Jump to content

Supreme Court Nominee


roundthebuoys

Recommended Posts

While the driver of the bus and pooper of the pants discuss each other's mental attributes in the other thread, I thought I would post the name of a nominee who, it is being reported, is currently being vetted by the White House.

 

Gov. Sandoval ® of Nevada

 

Discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the driver of the bus and pooper of the pants discuss each other's mental attributes in the other thread, I thought I would post the name of a nominee who, it is being reported, is currently being vetted by the White House.

 

Gov. Sandoval ® of Nevada

 

Discuss.

 

Not long ago Sandoval was being kicked around as a Vice Presidential possibility. If Rubio or Cruz don't make it, Republicans will need a Hispanic on the ticket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the driver of the bus and pooper of the pants discuss each other's mental attributes in the other thread, I thought I would post the name of a nominee who, it is being reported, is currently being vetted by the White House.

 

Gov. Sandoval ® of Nevada

 

Discuss.

 

I have a difficult time seeing Obama actually nominate him. Maybe they are floating the name in an effort to get the R Senators to say something even more stupid than they already have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

While the driver of the bus and pooper of the pants discuss each other's mental attributes in the other thread, I thought I would post the name of a nominee who, it is being reported, is currently being vetted by the White House.

 

Gov. Sandoval ® of Nevada

 

Discuss.

I have a difficult time seeing Obama actually nominate him. Maybe they are floating the name in an effort to get the R Senators to say something even more stupid than they already have.

Is that possible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

While the driver of the bus and pooper of the pants discuss each other's mental attributes in the other thread, I thought I would post the name of a nominee who, it is being reported, is currently being vetted by the White House.

 

Gov. Sandoval ® of Nevada

 

Discuss.

 

Not long ago Sandoval was being kicked around as a Vice Presidential possibility. If Rubio or Cruz don't make it, Republicans will need a Hispanic on the ticket.

 

Pretty funny to think the Republicans could shut him down as SCOTUS and then turn around and endorse him for VP along with Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

While the driver of the bus and pooper of the pants discuss each other's mental attributes in the other thread, I thought I would post the name of a nominee who, it is being reported, is currently being vetted by the White House.

 

Gov. Sandoval ® of Nevada

 

Discuss.

 

Not long ago Sandoval was being kicked around as a Vice Presidential possibility. If Rubio or Cruz don't make it, Republicans will need a Hispanic on the ticket.

 

Pretty funny to think the Republicans could shut him down as SCOTUS and then turn around and endorse him for VP along with Trump.

 

 

When you consider that Trump probably has Judge Judy in mind for the Supreme Court it all becomes crystal clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

While the driver of the bus and pooper of the pants discuss each other's mental attributes in the other thread, I thought I would post the name of a nominee who, it is being reported, is currently being vetted by the White House.

 

Gov. Sandoval ® of Nevada

 

Discuss.

 

Not long ago Sandoval was being kicked around as a Vice Presidential possibility. If Rubio or Cruz don't make it, Republicans will need a Hispanic on the ticket.

 

Pretty funny to think the Republicans could shut him down as SCOTUS and then turn around and endorse him for VP along with Trump.

 

Are those identical positions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

While the driver of the bus and pooper of the pants discuss each other's mental attributes in the other thread, I thought I would post the name of a nominee who, it is being reported, is currently being vetted by the White House.

 

Gov. Sandoval ® of Nevada

 

Discuss.

 

Not long ago Sandoval was being kicked around as a Vice Presidential possibility. If Rubio or Cruz don't make it, Republicans will need a Hispanic on the ticket.

 

Pretty funny to think the Republicans could shut him down as SCOTUS and then turn around and endorse him for VP along with Trump.

 

Are those identical positions?

 

you are an insufferable bore..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being close to Nevada, we follow Nevada politics to some degree. I suspect whoever is putting Gov Sandoval up is just

using him for spear throwing practice. If BO had any thought that Sandoval might be accepted, he would not nominate him,

in my opinion.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/

 

"The best person", meaning one that is as far left as can be found. BO nominating a conservative? I have this bridge in the Mojave

Desert I would like to sell you.

 

Paul T

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that Hillary would nominate someone far to the left. She's a corporate lawyer, a Walmart board member. She's establishment. What part of that gets you to far left? I peg Hillary as politically right of Obama and Obama's picks have been solid and sane and centrist. That's just nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is about the best the Repubs could do, Hillary will nominate someone far to the left. Match point to Obama

Really? Could it be that a Republicans ploy has resulted in a nominee that is acceptable to them and they just go ahead and confirm him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that Hillary would nominate someone far to the left. She's a corporate lawyer, a Walmart board member. She's establishment. What part of that gets you to far left? I peg Hillary as politically right of Obama and Obama's picks have been solid and sane and centrist. That's just nonsense.

 

When Hillary wins if Scalia's seat is still open she will most certainly nominate someone to the left of Sandoval. And the Republicans are going to have to choke on their "Let the people speak through the next president" statements.

 

The Republicans have totally shown their hand too early and are now being mocked. If the roles were reversed I would be embarrassed with how badly the Democrats were being outmaneuvered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is about the best the Repubs could do, Hillary will nominate someone far to the left. Match point to Obama

Really? Could it be that a Republicans ploy has resulted in a nominee that is acceptable to them and they just go ahead and confirm him.

 

The Republicans are going to have a very hard time selling this to their base. One of the first rules of politics is if you have to do something either stupid or unpalatable don't do it in an election year, Voters have short memories but not that short. They have set it up so that confirming anyone will be viewed as caving by a large number of their voters.

 

And whoever wins the primary is going to want to hammer home the message that the senators caved and this is exactly why the presidency matters.

 

AGAIN. The Republican Senators set up a scenario where confirming anyone no matter how far right makes it seem like they are a beaten dog with its tail beaten its legs.

 

How again is that winning?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is about the best the Repubs could do, Hillary will nominate someone far to the left. Match point to Obama

 

Really? Could it be that a Republicans ploy has resulted in a nominee that is acceptable to them and they just go ahead and confirm him.

"Acceptable" to this crowd would be nothing short of hard right. That ain't gonna happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is about the best the Repubs could do, Hillary will nominate someone far to the left. Match point to Obama

Really? Could it be that a Republicans ploy has resulted in a nominee that is acceptable to them and they just go ahead and confirm him.

 

The Republicans are going to have a very hard time selling this to their base. One of the first rules of politics is if you have to do something either stupid or unpalatable don't do it in an election year, Voters have short memories but not that short. They have set it up so that confirming anyone will be viewed as caving by a large number of their voters.

 

And whoever wins the primary is going to want to hammer home the message that the senators caved and this is exactly why the presidency matters.

 

AGAIN. The Republican Senators set up a scenario where confirming anyone no matter how far right makes it seem like they are a beaten dog with its tail beaten its legs.

 

How again is that winning?

 

You think? ... I doubt it would be too difficult to frame getting Obama to nominate a Republican governor as a win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This is about the best the Repubs could do, Hillary will nominate someone far to the left. Match point to Obama

Really? Could it be that a Republicans ploy has resulted in a nominee that is acceptable to them and they just go ahead and confirm him.

 

The Republicans are going to have a very hard time selling this to their base. One of the first rules of politics is if you have to do something either stupid or unpalatable don't do it in an election year, Voters have short memories but not that short. They have set it up so that confirming anyone will be viewed as caving by a large number of their voters.

 

And whoever wins the primary is going to want to hammer home the message that the senators caved and this is exactly why the presidency matters.

 

AGAIN. The Republican Senators set up a scenario where confirming anyone no matter how far right makes it seem like they are a beaten dog with its tail beaten its legs.

 

How again is that winning?

 

You think? ... I doubt it would be too difficult to frame getting Obama to nominate a Republican governor as a win.

 

 

Think there is money in it for FOX news to call it a victory?

 

We shall see how it plays out but I don't see a good outcome for the Republican Senate. They have dug themselves a pretty deep hole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This is about the best the Repubs could do, Hillary will nominate someone far to the left. Match point to Obama

Really? Could it be that a Republicans ploy has resulted in a nominee that is acceptable to them and they just go ahead and confirm him.

 

The Republicans are going to have a very hard time selling this to their base. One of the first rules of politics is if you have to do something either stupid or unpalatable don't do it in an election year, Voters have short memories but not that short. They have set it up so that confirming anyone will be viewed as caving by a large number of their voters.

 

And whoever wins the primary is going to want to hammer home the message that the senators caved and this is exactly why the presidency matters.

 

AGAIN. The Republican Senators set up a scenario where confirming anyone no matter how far right makes it seem like they are a beaten dog with its tail beaten its legs.

 

How again is that winning?

 

You think? ... I doubt it would be too difficult to frame getting Obama to nominate a Republican governor as a win.

 

 

Think there is money in it for FOX news to call it a victory?

 

We shall see how it plays out but I don't see a good outcome for the Republican Senate. They have dug themselves a pretty deep hole.

 

And you could be right. We'll have to wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is highly unlikely BO will nominate Gov Sandoval, or anybody that is not totally left handed. It would be too easy for

the Senate to say, "Well that is something we can give further thought to" & approve him in the next heart beat.

 

The Republicans should be careful what they wish for. Hillary will likely win the Presidential election. Kind of like being asked how

you want to die, by BO, or Hillary.

 

Paul T

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that the SCOTUS does NOT need 9 members. It could very well end up at 7. I think it's unlikely, but it is possible. I'm kinda amazed RBG is still kicking.

 

It is my opinion she will soon "Retire", so BO can load another liberal in the chamber.

 

Paul T

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that the SCOTUS does NOT need 9 members. It could very well end up at 7. I think it's unlikely, but it is possible. I'm kinda amazed RBG is still kicking.

 

Kennedy will be 80 in a few months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vetting of Sandoval is an admission Obama thinks Hillary will lose to Trump.

As the Republicans have stated they will not vet/vote on anyone Obama nominates, that can't be true. Taking them at their word, they're going to refuse vetting/voting on Sandoval as well. Are you saying Republicans are not men of their word?
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Vetting of Sandoval is an admission Obama thinks Hillary will lose to Trump.

As the Republicans have stated they will not vet/vote on anyone Obama nominates, that can't be true. Taking them at their word, they're going to refuse vetting/voting on Sandoval as well. Are you saying Republicans are not men of their word?

 

 

You do realize you are asking Nanny about Republicans, right? Hell, he will commend the GOP for breaking their word if they wind up holding a hearing for Sandoval.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Vetting of Sandoval is an admission Obama thinks Hillary will lose to Trump.

As the Republicans have stated they will not vet/vote on anyone Obama nominates, that can't be true. Taking them at their word, they're going to refuse vetting/voting on Sandoval as well. Are you saying Republicans are not men of their word?

 

We're talking Washington here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Vetting of Sandoval is an admission Obama thinks Hillary will lose to Trump.

As the Republicans have stated they will not vet/vote on anyone Obama nominates, that can't be true. Taking them at their word, they're going to refuse vetting/voting on Sandoval as well. Are you saying Republicans are not men of their word?

 

We're talking Washington here.

 

 

Pardon me if I don't believe you would be so mild in your commentary if the roles were reversed and Harry Reid said something as stupid as McConnell did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Vetting of Sandoval is an admission Obama thinks Hillary will lose to Trump.

As the Republicans have stated they will not vet/vote on anyone Obama nominates, that can't be true. Taking them at their word, they're going to refuse vetting/voting on Sandoval as well. Are you saying Republicans are not men of their word?

 

We're talking Washington here.

 

 

Pardon me if I don't believe you would be so mild in your commentary if the roles were reversed and Harry Reid said something as stupid as McConnell did.

 

What you think of me is of no concern. What do you think of my case I have made?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obama knows Republicans will support Sandoval if they believe Hillary will win. If they think she will lose they will hold off because they would like to see another Scalia or Thomas on the court.

 

Obama also knows Democrats will oppose Sandoval, so this is a risk-free proposition thrown out there to spilt Republicans. A Sandoval appointment would do nothing to advance Obama's legacy or radical agenda, so it is a political gambit only. Why else would the Whitehouse throw this one name out there?

 

Republicans should stand firm. There is too much at stake. Just a few of the cases that could potentially be overturned with another prog on the court:

 

District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 decision that ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own a gun for personal use and establishes the ability to keep a loaded handgun in one’s home for self-defense, under certain restrictions.

 

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 decision where the Supreme Court ruled political spending is protected under the First Amendment, meaning corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on political actions that are done independently of a party or candidate.

Shelby County v. Holder, a 2013 decision that struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, allowing states to make changes to election law or district maps without approval from the Justice Department, meaning the federal government has less power to challenge an election law that it believes to be discriminatory.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a 2014 decision that exempted some corporations from a requirement to provide contraception in their health insurance plans. The court ruled that such a mandate would violate religious liberty.

Another possibility is that the Alinskyites have something on Sandoval just as they probably had something on Roberts used to blackmail and force him on Obamacare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vetting of Sandoval is an admission Obama thinks Hillary will lose to Trump.

You are wrong. Obama is more centrist when it comes to the SCOTUS than he is when it comes to policy. If Obama had a Democratic Senate that would consent to anyone he still would not nominate candidates as ideologically far left as Scalia was to the right.

 

Sandoval is a great choice to publicly vet. He would be a great nominee as well. My guess is that he would be another Kennedy type swing vote. Probably leaning liberal on the social issues.

 

Part of the brilliance in nominating him is that in doing so it lessens the Rep's chances in the next election regardless of the outcome.

1. If the Rs do nothing they seem silly and obstructionist. the party of NO

2. If they confirm him they are lying flip floppers

AND

The Rs lose a potential popular candidate who anywhere on the Nevada ballot would bring R votes to the contested Nevada general election.

 

Sandoval is a good choice for the SCOTUS and a smart political strategy choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Vetting of Sandoval is an admission Obama thinks Hillary will lose to Trump.

As the Republicans have stated they will not vet/vote on anyone Obama nominates, that can't be true. Taking them at their word, they're going to refuse vetting/voting on Sandoval as well. Are you saying Republicans are not men of their word?

 

We're talking Washington here.

 

 

Pardon me if I don't believe you would be so mild in your commentary if the roles were reversed and Harry Reid said something as stupid as McConnell did.

 

What you think of me is of no concern. What do you think of my case I have made?

 

 

Your "case"? Are you referring to "We're talking Washington here"? That's not much of a "case".

 

Besides, I do believe your "case" would be more strident if it involved the Democrats vowing to not even consider a nominee until the following year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Pardon me if I don't believe you would be so mild in your commentary if the roles were reversed and Harry Reid said something as stupid as McConnell did.

 

What you think of me is of no concern. What do you think of my case I have made?

 

 

Your "case"? Are you referring to "We're talking Washington here"? That's not much of a "case".

 

Besides, I do believe your "case" would be more strident if it involved the Democrats vowing to not even consider a nominee until the following year.

 

Sure whatever.... Would you think that Obama nominating a Republican governor would be a win for the Republican led senate or would it be an embarrassment to them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Pardon me if I don't believe you would be so mild in your commentary if the roles were reversed and Harry Reid said something as stupid as McConnell did.

What you think of me is of no concern. What do you think of my case I have made?

 

Your "case"? Are you referring to "We're talking Washington here"? That's not much of a "case".

 

Besides, I do believe your "case" would be more strident if it involved the Democrats vowing to not even consider a nominee until the following year.

 

Sure whatever.... Would you think that Obama nominating a Republican governor would be a win for the Republican led senate or would it be an embarrassment to them?

 

Which is exactly what I was saying in the discussion about the strategy that Senate leadership has employed.

To be perfectly honest though, I didn't think it would progress so quickly. I thought there would be more hemming and hawing go on from the White House before caving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Pardon me if I don't believe you would be so mild in your commentary if the roles were reversed and Harry Reid said something as stupid as McConnell did.

 

What you think of me is of no concern. What do you think of my case I have made?

 

 

Your "case"? Are you referring to "We're talking Washington here"? That's not much of a "case".

 

Besides, I do believe your "case" would be more strident if it involved the Democrats vowing to not even consider a nominee until the following year.

 

Sure whatever.... Would you think that Obama nominating a Republican governor would be a win for the Republican led senate or would it be an embarrassment to them?

 

 

I prefer not to look at things as a "win for the Republican led senate". But, if you need that "win", by all means, go for it.

 

I prefer that the President nominate qualified candidates and the Senate go about the business of either confirming or rejecting them.

 

You know, like is outlined in the Constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been over this my friend. What McConnell was trying to do was leave Obama with two choices. Either put someone up that is completely un-confirmable, in which case the Senate would just deny even entertaining OR force Obama to put up someone they would be able to confirm who was the best they could hope for from a left side of the aisle sitting lame duck president. So it looks like Obama will call their bluff with Sandoval. If that is the case, McConnell will point out that he was vetted and accepted as a federal judge and thus will consider (and likely confirm) as the next Supreme Court Justice.

I would say this is playing out as intended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Senate Republican leaders said Tuesday that there would be no confirmation hearings, no vote, not even a courtesy meeting with President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, all but slamming shut any prospects for an election-year Supreme Court confirmation. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nomination-obama.html?_r=0

 

I don't think what McConnell is doing comes anywhere close to No.6's version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As grumpy rightly asked, who has been nominated? Have any hearings been scheduled?

And like I said back to him, we are still in the arm waving and ranting phase.

 

Apparently still in the make believe versions too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Senate Republican leaders said Tuesday that there would be no confirmation hearings, no vote, not even a courtesy meeting with President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, all but slamming shut any prospects for an election-year Supreme Court confirmation. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nomination-obama.html?_r=0

 

I don't think what McConnell is doing anything, anywhere, anytime comes anywhere close to No.6's version.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's moot. No way Obama will nominate a Republican. My guess he will go for a gay black woman who self identifies as Latino so he can paint Republicans as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's moot. No way Obama will nominate a Republican. My guess he will go for a gay black woman who self identifies as Latino so he can paint Republicans as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobes.

 

From the party that is trying to make him a 3/5 president he wouldn't be too far off the mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As grumpy rightly asked, who has been nominated? Have any hearings been scheduled?

And like I said back to him, we are still in the arm waving and ranting phase.

 

Obama has said he will put forth a nominee.

 

McConnell said they will not even consider scheduling a hearing.

 

So, Grumpy's, and your, questions are (1) a tad early and (2) pointless.

 

You and Dog seem to think the GOP can backtrack and save face.

 

I hope Obama nominates Sandoval and McConnell has to explain he didn't really mean what he said.

 

Some, here, will see that as a grand gesture on the part of the GOP. I doubt it will resonate with many.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it's moot. No way Obama will nominate a Republican. My guess he will go for a gay black woman who self identifies as Latino so he can paint Republicans as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobes.

 

From the party that is trying to make him a 3/5 president he wouldn't be too far off the mark.

 

Surprising that a Democrat would bring that up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think it's moot. No way Obama will nominate a Republican. My guess he will go for a gay black woman who self identifies as Latino so he can paint Republicans as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobes.

 

From the party that is trying to make him a 3/5 president he wouldn't be too far off the mark.

 

Surprising that a Democrat would bring that up.

 

 

Why? Are we going to go off tangent again and discuss the difference between progressives and Republicans again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As grumpy rightly asked, who has been nominated? Have any hearings been scheduled?

And like I said back to him, we are still in the arm waving and ranting phase.

Obama has said he will put forth a nominee.

 

McConnell said they will not even consider scheduling a hearing.

 

So, Grumpy's, and your, questions are (1) a tad early and (2) pointless.

 

You and Dog seem to think the GOP can backtrack and save face.

 

I hope Obama nominates Sandoval and McConnell has to explain he didn't really mean what he said.

 

Some, here, will see that as a grand gesture on the part of the GOP. I doubt it will resonate with many.

 

Save face? It is Washington for heaven's sakes BD. But let's entertain that for a second, if you please. McConnell will simple declare that they are being pragmatic and accommodating as the president decided to appoint someone worthy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandoval has ruled on abortion, Gay marriage, guns, illegal immigration driver's licenses, Marijuana, LGBT rights before as a judge and Governor. His record is what it is. If you think the Senate forced him on Obama, good on you, take your victory lap. I'm liberal on all of those issues and I hope he's the next Justice, ® or not..

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As grumpy rightly asked, who has been nominated? Have any hearings been scheduled?

And like I said back to him, we are still in the arm waving and ranting phase.

Obama has said he will put forth a nominee.

 

McConnell said they will not even consider scheduling a hearing.

 

So, Grumpy's, and your, questions are (1) a tad early and (2) pointless.

 

You and Dog seem to think the GOP can backtrack and save face.

 

I hope Obama nominates Sandoval and McConnell has to explain he didn't really mean what he said.

 

Some, here, will see that as a grand gesture on the part of the GOP. I doubt it will resonate with many.

 

Save face? It is Washington for heaven's sakes BD. But let's entertain that for a second, if you please. McConnell will simple declare that they are being pragmatic and accommodating as the president decided to appoint someone worthy.

 

The problem is that McConnell invoked the will of the people. Let the people decide this in the upcoming election. It is hard to say, "We changed our minds; the will of the people as it turns out isn't very important."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandoval has ruled on abortion, Gay marriage, guns, illegal immigration driver's licenses, Marijuana, LGBT rights before as a judge and Governor. His record is what it is. If you think the Senate forced him on Obama, good on you, take your victory lap. I'm liberal on all of those issues and I hope he's the next Justice, ® or not..

They were happy with Roberts and Kennedy too.

 

Until they weren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sandoval has ruled on abortion, Gay marriage, guns, illegal immigration driver's licenses, Marijuana, LGBT rights before as a judge and Governor. His record is what it is. If you think the Senate forced him on Obama, good on you, take your victory lap. I'm liberal on all of those issues and I hope he's the next Justice, ® or not..

They were happy with Roberts and Kennedy too.

 

Until they weren't.

 

Reading Dog's and NGS posts you would think they only looked at the ® after his name and not how he has actually ruled in the past. It's like they didn't do any research at all.. Is that possible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As grumpy rightly asked, who has been nominated? Have any hearings been scheduled?

And like I said back to him, we are still in the arm waving and ranting phase.

Obama has said he will put forth a nominee.

 

McConnell said they will not even consider scheduling a hearing.

 

So, Grumpy's, and your, questions are (1) a tad early and (2) pointless.

 

You and Dog seem to think the GOP can backtrack and save face.

 

I hope Obama nominates Sandoval and McConnell has to explain he didn't really mean what he said.

 

Some, here, will see that as a grand gesture on the part of the GOP. I doubt it will resonate with many.

 

Save face? It is Washington for heaven's sakes BD. But let's entertain that for a second, if you please. McConnell will simple declare that they are being pragmatic and accommodating as the president decided to appoint someone worthy.

 

How the fuck do you consider him worthy based on his record?? This is the best mindfuck ever on Republicans whether he is nominated or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As grumpy rightly asked, who has been nominated? Have any hearings been scheduled?

And like I said back to him, we are still in the arm waving and ranting phase.

Obama has said he will put forth a nominee.

 

McConnell said they will not even consider scheduling a hearing.

 

So, Grumpy's, and your, questions are (1) a tad early and (2) pointless.

 

You and Dog seem to think the GOP can backtrack and save face.

 

I hope Obama nominates Sandoval and McConnell has to explain he didn't really mean what he said.

 

Some, here, will see that as a grand gesture on the part of the GOP. I doubt it will resonate with many.

 

Save face? It is Washington for heaven's sakes BD. But let's entertain that for a second, if you please. McConnell will simple declare that they are being pragmatic and accommodating as the president decided to appoint someone worthy.

 

 

Every Senator up for re-election will be explaining how they didn't really mean what they said when they announced "No hearings."

 

As they should be.

 

It is hard to retract absolute statements, and McConnell's pledge was just that.

 

Had he said something along the lines of "We will fulfill our duty and consider each nominee. But, 'advise and consent' does not mean automatic confirmation", there would be wiggle room. But, he didn't. He drew a line in the sand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As grumpy rightly asked, who has been nominated? Have any hearings been scheduled?

And like I said back to him, we are still in the arm waving and ranting phase.

Obama has said he will put forth a nominee.

 

McConnell said they will not even consider scheduling a hearing.

 

So, Grumpy's, and your, questions are (1) a tad early and (2) pointless.

 

You and Dog seem to think the GOP can backtrack and save face.

 

I hope Obama nominates Sandoval and McConnell has to explain he didn't really mean what he said.

 

Some, here, will see that as a grand gesture on the part of the GOP. I doubt it will resonate with many.

 

Save face? It is Washington for heaven's sakes BD. But let's entertain that for a second, if you please. McConnell will simple declare that they are being pragmatic and accommodating as the president decided to appoint someone worthy.

 

 

Every Senator up for re-election will be explaining how they didn't really mean what they said when they announced "No hearings."

 

As they should be.

 

It is hard to retract absolute statements, and McConnell's pledge was just that.

 

Had he said something along the lines of "We will fulfill our duty and consider each nominee. But, 'advise and consent' does not mean automatic confirmation", there would be wiggle room. But, he didn't. He drew a line in the sand.

 

Our ® Senator here told the room in a town hall the other day that they would not consider any nominee while Obama is still President. Definite line in the sand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sandoval has ruled on abortion, Gay marriage, guns, illegal immigration driver's licenses, Marijuana, LGBT rights before as a judge and Governor. His record is what it is. If you think the Senate forced him on Obama, good on you, take your victory lap. I'm liberal on all of those issues and I hope he's the next Justice, ® or not..

They were happy with Roberts and Kennedy too.

 

Until they weren't.

 

Reading Dog's and NGS posts you would think they only looked at the ® after his name and not how he has actually ruled in the past. It's like they didn't do any research at all.. Is that possible?

 

What makes you assume that my views can't align well with Republican governor Sandoval? That's absurd on its face. I simply raised and interesting question on the political tactics in play. Personally I think the R's could pull off an about face politically if Obama offers someone acceptable to them (he won't).

 

Further, as Mr. Shoes points out, SC justices often don't play out as expected anyway, Souter was a GHWB nominee for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well and how the rule from the bench is not always indicative of their deeply held convictions. It is not uncommon for lower court or circuit court judges to rule in a fashion that will get a case bumped up to the next level to be revisited.

The Supreme Court is a whole other animal. The finality of their rulings makes the justices consider cases not on the nuances of a particular law but rather The US Constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Personally I think the R's could pull off an about face politically if Obama offers someone acceptable to them (he won't).

 

I agree they will attempt an "about face" if Obama offers up someone like Sandoval, which would directly contradict their vowed obstruction. And, I believe some here will just shrug that off as no big deal. Moreover, I believe those same folks would make a lot of noise at the hypocrisy were the Dems to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't the Republicans propose an amendment to the Constitution stating that the president can only nominate justices for a period of three years after they assume office? That way they don't have to feel weird about only accepting a "strict Constitutionalist" justice to replace Scalia while ignoring the Constitutional process already in place. They could ask the SCOTUS for an injunction to await the up or down vote on the amendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well and how the rule from the bench is not always indicative of their deeply held convictions. It is not uncommon for lower court or circuit court judges to rule in a fashion that will get a case bumped up to the next level to be revisited.

The Supreme Court is a whole other animal. The finality of their rulings makes the justices consider cases not on the nuances of a particular law but rather The US Constitution.

Well I guess we won't know for the foreseeable future, if ever. But Sandoval seems like a reasonable option to advise on and possibly consent to, or not. But apparently we have to wait 11 months to find out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't the Republicans propose an amendment to the Constitution stating that the president can only nominate justices for a period of three years after they assume office? That way they don't have to feel weird about only accepting a "strict Constitutionalist" justice to replace Scalia while ignoring the Constitutional process already in place. They could ask the SCOTUS for an injunction to await the up or down vote on the amendment.

No need current copy doesn't have time limits. Interesting that Bills do have a 10 day limit before things happen, so it's not like they didn't think about forcing government to function. I have heard the view that the GOP needs to stand firm and refuse any hearings regardless of the candidates qualifications. I don't agree with that strategy, but the thought is the vast majority of Americans do not give a shit about this issue, but the rightwing voters will give a shit if a lefty Judge is appointed. Which could effect the elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Personally I think the R's could pull off an about face politically if Obama offers someone acceptable to them (he won't).

 

I agree they will attempt an "about face" if Obama offers up someone like Sandoval, which would directly contradict their vowed obstruction. And, I believe some here will just shrug that off as no big deal. Moreover, I believe those same folks would make a lot of noise at the hypocrisy were the Dems to do it.

 

Not everyone is a paradigm of virtue like you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was pretty amenable to the spot when asked by Harry Reid, I wonder what threats Mitch McConnell threw at him to make him back off?

 

Dunno if you remember Clinton nominating Republican Governor William Weld as Ambassador to Mexico.

The Republicans went ballistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He was pretty amenable to the spot when asked by Harry Reid, I wonder what threats Mitch McConnell threw at him to make him back off?

 

Dunno if you remember Clinton nominating Republican Governor William Weld as Ambassador to Mexico.

The Republicans went ballistic.

 

 

Touchy bunch aren't they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sandoval took himself out of the running.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sandoval-no-thanks-scotus

 

He was pretty amenable to the spot when asked by Harry Reid, I wonder what threats Mitch McConnell threw at him to make him back off?

 

My guess is that McConnell told him that his obstructionist stance isn't a tactic and that he really intends to be obstructionist.

 

Sandoval doesn't want to be a failed nominee falling victim to his party's foolishness. I don't blame him. Sandoval was careful in saying it was an honor to be considered but he wasn't interested at this time. He leaves the door open to be nominated later when he has a shot.

 

Rumor also has it McConnell offered him a signed limited edition Mitch McConnell bobble-head. It is special in that its head only bobbles in the universally recognized "NO" side-to-side direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Personally I think the R's could pull off an about face politically if Obama offers someone acceptable to them (he won't).

 

I agree they will attempt an "about face" if Obama offers up someone like Sandoval, which would directly contradict their vowed obstruction. And, I believe some here will just shrug that off as no big deal. Moreover, I believe those same folks would make a lot of noise at the hypocrisy were the Dems to do it.

 

Not everyone is a paradigm of virtue like you.

 

 

Thanks for the kind words. But, I am hardly such a creature.

 

I am, however, sick of the folks who feel comfortable looking the other way their team misbehaves, as long as they can justify it by pointing the other side did it too/first/worse.

 

As long as that crap continues, we are the reason things are so fucked up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sandoval took himself out of the running.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sandoval-no-thanks-scotus

 

He was pretty amenable to the spot when asked by Harry Reid, I wonder what threats Mitch McConnell threw at him to make him back off?

 

My guess is that McConnell told him that his obstructionist stance isn't a tactic and that he really intends to be obstructionist.

 

Sandoval doesn't want to be a failed nominee falling victim to his party's foolishness. I don't blame him. Sandoval was careful in saying it was an honor to be considered but he wasn't interested at this time. He leaves the door open to be nominated later when he has a shot.

 

Rumor also has it McConnell offered him a signed limited edition Mitch McConnell bobble-head. It is special in that its head only bobbles in the universally recognized "NO" side-to-side direction.

 

I don't think it was a threat. I think it was a suggestion he could be Trump's VP instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sandoval took himself out of the running.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sandoval-no-thanks-scotus

 

Probably didn't like the thought of running around with spears sticking out of his back. Interesting game of cat & mouse.

 

I doubt if BO would have really put Sandoval up, highly unlikely, I think.

 

Paul T

 

Neither her nor there now. But I think Obama would have. Sandoval would have moved the considerably more towards they center from Scalia.

 

No one he nominates is going to be far right enough for people like you, but I think floating Sandoval as a potential nominee signals that Obama isn't going to nominate anyone that moderates would reject as too far to the left.

 

Keeping score with potential nominee names.

 

Sandoval = 1 point for Obama. 0 points for Rep Senate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sandoval took himself out of the running.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sandoval-no-thanks-scotus

 

Probably didn't like the thought of running around with spears sticking out of his back. Interesting game of cat & mouse.

 

I doubt if BO would have really put Sandoval up, highly unlikely, I think.

 

Paul T

 

Neither her nor there now. But I think Obama would have. Sandoval would have moved the considerably more towards they center from Scalia.

 

No one he nominates is going to be far right enough for people like you, but I think floating Sandoval as a potential nominee signals that Obama isn't going to nominate anyone that moderates would reject as too far to the left.

 

Keeping score with potential nominee names.

 

Sandoval = 1 point for Obama. 0 points for Rep Senate.

 

 

Sandoval didn't want any part of being pawn in Obama's little game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Sandoval took himself out of the running.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sandoval-no-thanks-scotus

 

Probably didn't like the thought of running around with spears sticking out of his back. Interesting game of cat & mouse.

 

I doubt if BO would have really put Sandoval up, highly unlikely, I think.

 

Paul T

 

Neither her nor there now. But I think Obama would have. Sandoval would have moved the considerably more towards they center from Scalia.

 

No one he nominates is going to be far right enough for people like you, but I think floating Sandoval as a potential nominee signals that Obama isn't going to nominate anyone that moderates would reject as too far to the left.

 

Keeping score with potential nominee names.

 

Sandoval = 1 point for Obama. 0 points for Rep Senate.

 

 

Sandoval didn't want any part of being pawn in Obama's little game.

 

seems to me Obama is following the constitutional process. Who's game would this then be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sandoval took himself out of the running.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sandoval-no-thanks-scotus

 

Probably didn't like the thought of running around with spears sticking out of his back. Interesting game of cat & mouse.

 

I doubt if BO would have really put Sandoval up, highly unlikely, I think.

 

Paul T

 

Neither her nor there now. But I think Obama would have. Sandoval would have moved the considerably more towards they center from Scalia.

 

No one he nominates is going to be far right enough for people like you, but I think floating Sandoval as a potential nominee signals that Obama isn't going to nominate anyone that moderates would reject as too far to the left.

 

Keeping score with potential nominee names.

 

Sandoval = 1 point for Obama. 0 points for Rep Senate.

 

 

I doubt that BO cares about anything other than tilting the court as far to the left as he can. I think that most people, especially

those in the political business, lean one way or the other, some more than others. As usual, BO is in a win / win position.

 

As mentioned, I think the Senate made a big mistake in not having hearings for candidates. All they need to do is follow the

established process & reject or accept the candidate of their choice. As Hillary is likely to be our next President, the Senate

is just prolonging the agony.

 

Paul T

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Sandoval took himself out of the running.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sandoval-no-thanks-scotus

 

Probably didn't like the thought of running around with spears sticking out of his back. Interesting game of cat & mouse.

 

I doubt if BO would have really put Sandoval up, highly unlikely, I think.

 

Paul T

 

Neither her nor there now. But I think Obama would have. Sandoval would have moved the considerably more towards they center from Scalia.

 

No one he nominates is going to be far right enough for people like you, but I think floating Sandoval as a potential nominee signals that Obama isn't going to nominate anyone that moderates would reject as too far to the left.

 

Keeping score with potential nominee names.

 

Sandoval = 1 point for Obama. 0 points for Rep Senate.

 

 

Sandoval didn't want any part of being pawn in Obama's little game.

 

Wrong. He didn't want any part in McConnell's tantrum.

 

If he didn't want any part of Obama's game, he would have been emphatic from the get go that he wasn't interested. Instead he said he was honored to be considered by Obama for the position and when he withdrew his name from consideration he said it was for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the house had a hellofa time getting a Speaker - who now regrets it

I'm not surprised that a rational republican would want to avoid Mitch's Bitches

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Sandoval took himself out of the running.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sandoval-no-thanks-scotus

 

Probably didn't like the thought of running around with spears sticking out of his back. Interesting game of cat & mouse.

 

I doubt if BO would have really put Sandoval up, highly unlikely, I think.

 

Paul T

 

Neither her nor there now. But I think Obama would have. Sandoval would have moved the considerably more towards they center from Scalia.

 

No one he nominates is going to be far right enough for people like you, but I think floating Sandoval as a potential nominee signals that Obama isn't going to nominate anyone that moderates would reject as too far to the left.

 

Keeping score with potential nominee names.

 

Sandoval = 1 point for Obama. 0 points for Rep Senate.

 

 

I doubt that BO cares about anything other than tilting the court as far to the left as he can. I think that most people, especially

those in the political business, lean one way or the other, some more than others. As usual, BO is in a win / win position.

 

As mentioned, I think the Senate made a big mistake in not having hearings for candidates. All they need to do is follow the

established process & reject or accept the candidate of their choice. As Hillary is likely to be our next President, the Senate

is just prolonging the agony.

 

Paul T

 

 

 

If Obama wanted to tilt the court as far to the left as he possibly could he would not have nominated Keegan and Sotomayor. Both made it through a contentious Senate. He would have nominated someone far left. Let the senate battle it out and then nominate someone not quite as far left as the first but still farther left than either Keegan or Sotomayor.

 

Obama has yet to even mention the name of a far left ideologue for any opening. You belittle your intelligence (I assume) in being prone to spout such worthless and patently false hyperbole

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why don't the Republicans propose an amendment to the Constitution stating that the president can only nominate justices for a period of three years after they assume office? That way they don't have to feel weird about only accepting a "strict Constitutionalist" justice to replace Scalia while ignoring the Constitutional process already in place. They could ask the SCOTUS for an injunction to await the up or down vote on the amendment.

No need current copy doesn't have time limits. Interesting that Bills do have a 10 day limit before things happen, so it's not like they didn't think about forcing government to function. I have heard the view that the GOP needs to stand firm and refuse any hearings regardless of the candidates qualifications. I don't agree with that strategy, but the thought is the vast majority of Americans do not give a shit about this issue, but the rightwing voters will give a shit if a lefty Judge is appointed. Which could effect the elections.

 

That's right! Apparently the Republicans do want time limits. So why not make it official, rather than underhanded?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Because it is not politically possible so why bother unless you want to just make a statement.

because it's your FUCKING JOB?

 

It's Obama's job to nominate "a far left ideologue"?

 

Is Sandoval a "far left ideologue"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Because it is not politically possible so why bother unless you want to just make a statement.

because it's your FUCKING JOB?

 

It's Obama's job to nominate "a far left ideologue"?

 

his job is to nominate. the senate's is to advise and consent. were you dropped on your head as a child or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...