This is how I see it-- there is no reason, on EITHER side, to avoid having the hearings. Now, putting someone in the court is another matter entirely and in that aspect, elections do have consequences.
To have the hearings and not confirm a nominee is perfectly right and perfectly reasonable. Garland is NOT going to be an acceptable candidate to the majority of the Republican Party. Obama specifically nominated him FULLY KNOWING this, but is hoping that they stick to their refusal to even hold a hearing. Why? Because refusing to even have a hearing makes them look petty and vindictive. If they break their vow and have the hearing-- then they lose the support of some of their far right supporters who don't understand that they're being politically manipulated on all sides.
In my opinion.. they should have the hearing and then summarily reject Garland. Not a difficult thing to do. They have the majority, they don't even need a real reason to reject him, but his history of being somewhat anti-police and very much in support of 2a restrictions give them good and valid reasons to present to the voting public during an election year. It would be the smartest political move.
- RetiredHooktard
- 03-18-2016, 02:25 PM
- bambino
- 03-18-2016, 02:42 PM
This is how I see it-- there is no reason, on EITHER side, to avoid having the hearings. Now, putting someone in the court is another matter entirely and in that aspect, elections do have consequences.I've said pretty much the same thing. Garland isn't Obamas idea of his perfect choice. Garland is just a pawn in this game. The Republicans should slow walk the hearings. If Hillary wins the election, confirm Garland. Then let Obama withdraw him.
To have the hearings and not confirm a nominee is perfectly right and perfectly reasonable. Garland is NOT going to be an acceptable candidate to the majority of the Republican Party. Obama specifically nominated him FULLY KNOWING this, but is hoping that they stick to their refusal to even hold a hearing. Why? Because refusing to even have a hearing makes them look petty and vindictive. If they break their vow and have the hearing-- then they lose the support of some of their far right supporters who don't understand that they're being politically manipulated on all sides.
In my opinion.. they should have the hearing and then summarily reject Garland. Not a difficult thing to do. They have the majority, they don't even need a real reason to reject him, but his history of being somewhat anti-police and very much in support of 2a restrictions give them good and valid reasons to present to the voting public during an election year. It would be the smartest political move. Originally Posted by RetiredHooktard
- Guest042616-1
- 03-18-2016, 02:48 PM
It is disingenuous of you to pretend that Biden wouldn't have done the same thing to a SCOTUS nominee that he did to an inferior court nominee, eatbibeau, and no one else here is foolish enough to believe you or any of the other dim-retard whiners. Originally Posted by I B HankeringHe never even said he would, he said doing so should be "considered." So, it's quite the opposite: it's disingenuous of you to claim you know he would. You just want to assume he would, because it confirms your position.
On top of that, he said that they should wait until after the election. He didn't say to wait for a new president. Trying to equate his speech about considering it to the republicans (presumed) actions here doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It's basically an apples to oranges comparison, he only said that they should consider it, the republicans said they would do it no matter who was nominated and look poised to actually go about doing it. I could be, and hope I am, wrong, and the republicans will allow the nomination to go to vote. But I ain't holding my breath.
- nevergaveitathought
- 03-18-2016, 02:55 PM
I've said pretty much the same thing. Garland isn't Obamas idea of his perfect choice. Garland is just a pawn in this game. The Republicans should slow walk the hearings. If Hillary wins the election, confirm Garland. Then let Obama withdraw him. Originally Posted by bambinoexactly who will look on the republicans as mean and vindictive that could ever be swayed to see the light?
maybe a few undecided/independents whose vote always just goes to someone who makes them feel good for the moment.
Obama has been lying about the nature of the constitutional requirements of the senate, much like fido was doing, so maybe those who swallow his spin?
otherwise, no one much listens to Obama or any of his main stream media that would not see republicans as mean or vindictive regardless of a hearing or no hearing, as those who do listen to Obama or his media are hopeless fools or unrepentant greed mongers or a combination for the most part
- Guest042616-1
- 03-18-2016, 03:00 PM
To have the hearings and not confirm a nominee is perfectly right and perfectly reasonable. Garland is NOT going to be an acceptable candidate to the majority of the Republican Party. Obama specifically nominated him FULLY KNOWING this, but is hoping that they stick to their refusal to even hold a hearing. Why? Because refusing to even have a hearing makes them look petty and vindictive. If they break their vow and have the hearing-- then they lose the support of some of their far right supporters who don't understand that they're being politically manipulated on all sides.I'm torn as to what they should do politically. On one hand, they have been catering to and stoking the rabid anti-Obama candidates on the right for the last 8 years. I think they are really starting to turn a lot of moderates off. As you point out, by allowing the hearing, they are turning on this far right fanatical group and considering this it the group they have been pandering to, turning them off right before the election could be a huge mistake.
In my opinion.. they should have the hearing and then summarily reject Garland. Not a difficult thing to do. They have the majority, they don't even need a real reason to reject him, but his history of being somewhat anti-police and very much in support of 2a restrictions give them good and valid reasons to present to the voting public during an election year. It would be the smartest political move. Originally Posted by RetiredHooktard
However, on the other hand, by refusing to hear - or even rejecting via vote - a well-qualified, centrist judge that Obama has offered up as a compromise, they just expose that this was all about petty anti-Obamaness. They just go to show that it has nothing to do with ideology and stopping Obama from making the government far left wing, but all about punishing Obama for perceived slights. It's no longer (and hasn't been for a long time) about making the government a certain way, but all about stopping Obama no matter what.
Obama absolutely did the right thing here, both ethically and politically, by compromising with the political ideology of the nominee.
I want the republicans to give him (at least) a hearing, hopefully a vote, because this would represent a move back towards the center and sanity. But I don't expect that to happen.
- i'va biggen
- 03-18-2016, 05:30 PM
It is disingenuous of you to pretend that Biden wouldn't have done the same thing to a SCOTUS nominee that he did to an inferior court nominee, eatbibeau, and no one else here is foolish enough to believe you or any of the other dim-retard whiners.Chicken dick you simple fuckwad until you were pointed in the right direction you were gasping like a guppy. Remember this?
Your deflection from the fact that you're still the dim-retard that doesn't comprehend the answer doesn't change anything, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. The Republicans still have multiple options regardless of what happens in the election, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans manage to capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell any potential dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
http://news.yahoo.com/key-republican...1&noRedirect=1
- I B Hankering
- 03-18-2016, 05:35 PM
Chicken dick you simple fuckwad until you were pointed in the right direction you were gasping like a guppy. Remember this?Your deflection from the fact that you're still the dim-retard that doesn't comprehend the answer doesn't change anything, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. The Republicans still have multiple options regardless of what happens in the election, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans manage to capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell any potential dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.
http://news.yahoo.com/key-republican...1&noRedirect=1 Originally Posted by i'va biggen
He never even said he would, he said doing so should be "considered." So, it's quite the opposite: it's disingenuous of you to claim you know he would. You just want to assume he would, because it confirms your position.Biden, et al, made their bed, eatbibeau; now, their hypocritical asses find their butts lying in it: "Biden Rule."
On top of that, he said that they should wait until after the election. He didn't say to wait for a new president. Trying to equate his speech about considering it to the republicans (presumed) actions here doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It's basically an apples to oranges comparison, he only said that they should consider it, the republicans said they would do it no matter who was nominated and look poised to actually go about doing it. I could be, and hope I am, wrong, and the republicans will allow the nomination to go to vote. But I ain't holding my breath. Originally Posted by eatfibo
"The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote." Sen Harry Reid, May 2005.
- i'va biggen
- 03-18-2016, 05:48 PM
Your deflection from the fact that you're still the dim-retard that doesn't comprehend the answer doesn't change anything, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans are currently in charge, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, and will be until at least next January, you ridiculously moronic jackass. The Republicans still have multiple options regardless of what happens in the election, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. The Republicans still have a lame-duck session before any new president takes office, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. In the event the Republicans manage to capture additional Senate seats, they can damn well tell any potential dim-retard president to take his nominees and go to hell, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Keep running in circles, chicken dick.
- I B Hankering
- 03-18-2016, 06:33 PM
- i'va biggen
- 03-18-2016, 08:33 PM
You're a babbling dildo, Ekim the Inbred Chimp; all your rubber head can manage is to spasmodically shake and vibrate until your battery runs down. Originally Posted by I B Hankeringhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-nominations/
- I B Hankering
- 03-18-2016, 08:38 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-nominations/ Originally Posted by i'va biggenYou're a babbling dildo, Ekim the Inbred Chimp; all your rubber head can manage is to spasmodically shake and vibrate until your battery runs down.
"The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote." Sen Harry Reid, May 2005.
- i'va biggen
- 03-18-2016, 08:51 PM
You're a babbling dildo, Ekim the Inbred Chimp; all your rubber head can manage is to spasmodically shake and vibrate until your battery runs down. Originally Posted by I B Hankeringhttps://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/a...203206864.html
Keep running hamster.
- I B Hankering
- 03-18-2016, 09:02 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/a...203206864.htmlYour rubber head can only spasmodically shake and vibrate until your battery runs down, Ekim the Inbred Chimp, keep babbling like the dildo you are.
Keep running hamster. Originally Posted by i'va biggen
"The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote." Sen Harry Reid, May 2005.
- i'va biggen
- 03-18-2016, 10:25 PM
- I B Hankering
- 03-18-2016, 10:35 PM