 |
|
03-17-2016, 10:58 AM
|
#31
|
|
Canadian since 51
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,458
|
Always look ahead- in politics & life.
Yes, know your past history to avoid future FUBARs, but plan ahead. The ONLY reason McConnell & his well payolaed Republicon cronies are blowing off this clever, moderate choice by Obama, is that they are shit scared of being turfed themselves in November, if they agree to it! They see the intense anger generated by Drumpf & Bernie and know that it would take 15 minutes for those, who feel most passionately about today's state of affairs, to organize to cast them out.
On the other hand, IF the favourite (Democrat- Hillary) wins, there are 4 (count 'em- 4) SC Justices advancing in age, worthy of Death Pool consideration. Two are from the majority (formerly) Con wing, one is hard core Liberal and the other, less so.
In four years, they would be about 87, 84, 82 & 77.
Should Clinton be elected, there would be the possibility that the court might change 7-2 to the liberal slant, burying any conservative issue victories for at least a generation.
Something for Mitch & Friends to consider.
|
|
|
|
03-17-2016, 11:30 AM
|
#32
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2014
Location: st louis
Posts: 3,029
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rookies
Always look ahead- in politics & life.
Yes, know your past history to avoid future FUBARs, but plan ahead. The ONLY reason McConnell & his well payolaed Republicon cronies are blowing off this clever, moderate choice by Obama, is that they are shit scared of being turfed themselves in November, if they agree to it! They see the intense anger generated by Drumpf & Bernie and know that it would take 15 minutes for those, who feel most passionately about today's state of affairs, to organize to cast them out.
On the other hand, IF the favourite (Democrat- Hillary) wins, there are 4 (count 'em- 4) SC Justices advancing in age, worthy of Death Pool consideration. Two are from the majority (formerly) Con wing, one is hard core Liberal and the other, less so.
In four years, they would be about 87, 84, 82 & 77.
Should Clinton be elected, there would be the possibility that the court might change 7-2 to the liberal slant, burying any conservative issue victories for at least a generation.
Something for Mitch & Friends to consider.
|
The Supreme Court vacancies is the most important issue facing voters this November, much more so than the economy, jobs, immigration, border security. A 7-2 liberal court can and will wipe out many of our cherished constitutional rights. Trump better not blow this election, it will set back our country irreversibly for decades, if not forever. I wanted the most electable conservative for president, and that was Rubio, for he would have assured many conservative justices.
__________________
You will never achieve 100% if 99% is okay!
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2016, 01:45 PM
|
#33
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,861
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clocker
Never get down in the mud and wrestle with a pig. You get filthy and the pig likes it.
|
Rubio found this out the hard way. He tried to use Trump-like tactics against Trump and it backfired.
But I digress. Back to the Supreme Court nomination process...
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2016, 02:36 PM
|
#34
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: ARIZONA
Posts: 2,145
|
Upon reflection
From a tactical point of view, it might be best to agree to a hearing scheduled in June or July and then keep it in committee till Nov 9th. If Clinton wins, she would send someone worse to a Democratic Senate. In that scenario, the committee should approve him, send it to the floor and pass him asap. If Clinton loses, then Garland should be voted down in the committee.
__________________
The fan base demographics are not particularly positive," he said. "I guess we can either risk alienating them or letting them die off. " -Bob Evans 6/25/2007
My posts & letters & avatars & whatever reflect solely my own world view- Born in 1948 and never an I.C.E. visit
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2016, 02:37 PM
|
#35
|
|
PA Steward
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,799
|
Democratic Senate? Oh my...
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2016, 03:01 PM
|
#36
|
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 113,006
|
Obama filibustered a nominee, and Biden set the ground rules for NOT nominating anyone in an election year.
So don't blame the GOP - they are merely reaching across the aisle, as Obama says they never do, to try to respect the guidelines set by the dems.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2016, 03:10 PM
|
#37
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
|
If the vulnerable senate seats make an issue of not having a hearing - and remember they can hold hearings and get to a vote much later - it's going to be a problem. You don't want to give ammo to the opponents of vulnerable Republicans about being dogmatic and obstructionist. If you get 10 or so Republicans to complain to McConnell about not having hearings it might happen. Keeping the senate Republican is a higher priority. If Hillary gets elected, I make it 80% Garland gets confirmed in the Lame Duck session, although Obama could withdraw the nomination. If Trump gets elected I make it 60% that Garland gets confirmed. If Cruz or Kasich gets elected Garland doesn't get confirmed no way, no how. You are not going to have a better choice than Garland from a Dem.
|
|
|
|
|
03-17-2016, 03:20 PM
|
#38
|
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 113,006
|
The repubs will cave in soon.
They always cave in.
They lack the stones to stand up to anyone.
Over under, anyone?
I'll say they cave by Memorial Day.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
