Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus

[Anonymous]

^^ The point is that most of the Republican seats are in states where there is little chance a Democrat will win. The only thing that matters are the seats that are vulnerable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's so ironic how defensive he gets in his speeches. I'm guessing if he had a moral compass he's reminded that he voted against Alito and Roberts because of ideological reasons, even though he admonishes Republicans against doing the same.

He has a different role now. Do you understand that? He's President of the United States. Show some goddamned respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so ironic how defensive he gets in his speeches. I'm guessing if he had a moral compass he's reminded that he voted against Alito and Roberts because of ideological reasons, even though he admonishes Republicans against doing the same.

He has a different role now. Do you understand that? He's President of the United States. Show some goddamned respect.

Also, it's a huge difference between voting against the confirmation and refusing to hold hearings at all.

I find it funny that Republicans are already admitting they may change their mind if HIllary gets elected. So wait, they only think the next president should be the one to choose the nominee if it's their candidate who wins? Classy.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's with all the posts brushing on anti-semitic? They have tone the same poster, right?

wait what? How is it anti-Semitic to point out facts?

You won't be black by any chance, correct?

As a Jew, I tend to be sensitive about anti-semitism, but I don't think it is anti-semitic to marvel about the number of Jews on the Court. The fact that there is not one Protestant among the justices, all of whom were appointed by Protestant presidents, is surely worthy of discussion. I don't think it betokens self-hatred on the part of the presidents, but it is statistically unlikely enough that I would like to know whether anyone has an explanation other than that unlikely is different from impossible.

I agree. There are also a number of Catholics. Not to mention Princetonians and Harvards.

[Anonymous]

Was surprised to see that before Scalia's death, 6-of-9 on the current Court were Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Obama is in the fourth year of his presidency.

Correct. Apologies for my typo. I meant "after Obama's third year."

Actually, he's in the 8th year of his presidency and the fourth year of his 2nd term.

The man was elected to lead this country twice, but Senate leaders seem to think that for 25% of a President's term they shouldn't be allowed to do anything of substance. And people wonder why Washington has a reputation for being the place where nothing happens.

Yes, yes, he was re-elected in 2012. And two thirds of this Senate were elected in 2012 and 2014 and 100% of the House was elected in 2014, so there you go. Check, meet balance.

Advise and consent does not mean stonewall.

He didn't take the advice, he won't get the consent. Obama blew this one.

[Anonymous]

January 20, 2017. End of an error, hopefully not repeated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Obama is in the fourth year of his presidency.

Correct. Apologies for my typo. I meant "after Obama's third year."

Actually, he's in the 8th year of his presidency and the fourth year of his 2nd term.

The man was elected to lead this country twice, but Senate leaders seem to think that for 25% of a President's term they shouldn't be allowed to do anything of substance. And people wonder why Washington has a reputation for being the place where nothing happens.

Yes, yes, he was re-elected in 2012. And two thirds of this Senate were elected in 2012 and 2014 and 100% of the House was elected in 2014, so there you go. Check, meet balance.

Advise and consent does not mean stonewall.

He didn't take the advice, he won't get the consent. Obama blew this one.

Haha. If he had taken the advice, he would have just not nominated anyone. Wouldn't that be blowing it?

This way, he is doing his job and putting the ball in the Senate's court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:January 20, 2017. End of an error, hopefully not repeated.

I know, right? Trump will be awesome! Instead of gridlock between a D president and R Congress, it will be gridlock between Trump and Congress.

[Anonymous]

Obama correctly nominated Garland meeting his constitutional duty.

The Republicans "advised" the president not to nominate anyone given it is an election year - advise that the president rightly ignored - and now the Republican senate is withholding "consent" which is within their right.

If Obama and the Democrats don't like the Republican's approach, they should seek to unseat the Republican senators who are running for reelection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Obama is in the fourth year of his presidency.

Correct. Apologies for my typo. I meant "after Obama's third year."

Actually, he's in the 8th year of his presidency and the fourth year of his 2nd term.

The man was elected to lead this country twice, but Senate leaders seem to think that for 25% of a President's term they shouldn't be allowed to do anything of substance. And people wonder why Washington has a reputation for being the place where nothing happens.

What isn't happening that you want to see happen? If it's a wish list of agenda items for a particular party, that's called partisanship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP has a majority in the Senate. Plenty of votes to block any nominee. Yet they are afraid to hold a hearing. Gutless.

They are going about it the right way if the intention is to block his confirmation. How can they have hearings where Garland comes across as eminently qualified and then the Republicans vote against him? Much smarter to just avoid the hearings altogether.

Probably an accurate assessment of the GOP calculus. In a word, "gutless."

I don't think they're scared of the hearings. Everybody loves a chance to grandstand.

I think the leadership knows that they are going to face defections from their own ranks if they put him up to a vote. Enough GOP senators will vote "yes" with the Democrats that he will be confirmed if they hold the hearings and the vote.

Yes, surely Hatch, Collins, Graham, and others would vote to confirm. But it won't come to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Obama is in the fourth year of his presidency.

Correct. Apologies for my typo. I meant "after Obama's third year."

Actually, he's in the 8th year of his presidency and the fourth year of his 2nd term.

The man was elected to lead this country twice, but Senate leaders seem to think that for 25% of a President's term they shouldn't be allowed to do anything of substance. And people wonder why Washington has a reputation for being the place where nothing happens.

What isn't happening that you want to see happen? If it's a wish list of agenda items for a particular party, that's called partisanship.

Wish list = hearing for a Supreme Court nominee. Maybe even meet with him, instead of refuse.

But that's partisanship, apparently.

[Anonymous]

I blame democrats for this mess - if you guys didn't sit on your ass in the midterms we wouldn't be in this problem!

Did you see the turnout in 2014? it was an alltime low!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Obama is in the fourth year of his presidency.

Correct. Apologies for my typo. I meant "after Obama's third year."

Actually, he's in the 8th year of his presidency and the fourth year of his 2nd term.

The man was elected to lead this country twice, but Senate leaders seem to think that for 25% of a President's term they shouldn't be allowed to do anything of substance. And people wonder why Washington has a reputation for being the place where nothing happens.

What isn't happening that you want to see happen? If it's a wish list of agenda items for a particular party, that's called partisanship.

There is so so much that I'd love to see these fools attempt to do.

But they'd rather just try to undo ACA over ... And over... And over