Discussion for article #247492
Hahaha.
“We want the next president to nominate someone. Unless the next president is another Democrat. Then we’ll have a redo, because our principled stand is based on the principle that we get to change the rules as it suits us.”
Good luck with that one, ass clowns.
15 Likes
Or, they may lose the Senate, and Schumer could tell them that we are nuking the filibuster and you get Goodwin Liu for the next 40 years… I’m sure they’ll be begging for Garland then…
10 Likes
Well so much for the idea that this is all a matter of Principle!!!
If we lose, we’re ready to scramble and help confirm someone who will fill a seat that at least is not Saul Alinsky.
5 Likes
Well, of course they said that. If Hillary beats Trump, that probably means they’re staring at a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate. A more craven President (Bill Clinton, e.g.), would respond by withdrawing the nomination after the election, but I doubt Obama would do that to Garland.
4 Likes
So they want to have their cake and eat it too?
Fuck off GOP. Guess what, if you obstruct, we’re going to take the WH, the senate AND a bunch of congressional seats.
Then we’ll get Garland, and probably 2 or 3 more liberal justices. Please proceed!
6 Likes
why not? with a dem senate, a dem prez should nominate a real liberal.
1 Like
Is it any wonder you’ve got no power
When you pay a thief to keep it for you?
Is it a surprise that your wine is sour
When you let a liar choose the brew he pours you?
~ 801 / Listen Now
jw1
2 Likes
Hahaha …Hillary will nominate a liberal person of color and all them knuckleheads will have some more explaining to do to their base.
5 Likes
AAAAAAA--RRRRRRRRRR---GGGGGGGGG !!!!!!
( excuse me … I will be out running around the block … a few times ! )
2 Likes
Fuck the fuck out of that. I don’t know how this would play out in practical terms, but Obama should do what he can to force them to hold hearings BEFORE the election. If Hillary wins - or it becomes apparent she will win - he should be withdrawn and a more liberal justice nominated. Or, leave it to Hillary.
4 Likes
McConnell is betting the ranch on Trump. Get ready to move out McTurtle.
2 Likes
Someone should remind Orrin that the Garland nom might be a limited time deal.
If Bernie, Hillary or Trump get in there, they get to call the tune.
2 Likes
“Senate Republicans signaled to President Obama that if he nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, they would consider confirming him during the lame duck session if a Democrat is elected….”
So it’s unacceptable for a rhetorical “lame-duck” President to have any say on SCOTUS.
But it’s OK for a literal lame-duck Senate.
Got it.
16 Likes
If they don’t want the nominee to face such a toxic environment, they just have to be less toxic. Easy peasy!
5 Likes
Sorry, no. When Hillary wins, Democrats are going to be looking for someone a lot more liberal. Republican Senators’ opinion won’t matter after the election either.
3 Likes
Hillary is elected, Garland gracefully withdraws for the same reasons Republicans are giving now. Perfect.
6 Likes
This is a position of such extraordinary and callow weakness. It’s small and pale and sickly. Good bye, GOP. Thanks for nothing.
4 Likes
Are we sure Republican Senators are actually Americans? Or even have English as their first language?
2 Likes
I agree. If the Senate managed to hold out and not confirm, and especially if the Dems retake the Senate, the “right” move politically probably would be to withdraw the nomination and nominate a decidedly liberal justice.
However, Obama seems more likely to stay “above” the politics and preclude the GOP from saying, “See you didn’t really intend to seat him so we were “right” to wait for the election.”
Having said all that, and in the spirit of the new “TOP” (“Trump Old Party” tm pending), screw 'em. Let’s nominate a younger liberal justice to keep the court on track to correct the disasters of this conservative bent.
3 Likes