The Republicans are following the "Biden Rule".

You think the electorate voted for these assholes en masse to block an obama nominee to the supreme court? Really? After electing him twice to give HIM the authority to nominate people?

Your logic is truly tortured

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.

Right, "gutless" because they are afraid to let the process move forward. Afraid a majority of the Senate will actually vote to confirm the nominee. So we're not really doing "advise and consent" here; we're doing hostage holding.

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.

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.

The Democrats were repudiated in the House and Senate in 2014 despite the Republicans being the party of "no". Perhaps that is what the electorate wants and unfettered authority to Obama is something the electorate does not support.

Keep in mind that Obama had an almost filibuster proof Senate majority in 2008, a substantial majority in the House and the majority of the gubernatorial positions and in each election thereafter the Democrats have lost seats in the House, the Senate and governors. They lost the majority in just about every branch of government. Yes, he won reelection to the presidency but given what the Republicans have achieved in other regards, the electorate has not given a ringing endorsement to the Democrats.

And before one hears the crap about gerrymandering, yes there is that on both sides but it affects mainly the House seats.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She is hawkish on foreign policy, and center right on business and banking issues. She is pretty liberal on social issues, but not as liberal as Sanders. She is very liberal on women's issues. A Clinton nominee could be expected to push the abortion rights issue farther left.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he should have nominated someone Bork-like. Just to test the waters and if the Senate agreed to hearings, withdrawn the nomination. Ha!

I was joking to my husband that maybe he'd nominate Ted Cruz. How would that be for a high-stakes poker game. The Senate hates Cruz and would love to get rid of him. At the same time he's impeccably conservative and would likely be an activist conservative at that -- perfect to replace Scalia. That would have given the Senate judiciary committee serious heartburn.

Of course Obama couldn't do that because they might just have called his bluff and agreed to consider him, and he couldn't take that risk.

I guess the question is whether the nomination could be withdrawn.

yes. Remember Harriet Miers?

Of course the nomination can be withdrawn! This happens all the time.

Here's how it goes down. Obama nominates an unassailable moderate SCOTUS. McConnell sits on it for no reason other than the principle that the next President should get the pick. If it's mid-October and things look decent for Hillary, Obama withdraws the candidate. He says I did my best, McConnell has won. The next president will get the pick. Clinton will broadcast to the millennials that the future of a woman's right to choose is at stake. She gets record turnout and wins, maybe carrying the Senate as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he should have nominated someone Bork-like. Just to test the waters and if the Senate agreed to hearings, withdrawn the nomination. Ha!

I was joking to my husband that maybe he'd nominate Ted Cruz. How would that be for a high-stakes poker game. The Senate hates Cruz and would love to get rid of him. At the same time he's impeccably conservative and would likely be an activist conservative at that -- perfect to replace Scalia. That would have given the Senate judiciary committee serious heartburn.

Of course Obama couldn't do that because they might just have called his bluff and agreed to consider him, and he couldn't take that risk.

I guess the question is whether the nomination could be withdrawn.

yes. Remember Harriet Miers?

I think Garland is an excellent choice but wish he were younger. The problem is that the usual Democratic constituency groups won't be energized because they see Supreme Court nominations as all about "identity" politics -- witness the drumbeat for a black woman "perspective" on the court. Next thing you know, they'll want a handicapped transgender person. Yawn.

I seriously don't understand how so many R's can claim that "Scalia's seat" MUST be filled with someone conservative. I've heard this repeatedly when Senators or pundits are interviewed about this. They act as if the seat itself has some mystical conservative properties that must be honored. Sorry, but the D's had to trade "Thurgood Marshall's seat" for Clarence Thomas for heaven's sake and that was hardly an equal trade in either ideology or ability, by a long shot.

And the arrogance of suggesting that they can be bothered to do their jobs and confirm him if and only if a Democrat is elected president. I hope that if Hillary wins, Obama withdraws this nomination as fast as he can and that she nominates the most liberal, activist, make-them-regret-this liberal judge she can find.

They will get hammered for being the party of no. They will get baited into commenting on the nominee in the press. Once that happens the discussion will turn to his qualifications vs the abstract idea that they are owed this pick.

Worst case, Hillary uses the pick to rally every millennial to the polls.

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."