Obama will announce Supreme Court pick @ 11am

[Genx87]

Yup. A complete sentence when it's all put together.

Two different msg's. But Im sure you will try to convince us otherwise.

 

[hal2kilo]

its gonna be funny when Clinton gets elected and puts up a liberal judge who is 45 years old.

It seems cutting off ones nose to spite their face is a strategy. At least in Repub land.

 

[theeedude]

Typical Republican all talk, no action politicians. No wonder Trump is so popular.

 

[umbrella39]

This is merely our government operating the way it was designed to do. Somebody let me know when the Senate steps outside of their sphere of authority.

TIA

The historical record does not reveal ANY instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there have been 6 nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years. So there is precedence at the very least. Them pretending otherwise is just an attempt to revise history.

 

[Jhhnn]

Whether it's "designed to operate" that way is moot, there were no prohibitions put in place to prevent it from working that way. Bork not lest ye be Borked.

Bork? Reagan threw down the gauntlet in nominating a right wing fringe whack. The Senate threw it back in his face.

The notion that Garland is extreme is absurd.

 

[umbrella39]

Whether it's "designed to operate" that way is moot, there were no prohibitions put in place to prevent it from working that way. Bork not lest ye be Borked.

There's nothing remotely similar to the Bork nomination battle and what is happening now. The Bork battle revolved around a specific jurist. This battle revolves around the idea that the entire nominating process be shelved for at least a year.

Bork had developed an unfortunate reputation stemming from his role in Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973, was on record defending Jim Crow-era poll taxes, condemning portions of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public accommodations, and arguing against extending the equal protection of the 14th Amendment to women.

In his case, it was a test he failed. When his nomination reached the Senate floor, 58 senators, including 6 Republicans, voted to reject him.

After the vote, Strom Thurmond, of all people, urged the Reagan White House to nominate someone less “controversial.” Anthony Kennedy was then nominated and was confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate, 97 to 0.

 

[Mxylplyx]

its gonna be funny when Clinton gets elected and puts up a liberal judge who is 45 years old.

This

The cooler heads in the Republican party need to take a very sober look at the current political climate. They are defending a lot of seats in the senate with a likely disastrous presidential nominee atop their ticket, and betting markets are predicting a 70% chance of a democrat winning in November. I'd almost be willing to bet that the DNC would PREFER Obama not make this pick until after the election so they can nominate someone much more liberal than this.

They should impress on the Republican leadership behind closed doors that they either accept this moderate candidate, or they prepare for a fire breathing liberal in the likely event that Hillary ends up making the pick. Hell, pick Obama himself just to really make them feel like idiots.

 

[boomerang]

The historical record does not reveal ANY instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there have been 6 nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years. So there is precedence at the very least. Them pretending otherwise is just an attempt to revise history.

So what? McConnell has spoken. Anybody who thinks the antics of a Senate controlled by Harry Reid wouldn't lead to an escalation needs to have their diaper changed. Democrats brought a knife, Republicans brought a gun. Welcome to politics 2016 style.

This near constant whining that Republican's aren't playing fair is falling on deaf ears. If you want proof, look at who the likely Repub nominee is going to be. The gloves are off. No more playing by the rules Dem's try to force upon others that they aren't even going to follow themselves.

The winners make the rules. Obama set the tone within days of taking office in his first term, when a group of Republicans went to him with some concerns about his stimulus package and he told them "I won". He essentially told them he didn't have to listen to them and he didn't. So here we are over seven years later. Republican's have every right to fight under the same system the Democrat's used. Precedence don't mean shit.

Don't let your blood pressure get too high.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans are the ones defending pretty much all the vulnerable Senate seats in 2016.
So let them go batshit if they want, let them nominate Trump, let them obstruct, let them self destruct.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

There's nothing remotely similar to the Bork nomination battle and what is happening now. The Bork battle revolved around a specific jurist. This battle revolves around the idea that the entire nominating process be shelved for at least a year.

Bork had developed an unfortunate reputation stemming from his role in Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973, was on record defending Jim Crow-era poll taxes, condemning portions of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public accommodations, and arguing against extending the equal protection of the 14th Amendment to women.

In his case, it was a test he failed. When his nomination reached the Senate floor, 58 senators, including 6 Republicans, voted to reject him.

After the vote, Strom Thurmond, of all people, urged the Reagan White House to nominate someone less “controversial.” Anthony Kennedy was then nominated and was confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate, 97 to 0.

Pretty much this. Everyone who cites Bork seems to skip the part where Bork was ready & excited to take over due to a dubious command from Nixon.

 

[boomerang]

Republicans are the ones defending pretty much all the vulnerable Senate seats in 2016.
So let them go batshit if they want, let them nominate Trump, let them obstruct, let them self destruct.

That will be fine. The only difference between a Democrat controlled Congress and a Republican controlled Congress is the speed that the debt increases. It's not sustainable and IMO, the faster we can get the Republic to fall the sooner the rebuilding can start. With two terms of Obama our debt has nearly doubled and much of that with a Republican controlled Congress. With a Dem controlled Congress we can have this over and done with very quickly. In the interim, the bread and circuses are going to be fucking amazing though.

 

[soundforbjt]

I wonder if republicans saying Obama shouldn't get to pick since it's his last year feel th e same way for all final year politicians? Senator or Rep can't do certain normal part of their job...maybe those repubs can sit out the vote when one is taken for the SC if their in their last year of their term.

 

[theeedude]

That will be fine. The only difference between a Democrat controlled Congress and a Republican controlled Congress is the speed that the debt increases. It's not sustainable and IMO, the faster we can get the Republic to fall the sooner the rebuilding can start. With two terms of Obama our debt has nearly doubled and much of that with a Republican controlled Congress. With a Dem controlled Congress we can have this over and done with very quickly. In the interim, the bread and circuses are going to be fucking amazing though.

And economy is doing pretty well now under Obama, as it was doing under Clinton. But I bet you think it's coincidental.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans don't want an old moderate justice, they are going to wait for a young liberal next year.

 

[glenn1]

I think you're missing a few key differences between now and Robert Bork: Bork got hearings. Bork got a vote. He was simply voted down.

Who cares when the net effect is the same. You really think holding a predetermined vote because of the Senate balance is going to make a bit of difference? Like someone said earlier in the Alito case the only thing that matters is the end result, not the political posturing. Calling for a doomed political vote is simply posturing.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That will be fine. The only difference between a Democrat controlled Congress and a Republican controlled Congress is the speed that the debt increases. It's not sustainable and IMO, the faster we can get the Republic to fall the sooner the rebuilding can start. With two terms of Obama our debt has nearly doubled and much of that with a Republican controlled Congress. With a Dem controlled Congress we can have this over and done with very quickly. In the interim, the bread and circuses are going to be fucking amazing though.

This admission surprizes me Boomer

 

[theeedude]

Who cares when the net effect is the same. You really think holding a predetermined vote because of the Senate balance is going to make a bit of difference? Like someone said earlier in the Alito case the only thing that matters is the end result, not the political posturing. Calling for a doomed political vote is simply posturing.

Who cares if the Senate functions?

 

[sandorski]

Two different msg's. But Im sure you will try to convince us otherwise.

1 message, with clarity of why that amendment exists.

 

[boomerang]

This admission surprizes me Boomer

Whether we admit it or not, we all have a team we're rooting for. Even some of our declared independents, if you read enough of their posts have a team although they are loathe to admit it. It's part of the human psyche to identify with a certain tribe.

But some of us realize that their tribe is shit and the other tribe is shit too and that both tribes are taking us deeper and deeper into the shit.

Right now, we've got a woman running on the same principles and ideas as the person in charge for the last seven plus years. So what, this time it's going to be different? It's ridiculous to even think so.

The other tribe has a likely nominee who proclaims he's going to upset the apple cart. Whether he does or not would of course remain to be seen.

Whether maintaining the status quo or upsetting the apple cart is the right course of action doesn't much matter because we have three branches of government and they're all pretty much rotten to the core. Whether the executive branch under one party pushes the cart around or if under the other party the apple cart is upset the apples are still going to stink.

I'm a fiscal conservative. Those principles have done very well by me as I've gone through life. I can't be a Democrat because for all of those same years I haven't seen anything that remotely resembles fiscal conservatism out of them. So, I'm stuck with the other team and as such I have no choice but to root for them although I know in my heart that the results will be no better. I only see the left wanting to cut defense while increasing spending to further dependency in the quest to garner votes. The right wants to cut much, much more. The choice for me is clear. The path to growth and prosperity is through watching your pennies and wise investment. Ain't none of that going on in DC.

But I'm not fooling myself, we're not going to come out of this intact. Common sense tells us that.

 

[umbrella39]

So what? McConnell has spoken. Anybody who thinks the antics of a Senate controlled by Harry Reid wouldn't lead to an escalation needs to have their diaper changed. Democrats brought a knife, Republicans brought a gun. Welcome to politics 2016 style.

This near constant whining that Republican's aren't playing fair is falling on deaf ears. If you want proof, look at who the likely Repub nominee is going to be. The gloves are off. No more playing by the rules Dem's try to force upon others that they aren't even going to follow themselves.

The winners make the rules. Obama set the tone within days of taking office in his first term, when a group of Republicans went to him with some concerns about his stimulus package and he told them "I won". He essentially told them he didn't have to listen to them and he didn't. So here we are over seven years later. Republican's have every right to fight under the same system the Democrat's used. Precedence don't mean shit.

Don't let your blood pressure get too high.

LOL I'm the one who has to worry about my BP! That's funny I was merely stating the history of SCOTUS nominations during an election year which is not up for debate. You went off on a tangent. The fact remains the neither the dems nor the republicans have ever refused to vote up or down so "fighting under the same system the dems used" appears to be, well, very much devoid of fact and not up for revision.

EDIT: And to be fair, the republicans have STILL never refused to vote either. They have simply threatened to not vote. The ball is in their court and America is watching.

Furthermore, You stated that: "The winners make the rules. Obama set the tone within days of taking office in his first term, when a group of Republicans went to him with some concerns about his stimulus package and he told them "I won". He essentially told them he didn't have to listen to them and he didn't. So here we are over seven years later. Republicans have every right to fight under the same system the Democrat's used."

It seems to me and HISTORY that the GOP and not Obama or the Dems were the ones trying to set the rules and were the ones with their fingers in their ears in denial.

Remember this irrefutable fact about the current GOP:

In the entire history of our country, only a grand total of 68 individual nominees have ever been blocked prior to Obama taking office those same seven years ago...
Since then at least 79 individual nominees for the have been blocked during Obama’s term by the GOP.

So I think we can cut the bullshit about this being retribution over something Obama said or because this is an election year issue. Before Obama took office the GOP laid the roadmap for their obstruction and it was NOT because of the TONE Obama set once he was in the WH.

 

[theeedude]

GOP is devoid of fact and reason. It's now catching up to them, but they keep doubling down on dysfunction. This Garland nomination is a gift. But GOP thinks it can get Trump elected, keep the Senate and do better? OK, if you want to gamble on that, fine, but if you lose, then you get a much younger and more liberal replacement who will be crapping on your policy goals for 40 years.

 

[zinfamous]

Meh. Nobody cares.

The three I've seen being considered are too moderate IMO.

Sri Srinivasan, Merrick Garland and Paul Watford.

"too moderate"?

that is impossible for a SCOTUS pick. all SCOTUS justices should be perfectly moderate.

do you support activist justices?

 

[Jaskalas]

At this point I almost think we're just being trolled. No one can be so obtuse.

Not obtuse... partisan. This is open hostility and hatred. This is the party of Trump.

 

[LPCTech]

Lol how the fuck is it possible to be too moderate? Thats hilarious.

I want Hillary to nominate Obama. So the GOP has to deal with him...

FoReVeR!!!!

F O R E V E R




f o r e v e r

 

[JSt0rm]

GOP is devoid of fact and reason. It's now catching up to them, but they keep doubling down on dysfunction. This Garland nomination is a gift. But GOP thinks it can get Trump elected, keep the Senate and do better? OK, if you want to gamble on that, fine, but if you lose, then you get a much younger and more liberal replacement who will be crapping on your policy goals for 40 years.

lol if you think the gop is going to be around in 40 years.