Really?There’s also a reason for the obstruction and it aint pretty either. And there’s a reason for Beck’s carp too.
Did he say Democartic rather then Democrat party?
Foohey! Beck was cool with it as long as it was part of a plan that had a chance. Not so anymore and “if Hilary gets in” she’s under no obligation to make the GOP happy. I imagine the next President gets at least 2 other picks if its a Democrat and maybe 1 more if a Republican.
Long hard times to come for the GOP. A left loaded Court ends the rubber stamp they’ve come to depend on.
They managed to twice throw Democrats enough votes under scary black president who is scary, and I doubt they’ll have any choice but to do so again. They will have spent damn near a year telling the American people they can’t do anything on the president’s nomination, that it’s the duty of the next president to nominate the new SCOTUS judge. If Clinton destroys Trump as badly as I think she will, it’s going to be very, very hard to justify not giving her the votes to seat her nominee. I don’t think they’ll have the political capital to sustain a filibuster mere months into the first term of the first woman president nor do I think they’ll have the will to do so.
Yes, he isnt being principled. He just thinks it is more slick to vote and deny confirmation for reasons pulled out of the Heritage Foundation’s, NRA’s and Chamber of Commerce’s asses.
Well, the headline seemed to imply he had a principled reason. He is not really in politics, Glenn Beck. He is in the right wing drama queen entertainment racket, heavily populated at this moment in history.
One of the things I like about HRC is that she understands how government, including the courts work, and she therefore knows that appointing a far left ideologue who cannot gather a consensus on a consistent basis would do no one any good. Examples of that kind of fail are William O. Douglas (a brilliant man, but who felt constrained by the institution of the Court and therefore was not effective) and Thurgood Marshall (a hero of mine as a lawyer— the last guy on the Supreme Court who defended accused murderers, and a brilliant legal strategist and tactician) who could not or would not lead the Court into liberal position,s leaving the to William Brennan). She will appoint someone who hopefully can more often than not pull the Court to more progressive positions, and get it away from this “strict constructionist” thing that Scalia started, and that is not necessarily an idealogue. Note however, that the “strict constructionist” interpretations of Scalia have been great for the criminally accused facing trial— he was a stickler for trial and privacy rights— though not so great on solely procedural grounds for persons seeking habeas corpus relief. You never know what a Justice is going to do.
Glenn Beck’s faulty logic. If Hillary wins, she will appoint someone more liberal than this ‘somewhat acceptable’ nominee. OK. Sounds good so far But he goes on to say just give him an up or down vote…to take that issue away from them. Nice try. If they give him a down vote, Hillary will STILL appoint someone more liberal.
Here’s an idea. If Garland, who is fairly moderate…and is “somewhat acceptable”, any Republican with half a brain should vote to confirm him. Have they become so stupid, they cant see the obviously horrible campaign being waged by Donald Trump.
He’s a political commentator. Political gains are his principles. And the headline says "It’s A ‘Mistake’ " - indicating he thinks it’s an error, but not that he thinks it’s an immorality.
The Republicans have spent the last 8 years dreaming up nefarious plots and conspiracy theories and now they can’t see reality when it smacks them in the face.
'And I also think that they did this for a reason, that they put somebody in who is somewhat acceptable and they did it because they could say, ‘See, they’re absolutely unreasonable.’
Yes. Obama picked a nominee that he thought HAD A CHANCE given the paranoid fantasies of the Right Wing. If Hillary wins she will want to put her OWN stamp on the Supremes…just like any OTHER new President would. You should give Merrick Garland a vote because it’s your FREAKIN’ JOB you cowardly aholes.
Gee Glenn, you thinks its mean that somebody insists that you DO YOUR JOB?
Here’s something for you to think about:
The second we win the presidency and the Senate, Obama calls a special session of Congress to announce that because of unprecedented Congressional obstruction, he is pulling the Garland nomination and PRESIDENT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON will be making the next appointment to the Court. Then, in a great big “fuck you” to the GOP, Hillary announces her pick during her Inaugural Address.
The interesting development will be the lame duck period before Hillary takes Office. Suddenly, the Republicans will be falling over themselves to get Merrick put in place. The real irony will be if Clinton and the Democrats vote him down and then say “we should leave the SCOTUS choice for the next president” Take that Mitch, swallowed by your own words!
If they try and hold up a nominee on Hillary, after refuses to even vote on Garland, Schumer will move rapidly to do away with the 60 vote nonsense regarding SCOTUS appointees…and he will have complete cover from the media and everybody else in doing so.
McConnell fucked up royally on this one. Its going to kill his senators trying to defend their seats, and its going to become even more embarrassing when they try to quickly approve Garland in November/December after the election in a lame duck session. And perhaps most importantly of all, the political will to obstruct just for the sake of obstruction will start washing away.
What’s he going to do? Argue that we should just keep reducing SCOTUS members for 4 more years? Their losses in 2018 will be even worse. By the time 2020 would roll around, being Majority leader again will be a fantasy, as they will be struggling to hold on to 40 seats. Because this was a politically toxic path to take, and the payback for it is just around the corner.
