Obama to announce Supreme Court Nominee Today

It's not about him, you don't get that yet? And it's highly unfair to put him in this position according to Biden.

 

Is your view of this so intellectual shallow you think it's about some trivial emotion?

This is about political process.

- - - Updated - - -

A person who is banned from practicing law in front of them? And why would he even want the job which would shut him up from public comments on many many government and legal matters?

- - - Updated - - -

Because it is no longer politically expedient for the Democrats. That's how they operate. I'm waiting for the "well two wrongs don't make a right" pleas.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not going to cost them jack and will probably increase their votes. All they have to do is keep quoting the Biden rule.

 

With regard to the Brown v Board decision I see no point in revisiting it......as a result of this decision most of our public school systems have become nothing more than a babysitting service with free meals.......Whites have generally adjusted to the decision through White flight or private schools. With regard to the Plessy decision.........I had no idea that you were such a proponent of states rights and 'separate but equal' accommodations..........I applaud you for making intellectual progress.....

 

My post was not written in crayon hence I wasn't responding to you.

 

People are not only sick of the establishment but the revenge tactics the GOP are pulling. The country is tired of congress sitting on their asses. Glad to see folks like you are more concerned about revenge than the country.

 

Seriously.......this nominee is Jewish.....that would make four Jews on the Supreme Court when 2 percent of the population is Jewish.........and no Protestants on the court.......talk about 'diversity......what a friggin' joke

 

I doubt this makes much of a difference outside of Democrats. Most independents do not even know there is a vacant seat on the SCOTUS. When they do go to vote it will be most likely on their pocket book and not whether some nominee was taken up or not. People like us who watch these things closely and spend time on sites like this one tend to believe most other Americans do too. But we are in a very small, minute minority.

The political pundits also put too much into events like this, they tell us it is a game changer when in fact 99% of the time it isn't and is forgotten about within a few days. This cycle the Republicans are overextended in the senate, 24 seats up for grabs vs. only 10 for the Democrats. Illinois, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin will surely go back to their democratic roots, the Republicans had no business there winning those seats in 2010. The Democrats have a 50-50 shot at picking up seats in Arizona, Florida, New Hampshire and Ohio. None of those states will care if the seat on the SCOTUS is filled or not.

I would say the Democrats have at least a 60% chance of regaining the senate in November and then if the GOP runs Trump, President Hillary Clinton will be able to nominate and get the senate to approve a very flaming liberal. Perhaps this Garland fellow might be the best the Republicans could ever hope to get.

 

I'm pretty sure that is what Obama told McConnell too. Let's see if McConnell is willing to bet the Senate on this.

 

My only question is, which stock is likely to make me the most money - Smith & Wesson or Ruger? Obama is about to ramp up another Black Friday for gun shops

 

When they came for our guns:

[video=youtube;p9lo0OxrXLo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9lo0OxrXLo&feature=youtu.be[/video]

 

Mitch McConnel and the GOPe deserve to lose their jobs. Spineless misanthropes.

Via backchannels, the message being sent is that they will approve Garland in the lame duck session after they lose the general. Good luck with that asshats. Kind of undercuts your entire argument that you want the 'people to have a voice' in the next nominee by waiting for the elections… By that you mean, ONLY if we win the White House. Idiots just flashed all their cards again.

 

Do you have a link for this? It doesn't make any sense to me -- Obama would withdraw the nomination right before the general to avoid something like that.

 

It's being telegraphed by both Jeff Flake and Orrin Hatch, and discussed by lots of different people.

NPR link and interview.

Time Link

NPR #2 Link

 

They won't hold hearings because of the Biden doctrine and it would be unfair to the process and the nominee to do so.

 

And they are back in 14 days and they would dare Obama to do a recess appointment right now and violate the Biden doctrine.

 

The NRA and the American gun owners have spoken, F U Obama.

 

You said they would keep the Senate in session for the rest of the year. I pointed out that they go into recess Thursday. What they do or don't do is not in either of our control, but the facts say you are wrong about the Senate not going into recess. I would not expect Obama to do a recess appointment without giving the Senate a chance to take action, but if they refuse to take action, then I could see him doing it when they take their summer recess or when they recess in the fall so people can campaign a bit.

 

No it was precedent setting and he kept Roberts off the appellate court by not holding hearings. And they lost the rejection and it is now the Biden doctrine and they are wiith historical precedent to do as they are doing. Obama can stuff it, HIS VP set the precedent and clearly stated the Constitutional and political reasoning.

If it would be unfair to the process and the nominee then it would be now.

 

This is not about the person it is about the principle. Biden said it is not fair to the process or the nominee to proceed when we are in the middle on a MAJOR election, the President and VP. We should abide by that reasoning. As soon as the election is over then it can proceed and if Hillary wins you can be assured he will be confirmed.

- - - Updated - - -

You really want another Kennedy on the court?

 

Hardly. The jackass right made it clear that their goal was to obstruct, in the vain hope they would win the white house. Sorry, you don't get to take a year off of Obama's term because you are whinny babies who still can't accept that you lost in 2008 and 2012.

 

Turnout is Turnout and the Dems ain't turning out for a VERY important Democrat primary while Trump is drawing Republicans, Independents AND DEMOCRATS to his side and people who would not otherwise vote and that is ramping up all Republican voting.

 

If it appears Clinton will win they will confirm him and deny the Democrats a more liberal anti-constitution justice, especially if it appears they would lose the Senate which I see to projections that will occur.

 

Obama could have walked on water to Scalia's funeral and it wouldn't have made the tiniest bit of differerence. Because, don'tcha know, considering a supreme court nominee is a reward handed to obama for being a good little boy, not part of their job.

But why should anyone be surpised. Even approving a budget is beneath the dignity of the GOP, because principles.

If McConell and the rest of these sacks of schmidt had a trace of honor, they would give Garland a hearing and then vote NO. At least they would show the world they had the courage to put their principles on the line and the willingness to put themselves on the record. And yes, Biden was a sack of schmidt for doing the same thing.

 

...4 1/2....

 

I've stated that I would. Since I believe in the balance of the court, and that the court shouldn't be disturbed along political lines.