Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus

[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.

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

Plus reliable liberal Stephen Breyer. Clinton also nominated Sonya Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.

[Anonymous]

I'm laughing at the poster who got up in arms about Obama bowling....

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz did an ad with the Duck Dynasty idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Dunno if you are talking about HRC or RBG...but somehow it really amuses me to think about a world where RBG is a centrist I think I might love that world almost as much as I love her.

[Anonymous]

Is it possible that Obama picked Merrick Garland because he intends to push him through as a recess appointment and the GOP will still be able to save face by saying they fought as hard as they could? Obama knows that the GOP could live with Garland and both sides preserve the theatre they are so fond of. In the end, Garland gets in and both sides have a 'win'? Could that be a possibility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that Obama picked Merrick Garland because he intends to push him through as a recess appointment and the GOP will still be able to save face by saying they fought as hard as they could? Obama knows that the GOP could live with Garland and both sides preserve the theatre they are so fond of. In the end, Garland gets in and both sides have a 'win'? Could that be a possibility?

No.

[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.

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.

If what you're saying were true, what's the explanation for Obama losing majorities in the house and Senate?

[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.

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.

Nope. McConnell figures if he's going to lose the white house and Senate, this is his last parting shot at Obama. It s purely personal.

[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.

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

You must have not heard of Newt Gingrich. Clinton got his ass handed to him and one of the reasons that made it possible was excessively liberal supreme CT appointments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

inner city people and 18-24 year olds watch Fox News & vote for Republicans. Is that what you're saying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible that Obama picked Merrick Garland because he intends to push him through as a recess appointment and the GOP will still be able to save face by saying they fought as hard as they could? Obama knows that the GOP could live with Garland and both sides preserve the theatre they are so fond of. In the end, Garland gets in and both sides have a 'win'? Could that be a possibility?

No he picked Garland as a sacrificial lamb. Garland will get his reward on the other side of the election if hrc wins-either re nomination or maybe Atty gen or other plum. Obama is like OK here's a white Jewish male, go ahead and fuck with thus guy all you want, everyone knows he's not getting in on my watch under any circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm laughing at the poster who got up in arms about Obama bowling....

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz did an ad with the Duck Dynasty idiots.

I'm curious as to why you think the Duck Commander owners are 'idiots'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm laughing at the poster who got up in arms about Obama bowling....

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz did an ad with the Duck Dynasty idiots.

I'm curious as to why you think the Duck Commander owners are 'idiots'

Oh, come on...they are lowest common denominator reality show phonies. And hateful bigots to boot.

[Anonymous]

Worse then being a duck dynasty guy is being jealous of him pp.

[Anonymous]

Google Peter Kiesler liberal morons. There is ample precedent for the Senate failing to act on federal judicial appointments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Worse then being a duck dynasty guy is being jealous of him pp.

where in the post did you get jealousy? I find them and any of the other reality show people vile. There is nothing to be jealous of.