Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance this is a "throw away" nomination so Mitch et al can throw a fit and stymie it only to have the real second nomination please stand up?

Very likely - after all, that's how he got John Kerry and Chuck Hagel confirmed, by floating names he knew would make the GOP flip out, then ultimately nominating his real choices once they'd blown their collective wad.

Ha.

Well in any event, Garland is a good judge. I doubt they'll confirm him but if they do, I'll be happy with him. He'll make a good justice. He's been around a while and is well-respected. Of course if they don't confirm him and Hillary wins and nominates a super-liberal, that would be fine with me, too.

Why would she nominate a super liberal? I thought she was supposed to be a moderate.

I think she is a moderate, but if she wi s and the Dems take back the Senate I think there would be pressure from within the party to nominate someone more liberal. Whereas with Obama, I think everyone understands that a moderate has the best chance of getting confirmed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Senate won't confirm him, Clinton will win the White House, the Dems will win the Senate and she will appoint a true liberal who will be confirmed. Thank God Republicans are so stupid.

The GOP has allowed Truml to set its house on fire and McConnell is willing to lose control of the Senate while standing on "principle." Or perhaps he's thinking he's had enough as Majority Leader and is going to scuttle what's left of the party of old white men.

McConnell is a tantruming infant and everything that's wrong with the South. No balls. He needs to be a man and speak up for what's right and allow a hearing.

Susan Collins has waaaay more balls than he does and actually makes me consider the Republican position when I hear her speak.

She's one of the few reasonable Rs left in the senate unfortunately. Snowe had enough of the bullshit and bailed.

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.

Like it or not, the nomination and the confirmation process is political. Obama would have selected a younger and more liberal nominee if he were not concerned about the politics and making it as difficult as possible for the GOP not to give Garland a hearing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read an article about Garland's daughters. Both went to Sidwell and then Yale ... natch.

I wish I was jewish. i feel so dumb.

As a Jew who went to Yale, I can assure you there is hardly a Jewish majority on campus. It's way, way the hell more Jews than you'll find anywhere else (except at other Ivy League colleges), but it's still not a majority. Plenty of non-Jews to make you feel at home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Their life experiences have very little in common with the growing number of Americans who feel completely disenfranchised and shut out under Obama

You clearly don't know anything about Sonia Sotomayor. You really should fix that.

+1

Sotamayor is from a working class/middle class family. Her mom was an LPN and her dad was a tool and die worker. She went to college on a scholarship.

She's also currently living in the Shaw neighborhood in DC. A place most DCUMer's wouldn't step foot in even if they knew where it was.

Anonymous wrote:See, it pisses me off that the supreme court has become so polarized and therefore politicized. Hey, Rs - another Scalia is not going to happen. Get over it. He died, there is a D president - a moderate is the best you can hope for. This is a dangerous game you are playing here, though - you're making it more and more likely that people are going to revolt against your bullshit.

Ummm, it became politicized and polarized well before this.

See, it pisses me off that the supreme court has become so polarized and therefore politicized. Hey, Rs - another Scalia is not going to happen. Get over it. He died, there is a D president - a moderate is the best you can hope for. This is a dangerous game you are playing here, though - you're making it more and more likely that people are going to revolt against your bullshit.

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

Anonymous wrote:Susan Collins is in favor of holding hearings. Any other Republicans saying the same or is she the only one so far?

The GOP doesn't want it to appear that it's turning its back on a white male.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Senate won't confirm him, Clinton will win the White House, the Dems will win the Senate and she will appoint a true liberal who will be confirmed. Thank God Republicans are so stupid.

The GOP has allowed Truml to set its house on fire and McConnell is willing to lose control of the Senate while standing on "principle." Or perhaps he's thinking he's had enough as Majority Leader and is going to scuttle what's left of the party of old white men.

McConnell is a tantruming infant and everything that's wrong with the South. No balls. He needs to be a man and speak up for what's right and allow a hearing.

Susan Collins has waaaay more balls than he does and actually makes me consider the Republican position when I hear her speak.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Senate Republicans be thinking, stall until the election in November, if Clinton wins, they confirm Garland (to deny Clinton the opportunity to nominate someone more liberal) and if Trump wins they stall until after he takes office.

It certainly seems the best approach to take for the Republicans. I would think would want the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings at some point before general election so that the Senate can vote on Garland before she takes office.

Of course, this presupposes that Garland will not withdraw or that Obama will not pull his name if there is an indefinite delay.

Obama would definitely pull him at that point. It would be up to Clinton to renominate him or someone else.

I don't think Obama would withdraw his own nominee if Republicans were promising to confirm him during the lame duck session.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance this is a "throw away" nomination so Mitch et al can throw a fit and stymie it only to have the real second nomination please stand up?

Very likely - after all, that's how he got John Kerry and Chuck Hagel confirmed, by floating names he knew would make the GOP flip out, then ultimately nominating his real choices once they'd blown their collective wad.

Ha.

Well in any event, Garland is a good judge. I doubt they'll confirm him but if they do, I'll be happy with him. He'll make a good justice. He's been around a while and is well-respected. Of course if they don't confirm him and Hillary wins and nominates a super-liberal, that would be fine with me, too.

Why would she nominate a super liberal? I thought she was supposed to be a moderate.

All depends on who you ask. republicans want to pretend she is Hanoi Jane. Sanders supporters want to pretend she is Nancy Reagan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the Senate Republicans be thinking, stall until the election in November, if Clinton wins, they confirm Garland (to deny Clinton the opportunity to nominate someone more liberal) and if Trump wins they stall until after he takes office.

It certainly seems the best approach to take for the Republicans. I would think would want the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings at some point before general election so that the Senate can vote on Garland before she takes office.

Of course, this presupposes that Garland will not withdraw or that Obama will not pull his name if there is an indefinite delay.

Obama would definitely pull him at that point. It would be up to Clinton to renominate him or someone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance this is a "throw away" nomination so Mitch et al can throw a fit and stymie it only to have the real second nomination please stand up?

Very likely - after all, that's how he got John Kerry and Chuck Hagel confirmed, by floating names he knew would make the GOP flip out, then ultimately nominating his real choices once they'd blown their collective wad.

Ha.

Well in any event, Garland is a good judge. I doubt they'll confirm him but if they do, I'll be happy with him. He'll make a good justice. He's been around a while and is well-respected. Of course if they don't confirm him and Hillary wins and nominates a super-liberal, that would be fine with me, too.

Why would she nominate a super liberal? I thought she was supposed to be a moderate.

Anonymous wrote:Could the Senate Republicans be thinking, stall until the election in November, if Clinton wins, they confirm Garland (to deny Clinton the opportunity to nominate someone more liberal) and if Trump wins they stall until after he takes office.

It certainly seems the best approach to take for the Republicans. I would think would want the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings at some point before general election so that the Senate can vote on Garland before she takes office.

Of course, this presupposes that Garland will not withdraw or that Obama will not pull his name if there is an indefinite delay.