Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all Obama's fault for being so arrogant and high handed while in office. This is not political, it's personal . McConnell is giving Obama a kick in the ass on his way out the door and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. This is a great big FU to Obama who has certainly earned it. "I have a pen" he says if Congress doesn't do what he wants. Well McConnell shoved that pen right up Obama's ass. It showing the whole world that the master bullshiter Obama has no political skill at all when it comes right down to it.

Merrick Garland is a feckless ticket puncher who had to know Obama was just using him as a stalking horse, yet his ego wouldn't let him refuse a doomed from the start nomination.

For all if you whiny cry babies who say the Senate MUST hold hearings....there is no requirement that they do so on Obama's timetable. Face reality McConnell won, the left Lost.

Obama Derangement at it's finest.

The Obama was arrogant argument is such a false narrative.

And good luck, dipshit, when you have Hillary in office.

I'm a moderate Republican voter, and your comment is why Hillary may not win the election. That's not the way to get your typical Trump-voting males to vote for HRC.

Maybe Hillary should get herself an F-150 with truck nutz and NRA decal and start blaming Muslims and illegal immigration for all your problems. She call also remind us that she went to Yale and has all the "best words," has a "good brain" and says a lot of things. After all, having a "good instinct" is sufficient when it comes to foreign policy. Would that be enough?

Grow up.

[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.

That's irrelevant. The only person elected who has the constitutional responsibility to nominate SCOTUS justices is the President. There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that Presidents aren't really supposed to carry out their Constitutional responsibility for 25% of any 4 year term (how would this play out if it were the fourth year of his first term, I wonder?). Likewise, the members of the Senate elected in both 2012 and 2014 have the Constitutional responsibility to "advise and consent" on the nominees, which has historically been done through hearings and votes. No one is saying they have an obligation to approve the President's nominee, but refusing to even give a hearing to a nominee for what would amount to 1/6 of each of their terms is shirking their responsibility.

I know it seems like we're really just electing parties sometimes, but the current primary season should make it clear that we're actually electing individual people. Like it or not, the current President was elected to the position that nominates appointees, not a group of Senators selected by a who have power disproportionate to the population they represent.

Oh, I quite agree that Obama fulfilled his constitutional obligation to nominate a Justice. The Constitution says that the president "shall nominate", so he was required to do so ("shall" meaning mandatory). Well done! On the other hand, the Senate has no obligation to "advi[s]e and consent", there is no "shall" for them; the Senate has the right (not the obligation) to do so. This is by design.

By the same token, PP, you also have many rights under the Constitution. For example, you are not required to bear arms, but you may do so if you so choose.

Democratic talking points about the Senate "not doing its job" is just political pressure to impress the typical Democratic low-information voter, and is irresponsible.

[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.

Different poster, but here are a few things off the top of my head that I'd like to see happening. I'd like an actual budget passed, because I'm tired of crises that seem to come down every other month. I recognize it will require compromise on both sides, but that's exactly what they were elected to do -- compromise with their fellow members of Congress to perform that duties of the federal government.

I'd like to see some amendments to Obamacare to address some of the problems that have arisen now that's in place. I realize some want to see it repealed in its entirety, and some don't want to change it at all. It will require compromise on both sides, but that's their job.

I would like them to develop a plan for immigration reform so that we can have some resolution on this issue. Again, compromise.

I would like the Senate to hold hearings on Garland. If the Republicans find him so untenable as a nominee, they can vote against confirmation and let the process start again. But I would like them to actually do their jobs so that the American public can see what the outcome is, and hold their elected officials accountable for their individual actions rather than letting them hide behind the party cloak (and this goes for both sides).

[Anonymous]

Lol you dems don't get it. Hillary will nominate someone more conservative than Trump would. Trump will go against what McConnell wants just to show him who's top dog and if McConnell tried to hold up a Trump nomination Trump would eviscerate him. The pubs FEAR Trump because they don't control him. In contrast, no one fears Obama.

Hillary is not an ideologue, she's not Warren. She will nominate a complete centrist and possibly to the right because it's far more important to her to win by getting an unopposed nomination through the Senate than what the nominees politics are.

None of you seem to remember the 90s and the DLC or triangulation.

Bill Clinton was considered be a conservative for a democrat. He is a brilliant tactician and rest assured if she gets elected his influence will be strong. Ideology doesn't mean squat unless you WIN. Trump understands this, Hillary understands it, grow up and get used to it, politics is hardball and about winning, not your Sanders induced LSD fantasies of free ice cream for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all Obama's fault for being so arrogant and high handed while in office. This is not political, it's personal . McConnell is giving Obama a kick in the ass on his way out the door and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. This is a great big FU to Obama who has certainly earned it. "I have a pen" he says if Congress doesn't do what he wants. Well McConnell shoved that pen right up Obama's ass. It showing the whole world that the master bullshiter Obama has no political skill at all when it comes right down to it.

Merrick Garland is a feckless ticket puncher who had to know Obama was just using him as a stalking horse, yet his ego wouldn't let him refuse a doomed from the start nomination.

For all if you whiny cry babies who say the Senate MUST hold hearings....there is no requirement that they do so on Obama's timetable. Face reality McConnell won, the left Lost.

Obama Derangement at it's finest.

The Obama was arrogant argument is such a false narrative.

And good luck, dipshit, when you have Hillary in office.

I'm a moderate Republican voter, and your comment is why Hillary may not win the election. That's not the way to get your typical Trump-voting males to vote for HRC.

Maybe Hillary should get herself an F-150 with truck nutz and NRA decal and start blaming Muslims and illegal immigration for all your problems. She call also remind us that she went to Yale and has all the "best words," has a "good brain" and says a lot of things. After all, having a "good instinct" is sufficient when it comes to foreign policy. Would that be enough?

Grow up.

That's exactly what she will do if she wants to win. Just like Obama going bowling and having a shot and a beer down at the local. It's baby kissing and eating greasy poroghis at the county fair. Showing the riff Raff that you are one of the people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all Obama's fault for being so arrogant and high handed while in office. This is not political, it's personal . McConnell is giving Obama a kick in the ass on his way out the door and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. This is a great big FU to Obama who has certainly earned it. "I have a pen" he says if Congress doesn't do what he wants. Well McConnell shoved that pen right up Obama's ass. It showing the whole world that the master bullshiter Obama has no political skill at all when it comes right down to it.

Merrick Garland is a feckless ticket puncher who had to know Obama was just using him as a stalking horse, yet his ego wouldn't let him refuse a doomed from the start nomination.

For all if you whiny cry babies who say the Senate MUST hold hearings....there is no requirement that they do so on Obama's timetable. Face reality McConnell won, the left Lost.

Obama Derangement at it's finest.

The Obama was arrogant argument is such a false narrative.

And good luck, dipshit, when you have Hillary in office.

Excuse me do you think McConnell is stupid and doesn't realize Hillary could potentially nominate someone even more liberal? That's how you know it's PERSONAL. And it's personal because of Obama's snide, condescending, supercilious approach. "I won get over it" guaranteed to cause bad blood, completely unnecessary
Pols have LONG memories and this is payback.

[Anonymous]

Low information voters on the D side?

Really?

The more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote D.

The less educated and the Fox News watchers are the low information voters. This is well documented. Guess which side they are on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all Obama's fault for being so arrogant and high handed while in office. This is not political, it's personal . McConnell is giving Obama a kick in the ass on his way out the door and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. This is a great big FU to Obama who has certainly earned it. "I have a pen" he says if Congress doesn't do what he wants. Well McConnell shoved that pen right up Obama's ass. It showing the whole world that the master bullshiter Obama has no political skill at all when it comes right down to it.

Merrick Garland is a feckless ticket puncher who had to know Obama was just using him as a stalking horse, yet his ego wouldn't let him refuse a doomed from the start nomination.

For all if you whiny cry babies who say the Senate MUST hold hearings....there is no requirement that they do so on Obama's timetable. Face reality McConnell won, the left Lost.

Obama Derangement at it's finest.

The Obama was arrogant argument is such a false narrative.

And good luck, dipshit, when you have Hillary in office.

Excuse me do you think McConnell is stupid and doesn't realize Hillary could potentially nominate someone even more liberal? That's how you know it's PERSONAL. And it's personal because of Obama's snide, condescending, supercilious approach. "I won get over it" guaranteed to cause bad blood, completely unnecessary
Pols have LONG memories and this is payback.

Fox News has really addled your brain. McConnell was the guy who stated that his chief goal was to make Obama a one-term president. We all know how well that worked out. So yes, its personal. Obama made a fool of him!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all Obama's fault for being so arrogant and high handed while in office. This is not political, it's personal . McConnell is giving Obama a kick in the ass on his way out the door and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. This is a great big FU to Obama who has certainly earned it. "I have a pen" he says if Congress doesn't do what he wants. Well McConnell shoved that pen right up Obama's ass. It showing the whole world that the master bullshiter Obama has no political skill at all when it comes right down to it.

Merrick Garland is a feckless ticket puncher who had to know Obama was just using him as a stalking horse, yet his ego wouldn't let him refuse a doomed from the start nomination.

For all if you whiny cry babies who say the Senate MUST hold hearings....there is no requirement that they do so on Obama's timetable. Face reality McConnell won, the left Lost.

Obama Derangement at it's finest.

The Obama was arrogant argument is such a false narrative.

And good luck, dipshit, when you have Hillary in office.

Excuse me do you think McConnell is stupid and doesn't realize Hillary could potentially nominate someone even more liberal? That's how you know it's PERSONAL. And it's personal because of Obama's snide, condescending, supercilious approach. "I won get over it" guaranteed to cause bad blood, completely unnecessary
Pols have LONG memories and this is payback.

Good grief. You know why he has that approach now? Because for his entire time in office, these idiots have been refusing to even consider working with him on ANYTHING.

McConnell and the rest of the Rs in Congress are a bunch of damn toddlers. The word "no" is in heavy use.

As another poster said, compromise is their damn job. But they aren't going to do it. Because they just don't like him.

He tried. You people want to forget that. He brought them ideas from their side and the Rs still said no.

McConnell isn't going to get his way. I ask again, what does he plan to do in the very likely scenario that Hillary is elected? She might nominate another moderate candidate, but a Scalia isn't happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol you dems don't get it. Hillary will nominate someone more conservative than Trump would. Trump will go against what McConnell wants just to show him who's top dog and if McConnell tried to hold up a Trump nomination Trump would eviscerate him. The pubs FEAR Trump because they don't control him. In contrast, no one fears Obama.

Hillary is not an ideologue, she's not Warren. She will nominate a complete centrist and possibly to the right because it's far more important to her to win by getting an unopposed nomination through the Senate than what the nominees politics are.

None of you seem to remember the 90s and the DLC or triangulation.

Bill Clinton was considered be a conservative for a democrat. He is a brilliant tactician and rest assured if she gets elected his influence will be strong. Ideology doesn't mean squat unless you WIN. Trump understands this, Hillary understands it, grow up and get used to it, politics is hardball and about winning, not your Sanders induced LSD fantasies of free ice cream for everyone.

That makes no sense. If Republicans fear Trump (who is supposed to be a Republican), then they should go forward with Obama's nominee, whether or not they fear him. Or are you saying that Republicans fear Trump but simultaneously cannot look farther ahead than this afternoon, from a strategy standpoint?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all Obama's fault for being so arrogant and high handed while in office. This is not political, it's personal . McConnell is giving Obama a kick in the ass on his way out the door and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. This is a great big FU to Obama who has certainly earned it. "I have a pen" he says if Congress doesn't do what he wants. Well McConnell shoved that pen right up Obama's ass. It showing the whole world that the master bullshiter Obama has no political skill at all when it comes right down to it.

Merrick Garland is a feckless ticket puncher who had to know Obama was just using him as a stalking horse, yet his ego wouldn't let him refuse a doomed from the start nomination.

For all if you whiny cry babies who say the Senate MUST hold hearings....there is no requirement that they do so on Obama's timetable. Face reality McConnell won, the left Lost.

Obama Derangement at it's finest.

The Obama was arrogant argument is such a false narrative.

And good luck, dipshit, when you have Hillary in office.

Excuse me do you think McConnell is stupid and doesn't realize Hillary could potentially nominate someone even more liberal? That's how you know it's PERSONAL. And it's personal because of Obama's snide, condescending, supercilious approach. "I won get over it" guaranteed to cause bad blood, completely unnecessary
Pols have LONG memories and this is payback.

I'm sure there is personal animus there, but I don't think this decision by McConnell is purely personal, I think it's very political. The GOP knows it's likely to have an uphill battle in the general election, and given historical trends for how Senate elections tend to follow Presidential elections, he knows that the election of a Dem president greatly increases the odds that the Republicans lose the Senate at the same time as well. They need the Supreme Court as a very current issue to try to galvanize their full base, because they know that Trump or Cruz as the nominee isn't going to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol you dems don't get it. Hillary will nominate someone more conservative than Trump would. Trump will go against what McConnell wants just to show him who's top dog and if McConnell tried to hold up a Trump nomination Trump would eviscerate him. The pubs FEAR Trump because they don't control him. In contrast, no one fears Obama.

Hillary is not an ideologue, she's not Warren. She will nominate a complete centrist and possibly to the right because it's far more important to her to win by getting an unopposed nomination through the Senate than what the nominees politics are.

None of you seem to remember the 90s and the DLC or triangulation.

Bill Clinton was considered be a conservative for a democrat. He is a brilliant tactician and rest assured if she gets elected his influence will be strong. Ideology doesn't mean squat unless you WIN. Trump understands this, Hillary understands it, grow up and get used to it, politics is hardball and about winning, not your Sanders induced LSD fantasies of free ice cream for everyone.

That makes no sense. If Republicans fear Trump (who is supposed to be a Republican), then they should go forward with Obama's nominee, whether or not they fear him. Or are you saying that Republicans fear Trump but simultaneously cannot look farther ahead than this afternoon, from a strategy standpoint?

If we assume pp is right that Republicans fear who Trump might nominate, McConnell's strategy may just be to sit on this for now, see how the primaries turn out, and then decide whether to proceed with the strategy or change course and hold hearings. Just like he's sitting on it until he sees how the issue affects re-election odds for vulnerable Republican senators. It's a waiting game for him right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, I quite agree that Obama fulfilled his constitutional obligation to nominate a Justice. The Constitution says that the president "shall nominate", so he was required to do so ("shall" meaning mandatory). Well done! On the other hand, the Senate has no obligation to "advi[s]e and consent", there is no "shall" for them; the Senate has the right (not the obligation) to do so. This is by design.

By the same token, PP, you also have many rights under the Constitution. For example, you are not required to bear arms, but you may do so if you so choose.

Democratic talking points about the Senate "not doing its job" is just political pressure to impress the typical Democratic low-information voter, and is irresponsible.

Well, I disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution...but leaving that aside. Are you really okay with having your elected officials, who earn $174,000/yr + extremely generous benefits that all come from your tax dollars simply refuse to do anything for their entire term just because they don't like/agree with the President? The sight of Mitch McConnell makes me want to puke at this point, but I acknowledge that through his elected office he has the right and responsibility to his constituents to try to move the President's ideas more toward his own views of what is best for the country...but at what point is it a complete abdication of responsibility to the country you serve to even try to get things done instead of making everything a chicken fight (which the R's now have a multi-year track record of losing when the stakes are highest)? If the Senate wants to sit around and do absolutely nothing but grandstand, then why not disband it altogether. So many House and Senate members insult and denigrate government workers, while Feds work their butts off under pay freezes, furloughs, and worse just scrambling to keep the country moderately functioning under conditions where they don't even know whether they'll be able to order new office supplies when they run out of pens or printer paper. If you honestly believe that the Federal government does nothing, then please don't drive on the highways ever, or expect to be able to travel to a foreign country where they want to see proof of citizenship in the form of a passport, or drink tap water or breathe your air without first checking it's quality, or buy any food or medication without first checking for yourself it it's contaminated...and definitely don't expect to get SS checks etc when you retire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol you dems don't get it. Hillary will nominate someone more conservative than Trump would. Trump will go against what McConnell wants just to show him who's top dog and if McConnell tried to hold up a Trump nomination Trump would eviscerate him. The pubs FEAR Trump because they don't control him. In contrast, no one fears Obama.

Hillary is not an ideologue, she's not Warren. She will nominate a complete centrist and possibly to the right because it's far more important to her to win by getting an unopposed nomination through the Senate than what the nominees politics are.

None of you seem to remember the 90s and the DLC or triangulation.

Bill Clinton was considered be a conservative for a democrat. He is a brilliant tactician and rest assured if she gets elected his influence will be strong. Ideology doesn't mean squat unless you WIN. Trump understands this, Hillary understands it, grow up and get used to it, politics is hardball and about winning, not your Sanders induced LSD fantasies of free ice cream for everyone.

You mean like the centrist Ruth Bader Ginsburg that Bill Clinton nominated?

[Anonymous]

She probably is a centrist BUT the Rs are so stinking crazy and have gone soooo far right, they don't have any idea where center is anymore.