Anonymous wrote:The president picked the OLDEST judge on the list of candidates and he's already been voted down by the Senate Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Yes, this is absolutely a serious pick by the president, said nobody.
Anonymous wrote: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 did not stop Alito or Roberts from getting a hearing.
You understand (probably not) that there are 11 legislative weeks remaining in 2016.
11 weeks. That's why there's a throw-away candidate speaking right now.
Anonymous wrote: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 did not stop Alito or Roberts from getting a hearing.
You understand (probably not) that there are 11 legislative weeks remaining in 2016.
11 weeks. That's why there's a throw-away candidate speaking right now.
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 did not stop Alito or Roberts from getting a hearing.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Terrible choice -- another old moderate white man. Fuck that.
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 Just to test the waters and if the Senate agreed to hearings, withdrawn the nomination.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.
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.
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!