“I can barely schedule a call with my son’s math teacher yesterday so probably no,” Blunt said on the meeting.
Hey, these guys need all the help with math they can get. HC is going step up and to deliver a lesson in Electoral College Math in November. Then for the next 8 years they will sit for their certificates in Minority Party Math. They might get PhDs in that before it’s all said and done.
A lot of verbiage to get through but it seems to be Grassley with an assist from Dole, November 30, 1995.
There is a time and place for everything and this is not it.
Dear Senate Republicans,
You do know that Obama can withdraw the nomination of Merrick Garland at any time, right? In fact, if Clinton is elected, withdrawing the nomination to give the President-elect an opportunity to select her nominee would be appropriate. Just a heads, up.
Well maaaaaybe. But in the reality and irony free bubble of the GOP, somehow there are a lot more angry old white men than there were in 2012.
It might help if you actually read the article. It’s referring to the real lame duck session, after the election; some Republicans want to confirm Garland then to prevent Clinton from nominating someone more liberal. IOW, the author is correct.
Oh, I imagine he has a time limit. At a certain point, he says, “One month until I call the extraordinary session.”
Not sure what the knock on Lauren - the TPM writer - is? She’s quoting Jeff Flake, who said he’s open to confirming Garland during the lame duck session (i.e. after the November election). What did Lauren get wrong here?
Teeth go down, teeth go up, can’t explain that!
What are the odds the President gave her a courtesy call asking her opinion of Garland?
Roy Blunt has issues with child’s math teacher. Last time they met, the teacher held up all fingers in one hand, except the thumb.
Teacher: How many fingers am I holding up?
Blunt: Three! That’s how many years there are in a President’s term.
Teacher: No, four. What are you, some kind of cartoon?
Blunt: [um… um…]
@boidster
A more thorough writer would have explained when the lame duck session begins and not simply refer to it as if it’s understood by all.
For example: "in the lame duck session which begins on the day the new president is elected and continues until the new president is inaugurated.
“That’s a tough position to take. I will concede,” said Sen. Jeff Flake, (R-AZ) who has said he is among those open to confirming Garland in the lame duck.
This is to Lauren Fox and all TPM Staff: The term ‘Lame Duck’ refers ONLY to the weeks and months BETWEEN the Presidential election (to elect a new President) and the inauguration of the next President. This election cycle, the lame duck period will start Tuesday, November 08th, 2016 and end Friday, January 20th, 2017. This distinction is very important. The Republicans are calling President Obama a “lame duck President” and that is wrong. Please do not assist the Republicans in their quest to belittle President Barack Obama and detract from his awesome record. Thank you.
And, if Hillary Clinton won the White House in November, Republicans may be open to accepting him in the lame duck session over a more liberal appointee down the line.
From the article. So we are talking about the real lame duck session.
Context looks to me like they used it correctly.
Blah blah blah TPM’s commenting system is screwing up bad.
Merriam-Webster definition of lame duck
an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor
So, from November 8, 2016, until January 20, 2017. It seems so simple, doesn’t it.
They know about the commenting problems and are actively working to fix them.
Not long after President Barack Obama announced that he was nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, former Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) began signaling that Garland would not be a terrible choice.
And before Garland was announced as the nominee, Hatch had said Garland would be a terrific nominee, would have Hatch’s strong support, deserved broad bipartisan support, and “belongs on the court.” And just recently Hatch was complaining that Obama wouldn’t nominate Garland.
But now, because of the toxic environment caused by the GOP’s unprecedented obstructionism, according to Hatch it would be wrong to undo that obstructionism and help detoxify that toxic environment by approving (or even considering) this “consensus candidate,” who Hatch has so enthusiastically gushed over in the past.
In other words Obama Derangement Syndrome On Steroids, or ODSOS – suggested pronounciation:
"odd sauce"
I think what the Senator is trying to convey is that he needs a math tutor because, you know, Republican. And elementary math is about tough enough for him. So he’s desperately trying to get a tutor.
He won’t do that. He’s not going to play their game. After all the risk the GOP’ers are taking is understood by them. If a Republican is elected in November they win. If a Democrat is elected they lose much more then if they moved forward and confirmed Judge Garland. They know this but given this isn’t just a Judicial appointment to them…its a live or die thing. If they don’t get a Conservative on that Court they are done.
But I don’t understand the numbers they are playing. Confirm Garland and hope for GOP’er POTUS. That GOP’er will get a shot at a RBG replacement soon enough. Or a Dem is elected and the Court goes full blown Left. To the GOP’ers it shouldn’t matter. The crap they haul up there needs a partisan Right Court. Left or far Left is the same to them. So confirm and hope for a GOP’er to bring it back 5/4 Right or pull this stunt and make the American people think what you get with a Democrat is something you deserve. This obstruction will legitimize a hard Leftie by Clinton.
3/5 of 4 years is 2.4 years…