(03-15-2016 10:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  GOP may pay a price in the general if they don't hold hearings and vote up or down. A majority of folks want a hearing.

The Senate could go ahead and hold a hearing.
Hearing does not = vote
Vote does not = approval

No matter who Obama puts forward they are DOA.

(03-16-2016 08:00 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:58 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

Dems delaying would require that the Dems hold the Senate.
(Psst they don't.)

And what would their reason for delaying be if there isn't an election within the next year?

did you hear about that voting thing we do in November?

Re-read and you might catch your mistake.

(03-15-2016 11:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:37 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

That makes no sense.

Revenge often isn't very fair or logical. Payback is hell.

That's not payback, that's petty.

Ha that is rich. Not holding hearings is petty. Giving them a dose of their own medicine is petty and it is payback.

Time for the Dems to sit in the back of the bus on SCOTUS hearings. Sorry just like presidential elections, legislative branch elections have consequences. Sound familiar?

(03-16-2016 08:02 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:00 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:58 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

Dems delaying would require that the Dems hold the Senate.
(Psst they don't.)

And what would their reason for delaying be if there isn't an election within the next year?

did you hear about that voting thing we do in November?

Re-read and you might catch your mistake.

that ol' boy couldn't catch herpes with an alley ho'....

(03-16-2016 08:06 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:02 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:00 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:58 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

Dems delaying would require that the Dems hold the Senate.
(Psst they don't.)

And what would their reason for delaying be if there isn't an election within the next year?

did you hear about that voting thing we do in November?

Re-read and you might catch your mistake.

that ol' boy couldn't catch herpes with an alley ho'....

k...that made me laugh...

(03-16-2016 07:56 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:52 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  It's going to be hard to stonewall somebody who you voted for just a few years ago. Especially after your best hope right now is a Trump victory.

Just because I'd be fine with someone driving the dog catchers truck around doesn't mean I'd vote for them for Mayor.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? There are 3 choices.

1.) You accept Obama's nomination

2.) You pray that Trump wins the fall election and that he nominates a conservative judge. The new democratic senate rejects the nominee

3.) HRC wins in November and nominates a liberal judge. The new democratic senate majority confirms.

(03-15-2016 11:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:24 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If he doesn't get a hearing for 8 months, then the Dems should wait at least that long for the nominee that the Repubs come up with, if they win the presidency.

Republicans are just following the suggestions of Biden and Reid.

Don't forget Obama himself filibustered a SCOTUS hearing in 2006.
He says he regrets that now. (I bet he regrets it now. hahahahahahaha)

http://nypost.com/2016/02/18/obama-regre...ite-house/

revenge is a dish best served ice cold.

(03-16-2016 08:27 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:56 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:52 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  It's going to be hard to stonewall somebody who you voted for just a few years ago. Especially after your best hope right now is a Trump victory.

Just because I'd be fine with someone driving the dog catchers truck around doesn't mean I'd vote for them for Mayor.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? There are 3 choices.

1.) You accept Obama's nomination

2.) You pray that Trump wins the fall election and that he nominates a conservative judge. The new democratic senate rejects the nominee

3.) HRC wins in November and nominates a liberal judge. The new democratic senate majority confirms.

The Democrats would have to retake the Senate to have a Democratic Run Senate. You do know that the Republicans have the majority currently, right?

Right now polling on Senate seats up for grabs does not favor the Dems.

(03-16-2016 08:33 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 08:27 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:56 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-16-2016 07:52 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  It's going to be hard to stonewall somebody who you voted for just a few years ago. Especially after your best hope right now is a Trump victory.

Just because I'd be fine with someone driving the dog catchers truck around doesn't mean I'd vote for them for Mayor.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? There are 3 choices.

1.) You accept Obama's nomination

2.) You pray that Trump wins the fall election and that he nominates a conservative judge. The new democratic senate rejects the nominee

3.) HRC wins in November and nominates a liberal judge. The new democratic senate majority confirms.

The Democrats would have to retake the Senate to have a Democratic Run Senate. You do know that the Republicans have the majority currently, right?

Right now polling on Senate seats up for grabs does not favor the Dems.

FL, IL, NH, WI, PA, OH. Then add Trump to the top of the ticket. It's over.

But ok, I'll assume that republicans maintain senate majority and by some miracle Trump wins the presidency. He would still have to pick a conservative judge.

I predict the indian guy so the dimwhigs can argue that the red's 'stall warts' is the REAL problem to trump da Trump....

Clinton is already on that warpath....

what a silly game these fkrs play....

(03-15-2016 10:49 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Two of the key Senate races were decided tonight. Tammy Duckworth will face (I) Kirk in Illinois, and Ted Strickland (who John Kasich defeated in the Ohio Governor race in 2010) will face (I) Portman in Ohio. I think Duckworth will win, but Portman will be re-elected (Strickland is 74, kind of old to be running against an incumbent in my opinion). There are some other tight races too, but folks like Portman and Kirk will be under pressure to give a hearing to the nominee.

Strickland was up 2 points in the latest poll I could find, by Quinnipiac. But that's basically a dead heat.

Announcement is slated for 11 a.m. EDT.

Leak is that it's Garland.

It's an old conservative white guy. What more can you ask for?

garland....obummer being more obummer.....

what a moron move.....

he just dick'd clinton with that one....

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered his own thoughts on who President Obama should nominate to fill the seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last week. “[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Hatch told the conservative news site Newsmax, before adding that “he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03...k-garland/

(03-16-2016 09:31 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered his own thoughts on who President Obama should nominate to fill the seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last week. “[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Hatch told the conservative news site Newsmax, before adding that “he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03...k-garland/

well, if orin from mormonville said it......

I'm gonna laugh my arse off when this backfires and they approve right before the general.....

But back to the next president thing. If it's a Republican and the Republicans still hold the senate, but not with a 60 vote super-majority, can't the Democrats then filibuster any nomination thereby blocking a vote?

If that were to happen, I'd expect the GOP to then change the rules to eliminate the 60-vote rule. Which in my opinion would be a good thing and would match how it was intended from the get-go.

(03-15-2016 09:15 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Reuters is reporting he'll announce his nominee tomorrow, and it's likely going to be either Sri Srinivasan or Merrick Garland (both are current justices on the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals - Garland is chief justice of that court). Both men are considered moderate, although from what I can tell, Garland might be a little bit more to the left than Srinivasan??

My guess is he'll pick Garland because he won't want to hang Srinivasan out to dry. Neither nominee is expected to receive a Senate hearing. Actually the Democrats might get more political traction if they nominate Srinivasan but I'll stick with my prediction that Garland gets the nomination as he's been passed over twice now already by Obama when he nominated Sotomayor and Kagan.

I get zero rep points for getting this one right (when everyone else was predicting the Indian guy). That's not right!

(03-16-2016 07:53 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Think we're still in the process of deciding.

If Dems hadn't held this same position, you all might have an argument.

Both parties have held both positions at various points in time. But the Constitution is clear as to the responsibilities of both the President and Congress.

(03-16-2016 08:00 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 10:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  GOP may pay a price in the general if they don't hold hearings and vote up or down. A majority of folks want a hearing.

The Senate could go ahead and hold a hearing.
Hearing does not = vote
Vote does not = approval

No matter who Obama puts forward they are DOA.

Then hold hearing and vote up or down. They just need to carry out their constitutional responsibilities.