If crooked Hillary wins and Republicans control the Senate, should they block any nominee and leave the court at 8? Thoughts?

http://www.alan.com/2016/11/03/heritage-...nton-wins/

I'm in favor of it if Hillary nominates a clearly biased candidate. At that point us that tactic to force her to the middle and nominate another candidate. Hillary would do herself a great favor by not nominating a loon leftist in the first place and instead nominate a moderate constitutionalist that Republicans could live with and not be able to block without looking like hypocrites. It should actually be her first act as POTUS and set a tone portraying herself as Presidential... not a party slave. That would go a long way in healing the country after this horrible campaign debacle. Do I think she will do that? Hell no.

Id suggest Trump also not go off the rails with his first pick either if he is elected..for the same reasons above.

(11-04-2016 08:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm in favor of it if Hillary nominates a clearly biased candidate. At that point us that tactic to force her to the middle and nominate another candidate. Hillary would do herself a great favor by not nominating a loon leftist in the first place and instead nominate a moderate constitutionalist that Republicans could live with and not be able to block without looking like hypocrites. It should actually be her first act as POTUS and set a tone portraying herself as Presidential... not a party slave. That would go a long way in healing the country after this horrible campaign debacle. Do I think she will do that? Hell no.

Id suggest Trump also not go off the rails with his first pick either if he is elected..for the same reasons above.

I agree. If she wins this decision will set the tone.

Obama used his political capital on a partisan healthcare bill. Look how the rest of the 8 years went. Clinton would be wise to truly compromise with this pick.

But alas I agree with the above that there will be no compromise

(11-04-2016 08:32 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 08:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm in favor of it if Hillary nominates a clearly biased candidate. At that point us that tactic to force her to the middle and nominate another candidate. Hillary would do herself a great favor by not nominating a loon leftist in the first place and instead nominate a moderate constitutionalist that Republicans could live with and not be able to block without looking like hypocrites. It should actually be her first act as POTUS and set a tone portraying herself as Presidential... not a party slave. That would go a long way in healing the country after this horrible campaign debacle. Do I think she will do that? Hell no.

Id suggest Trump also not go off the rails with his first pick either if he is elected..for the same reasons above.

I agree. If she wins this decision will set the tone.

Obama used his political capital on a partisan healthcare bill. Look how the rest of the 8 years went. Clinton would be wise to truly compromise with this pick.

But alas I agree with the above that there will be no compromise

Ill say this. If she wins and does pick a moderated for SCOTUS? We will know that Bill Clinton is in her ear giving her strategy. We all know that guy is a master at this game. It could signal a positive tone for sure. Again...this is wishful thinking.

(11-04-2016 08:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm in favor of it if Hillary nominates a clearly biased candidate. At that point us that tactic to force her to the middle and nominate another candidate. Hillary would do herself a great favor by not nominating a loon leftist in the first place and instead nominate a moderate constitutionalist that Republicans could live with and not be able to block without looking like hypocrites. It should actually be her first act as POTUS and set a tone portraying herself as Presidential... not a party slave. That would go a long way in healing the country after this horrible campaign debacle. Do I think she will do that? Hell no.

Id suggest Trump also not go off the rails with his first pick either if he is elected..for the same reasons above.

Trump's first pick will be from his published list. They will be a conservative.

(11-04-2016 08:45 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 08:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm in favor of it if Hillary nominates a clearly biased candidate. At that point us that tactic to force her to the middle and nominate another candidate. Hillary would do herself a great favor by not nominating a loon leftist in the first place and instead nominate a moderate constitutionalist that Republicans could live with and not be able to block without looking like hypocrites. It should actually be her first act as POTUS and set a tone portraying herself as Presidential... not a party slave. That would go a long way in healing the country after this horrible campaign debacle. Do I think she will do that? Hell no.

Id suggest Trump also not go off the rails with his first pick either if he is elected..for the same reasons above.

Trump's first pick will be from his published list. They will be a conservative.

We can only hope. He's a close second to Hillary in lying.

(11-04-2016 08:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm in favor of it if Hillary nominates a clearly biased candidate. At that point us that tactic to force her to the middle and nominate another candidate. Hillary would do herself a great favor by not nominating a loon leftist in the first place and instead nominate a moderate constitutionalist that Republicans could live with and not be able to block without looking like hypocrites. It should actually be her first act as POTUS and set a tone portraying herself as Presidential... not a party slave. That would go a long way in healing the country after this horrible campaign debacle. Do I think she will do that? Hell no.

Id suggest Trump also not go off the rails with his first pick either if he is elected..for the same reasons above.

Would y'all be okay with Merrick Garland, or nah?

(11-04-2016 09:00 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 08:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm in favor of it if Hillary nominates a clearly biased candidate. At that point us that tactic to force her to the middle and nominate another candidate. Hillary would do herself a great favor by not nominating a loon leftist in the first place and instead nominate a moderate constitutionalist that Republicans could live with and not be able to block without looking like hypocrites. It should actually be her first act as POTUS and set a tone portraying herself as Presidential... not a party slave. That would go a long way in healing the country after this horrible campaign debacle. Do I think she will do that? Hell no.

Id suggest Trump also not go off the rails with his first pick either if he is elected..for the same reasons above.

Would y'all be okay with Merrick Garland, or nah?

I think Garland was the only one of Obama's suggestions I was okay with.. I had some issues with some of his decisions, but would that change if he got put on the supreme court?

I read some of Trump's picks.. there were a couple that kind of stood out (but I can't remember who at the moment)

Our government is pathetic, and clearly most of the posters on this board. Since when has it been cool to not do your damn job. Bunch of whiny little two year olds when you don't get your way.

Their job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. If the best way to do that is by doing nothing then they have done their jobs well.

I'm fine with not appointing one during this election year. But if she wins, it will be time to let the process go forward.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(11-04-2016 09:56 AM)appst89 Wrote:  Their job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. If the best way to do that is by doing nothing then they have done their jobs well.

Yup.

Sometimes, the best action is no action at all.

Translation- if we don't get our way we're going to just be little babies and not do our job. The obstructionism of the modern republican party is staggering and against everything our democracies should be about.

(11-04-2016 10:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Translation- if we don't get our way we're going to just be little babies and not do our job. The obstructionism of the modern republican party is staggering and against everything our democracies should be about.

Had obstructionism worked healthcare premiums might now be going thru the roof right now.

(11-04-2016 10:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Translation- if we don't get our way we're going to just be little babies and not do our job. The obstructionism of the modern republican party is staggering and against everything our democracies should be about.

Good thing, we are not a democracy.

Trump is going to appoint the best Supreme Court judges, and ones that will investigate her emails.

(11-04-2016 10:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Translation- if we don't get our way we're going to just be little babies and not do our job. The obstructionism of the modern republican party is staggering and against everything our democracies should be about.

Uhm.. there is the term 'advise and consent" in the constitution you do know...

You may not like it but the Senate has the right to NOT consent to a choice.

(11-04-2016 12:21 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 10:59 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Translation- if we don't get our way we're going to just be little babies and not do our job. The obstructionism of the modern republican party is staggering and against everything our democracies should be about.

Uhm.. there is the term 'advise and consent" in the constitution you do know...

You may not like it but the Senate has the right to NOT consent to a choice.

The Constitution is a hindrance to his beliefs. A relic.

One of you bearcats should change your usernames. Too much alike and I can't tell which is the good guy (conservative).

They could leave it at 8 but when another dies or retires, they would likely also leave it at seven.