would nominate Karl Marx to the SCOTUS. She hates lefties....

I know you're trolling, but..

[SDHornet]

This is exactly my point. conks have controlled congress and did absolutely nothing with it. Hell, Obama dominated conks even more when they took over both sides. The fact that conks find themselves in the current predicament regarding a POTUS candidate verifies my point. This election should have been a cake walk for conks, and they completely shat down their leg leading up to and now during this whole ordeal. Why should I expect anything different from these clowns going forward?

What's so different about this year? They had a poor candidate in 2012 and in 2008. They win every other election other than the one for President. A cake walk? Says who? All we hear is how the electoral map favors the Democrats more and more every cycle, especially if nothing else changes. Why would that reverse itself and not be the case this year? And what is Obama dominating? He's a lame duck President who's going to have a fairly lackluster record when all this is over - a Presidency begun with so much promise makes the reality that much more disappointing.

Really? All we heard from conks was how awful Obama and his policies are, and how bad of a leader he is (which I mostly agree with). And you're telling me the conks shouldn't be in a position to completely roll over the donks in November?

Obama has dominated the conks. Dominated. conks have offered up the American people jack shit since 2010, and this election cycle is proving how worthless conks have been.

conks had one easy job to do, and they fucked it all up. That job was to offer up some common sense solutions to the clown currently in the WH. conks failed and now we'll get to see a private executive bafoon (who supposedly is going to change things ) and an entrenched incompetent donk (who is going to do wonders abusing her power once in office ) battle it out for POTUS. America is completely fucked.