(03-16-2016 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:54 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Give the guy his hearing. Don't give HRC a campaign issue.

Agreed. This is about the best you can hope for from Zero

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

It's a lose/lose/lose situation any way they choose to go.

Don't hold hearings and it's a campaign issue.

Hold the hearings and fail to give consent and it's still a campaign issue.

Seat the leftist and they might as well set fire to the Constitution.

At least he's 67. That's one positive. He can do less damage than a 50 something left winger. HRC will go for somebody much worse and younger imho.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(03-16-2016 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:54 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Give the guy his hearing. Don't give HRC a campaign issue.

Agreed. This is about the best you can hope for from Zero

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

It's a lose/lose/lose situation any way they choose to go.

Don't hold hearings and it's a campaign issue.

Hold the hearings and fail to give consent and it's still a campaign issue.

Seat the leftist and they might as well set fire to the Constitution.

Hold the hearings, just don't consent. I'd rather have a campaign issue than a tilted left, judicially activist court.........That could last 20 years. The campaign issue is short term and around 1/2 the country would love it if there isn't a confirmation. At worst, on that issue it's divided.

(03-16-2016 12:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:54 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Give the guy his hearing. Don't give HRC a campaign issue.

Agreed. This is about the best you can hope for from Zero

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

It's a lose/lose/lose situation any way they choose to go.

Don't hold hearings and it's a campaign issue.

Hold the hearings and fail to give consent and it's still a campaign issue.

Seat the leftist and they might as well set fire to the Constitution.

Hyperbole much?

Yeah, starting to notice that tendency among some to be a little dramatic.

(03-16-2016 12:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:54 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Give the guy his hearing. Don't give HRC a campaign issue.

Agreed. This is about the best you can hope for from Zero

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

It's a lose/lose/lose situation any way they choose to go.

Don't hold hearings and it's a campaign issue.

Hold the hearings and fail to give consent and it's still a campaign issue.

Seat the leftist and they might as well set fire to the Constitution.

Hyperbole much?

Not at all.

He's anti-Second Amendment and he favors agencies creating law by regulatory fiat rather than legislation.

(03-16-2016 11:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:24 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Please cry to Biden, Schumer, Obama (with his filibuster of a nominee).

They should've kept their traps shut and you'd have a leg to stand on.

Their words have come back to bite them in the backside.

Thanks for pointing out the GLARING difference.

I was differentiating Obama's use of the filibuster as his means to obfuscate a SCOTUS nomination as opposed to the others Biden, Schumer and Reid who all said no Senate approval of SCOTUS nominees in an election year.

Genie is out of the bottle and ain't going back in.

No

This will not be a campaign issue. The only people who will care are never going to vote Republican.

On second thought, the Dems should try to make a campaign issue. Then they'll waste their time on nothing.

(03-16-2016 12:20 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This will not be a campaign issue. The only people who will care are never going to vote Republican.

On second thought, the Dems should try to make a campaign issue. Then they'll waste their time on nothing.

Good point. As someone else said......."the Democrats can sit at the back of the bus" on this. Obama decided that is how he wanted government to operate right after he took office. He can choke on that comment now.

(03-16-2016 12:10 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:24 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Please cry to Biden, Schumer, Obama (with his filibuster of a nominee).

They should've kept their traps shut and you'd have a leg to stand on.

Their words have come back to bite them in the backside.

Thanks for pointing out the GLARING difference.

I was differentiating Obama's use of the filibuster as his means to obfuscate a SCOTUS nomination as opposed to the others Biden, Schumer and Reid who all said no Senate approval of SCOTUS nominees in an election year.

Genie is out of the bottle and ain't going back in.

You do realize that the filibuster never actually happened due to a lack of necessary votes don't you? Furthermore, Obama objections were solely to Alito and not the process itself.

Finally, that is not at all what Biden and Schumer said. And I'd like to see what you're talking about with Reid as well. Specifically, he spoke out against the Alito filibuster attempt.

(03-16-2016 12:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:54 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:28 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Give the guy his hearing. Don't give HRC a campaign issue.

Agreed. This is about the best you can hope for from Zero

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

It's a lose/lose/lose situation any way they choose to go.

Don't hold hearings and it's a campaign issue.

Hold the hearings and fail to give consent and it's still a campaign issue.

Seat the leftist and they might as well set fire to the Constitution.

Hyperbole much?

Not at all.

He's anti-Second Amendment and he favors agencies creating law by regulatory fiat rather than legislation.

Well Golly Gee! Why can't you see that this is how this country was designed? With separation of powers...with provisions to peacefully change leaders to allow for changes in the direction of the country if the current officials take it to a level that the rest doesn't approve of.

You act as if our country will end if the court shifts to a liberal lean for a few years. It certainly didn't end with a conservative lean for a few.

Have a little faith in this country for a change man.

(03-16-2016 12:20 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This will not be a campaign issue. The only people who will care are never going to vote Republican.

On second thought, the Dems should try to make a campaign issue. Then they'll waste their time on nothing.

There's 4 or 5 Republican Senators who would strenuously object.

Another Harvard law guy. Way to think outside the box, Mr. President.

(03-16-2016 12:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:54 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Agreed. This is about the best you can hope for from Zero

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

It's a lose/lose/lose situation any way they choose to go.

Don't hold hearings and it's a campaign issue.

Hold the hearings and fail to give consent and it's still a campaign issue.

Seat the leftist and they might as well set fire to the Constitution.

Hyperbole much?

Not at all.

He's anti-Second Amendment and he favors agencies creating law by regulatory fiat rather than legislation.

Well Golly Gee! Why can't you see that this is how this country was designed? With separation of powers...with provisions to peacefully change leaders to allow for changes in the direction of the country if the current officials take it to a level that the rest doesn't approve of.

You act as if our country will end if the court shifts to a liberal lean for a few years. It certainly didn't end with a conservative lean for a few.

Have a little faith in this country for a change man.

The Heller confirmation of the intent of the Second Amendment was a 5-4 decision. I'd rather not add someone who would contribute to the elimination of one of our most important Constitutional rights.

The only reason that Garland is being trotted out there as a "moderate" is because he has absolutely no track record on abortion. He's an anti-gun, big government leftist.

(03-16-2016 12:56 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:57 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  It's a lose/lose/lose situation any way they choose to go.

Don't hold hearings and it's a campaign issue.

Hold the hearings and fail to give consent and it's still a campaign issue.

Seat the leftist and they might as well set fire to the Constitution.

Hyperbole much?

Not at all.

He's anti-Second Amendment and he favors agencies creating law by regulatory fiat rather than legislation.

Well Golly Gee! Why can't you see that this is how this country was designed? With separation of powers...with provisions to peacefully change leaders to allow for changes in the direction of the country if the current officials take it to a level that the rest doesn't approve of.

You act as if our country will end if the court shifts to a liberal lean for a few years. It certainly didn't end with a conservative lean for a few.

Have a little faith in this country for a change man.

The Heller confirmation of the intent of the Second Amendment was a 5-4 decision. I'd rather not add someone who would contribute to the elimination of one of our most important Constitutional rights.

The only reason that Garland is being trotted out there as a "moderate" is because he has absolutely no track record on abortion. He's an anti-gun, big government leftist.

Seems quite convenient that you've arrived at these conclusions in just a matter of a couple hours.

Anyway, you just might be reading a little much into the Heller case.

Quote:Garland also notably voted in favor of en banc review of the D.C. Circuit's decision invalidating the D.C. handgun ban, which the Supreme Court subsequently affirmed. Garland did not take a formal position on the merits of the case. But even if he had concluded that the statute was constitutional, that view of the case would have conformed to the widespread view that, under existing Supreme Court precedent, the Second Amendment did not confer a right to bear arms unconnected to service in a militia. Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (2007) (see denial of rehearing en banc).

The Potential Nomination of Merrick Garland (From 2010)

You see...this is the prime reason why the Senate needs to do its damned job and hold hearings...so that you can then ask him what his position was on the Heller case. Then you can also ask him about abortion and big government.

(03-16-2016 12:50 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  Another Harvard law guy. Way to think outside the box, Mr. President.

With ties to Chicago. Whopee.

(03-16-2016 12:41 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:10 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 11:24 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Please cry to Biden, Schumer, Obama (with his filibuster of a nominee).

They should've kept their traps shut and you'd have a leg to stand on.

Their words have come back to bite them in the backside.

Thanks for pointing out the GLARING difference.

I was differentiating Obama's use of the filibuster as his means to obfuscate a SCOTUS nomination as opposed to the others Biden, Schumer and Reid who all said no Senate approval of SCOTUS nominees in an election year.

Genie is out of the bottle and ain't going back in.

You do realize that the filibuster never actually happened due to a lack of necessary votes don't you? Furthermore, Obama objections were solely to Alito and not the process itself.

Finally, that is not at all what Biden and Schumer said. And I'd like to see what you're talking about with Reid as well. Specifically, he spoke out against the Alito filibuster attempt.

From Dingy Harry when Alito was nominated by Bush:

"The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States," Reid said on the Senate floor at that time.

"Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote," Reid said. "It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.

And if the White House and the Republicans didn't get his point, Reid underscored it by saying, "The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch."

http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlam.../page/full

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

(03-16-2016 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:56 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 12:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Hyperbole much?

Not at all.

He's anti-Second Amendment and he favors agencies creating law by regulatory fiat rather than legislation.

Well Golly Gee! Why can't you see that this is how this country was designed? With separation of powers...with provisions to peacefully change leaders to allow for changes in the direction of the country if the current officials take it to a level that the rest doesn't approve of.

You act as if our country will end if the court shifts to a liberal lean for a few years. It certainly didn't end with a conservative lean for a few.

Have a little faith in this country for a change man.

The Heller confirmation of the intent of the Second Amendment was a 5-4 decision. I'd rather not add someone who would contribute to the elimination of one of our most important Constitutional rights.

The only reason that Garland is being trotted out there as a "moderate" is because he has absolutely no track record on abortion. He's an anti-gun, big government leftist.

Seems quite convenient that you've arrived at these conclusions in just a matter of a couple hours.

Anyway, you just might be reading a little much into the Heller case.

Quote:Garland also notably voted in favor of en banc review of the D.C. Circuit's decision invalidating the D.C. handgun ban, which the Supreme Court subsequently affirmed. Garland did not take a formal position on the merits of the case. But even if he had concluded that the statute was constitutional, that view of the case would have conformed to the widespread view that, under existing Supreme Court precedent, the Second Amendment did not confer a right to bear arms unconnected to service in a militia. Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (2007) (see denial of rehearing en banc).

The Potential Nomination of Merrick Garland (From 2010)

You see...this is the prime reason why the Senate needs to do its damned job and hold hearings...so that you can then ask him what his position was on the Heller case. Then you can also ask him about abortion and big government.

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/DC-Lawsuit.pdf

Quote:The Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights in a 2000 case that had challenged the policy of Janet Reno’s Department of Justice of retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.

At that time, the Tatel-Garland ruling flouted the 1968 federal law prohibiting federal gun registration, and also flouted the 1994 law that created the National Instant Check System and had ordered that instantcheck records of law-abiding gun
purchasers be destroyed. (Attorney General John Ashcroft later ended Reno’s registration scheme.)

When the margin of keeping a Constitutional right is one vote I'd rather not take any chances.


As for being a "moderate", where exactly has he sided with conservatives on anything?

(03-16-2016 01:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  When the margin of keeping a Constitutional right is one vote I'd rather not take any chances.


As for being a "moderate", where exactly has he sided with conservatives on anything?

No one is seeking to repeal the Second Amendment. And lots of rights have modifications made to them from time to time as seen fit.

Again....that's why you hold the hearings.

Republicans should vote to confirm tomorrow if they have any sense. It could have been a whole lot worse. Get it over and get it behind us all.

This is one seat. There are probably three at stake in November. Don't do anything to screw that up any worse than they have already screwed it up.

(03-16-2016 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Republicans should vote to confirm tomorrow if they have any sense. It could have been a whole lot worse. Get it over and get it behind us all.

This is one seat. There are probably three at stake in November. Don't do anything to screw that up any worse than they have already screwed it up.

Yep.

If they don't or they don't at least hold a hearing and vote, it's possible that all of a sudden it could be July and GOP Senators have refused to even consider a well-respected judge (who is not considered "extreme" by any stretch) for four months (and stating they won't do so for at least 6 more months) at the same time the party is going into a brokered convention attempting to deny nomination to the candidate that won the majority of the delegates and popular vote by a decent margin. Combine those two things and they'd just be handing Hillary Clinton the talking points she wants about how the GOP is all about obstruction etc. etc. (and perhaps validating those points in the perception of many voters who a few months ago would not have bought into them or been as persuaded by them).

Regardless of how one feels about the issue, I just don't see how anyone thinks it's a winning campaign issue for the GOP on a national or state-wide scale in moderate states with contested senate seats (especially given the current circumstances regarding the primary and tension between establishment and many voters (i.e., Trump supporters)).