Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
He is a good choice, but election politics is raising it's ugly head. I think McConnell is blowing smoke, and that he will be confirmed. It would hurt the party too much in the long run.
If you changed the parties, I'm sure the Dems. would not confirm a Republican presidential nominee at this time, so my feeling is what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander.
And considering how the Republicans have given OBama almost everything he wanted, maybe its time to say NO, for a change.
gun control?
how about the 15 attempts to repeal obamacare?
If you changed the parties, I'm sure the Dems. would not confirm a Republican presidential nominee at this time, so my feeling is what is fair for the goose is fair for the gander.
And considering how the Republicans have given OBama almost everything he wanted, maybe its time to say NO, for a change.
LOL. You must have listened to NPR today. Your words (bold) are almost word for word Orin H of Utah. Third statement: ?????
He's not the person I would have nominated, but I think he should be approved. First of all, it's in the Constitution that appointing a Supreme Court justice is the president's RESPONSIBILITY, so President Obama should indeed have nominated someone. Had John McCain defeated Obama in 2008 and he were in the last year of his presidency, I have every faith that the Senate would be approving his nominee. President Obama, who won election and reelection fair and square, should be afforded the same respect.
In fact, the GOP would be idiotic NOT to approve the moderate Merrick Garland. Do they actually think they will get someone they like better from a President Trump, Clinton, or Sanders? Seriously, what are the statistical chances the next president won't have one of those names? Are they really willing to bet their brokered convention can come up with someone the same public that elected Obama TWICE will embrace?
The Senate not approving a nominee during an election year, was decided and approved by the Democrats about 50 years ago. It has stood since then. Actually it is a principal that has stood the test of time, and is only proper to be followed today.
Kennedy ('88) and Breyer ('80) were approved in the last year of a presidential term.
Will/Should Merrick Garland Be Approved for S.C. Justice?
He should be but probably won't be.
What the president should do is block the Republicans from playing their little game. It's obvious that they intend to go through the process during the lame duck session following the election. Obama should withdraw his appointment on Nov 8th, allowing President Hillary to nominate a young flaming lib who will sail through confirmation in a newly Democratic controlled senate.
The Pubs are playing a dangerous game that they're likely to lose. Garland is the best option they have and they're stubbornly and stupidly saying no like petulant children.
You say "there is no requirement for the Senate to giver their reasons..."
What do you think "advice" means? To keep absolutely silent? To never communicate in any way? Really?
Advice, to me means to do just that- advise. To advise the President. That means to communicate with the president as to what they would, and would not like to see in a nominee.
You're just making stuff up LOL. "what they would like to see in a nominee"??
OK.
We advise you to not fill the position before the election.
What the president should do is block the Republicans from playing their little game. It's obvious that they intend to go through the process during the lame duck session following the election. Obama should withdraw his appointment on Nov 8th, allowing President Hillary to nominate a young flaming lib who will sail through confirmation in a newly Democratic controlled senate.
The Pubs are playing a dangerous game that they're likely to lose. Garland is the best option they have and they're stubbornly and stupidly saying no like petulant children.
How did you feel when Obama played the same little game?
He's not the person I would have nominated, but I think he should be approved. First of all, it's in the Constitution that appointing a Supreme Court justice is the president's RESPONSIBILITY, so President Obama should indeed have nominated someone. Had John McCain defeated Obama in 2008 and he were in the last year of his presidency, I have every faith that the Senate would be approving his nominee. President Obama, who won election and reelection fair and square, should be afforded the same respect.
In fact, the GOP would be idiotic NOT to approve the moderate Merrick Garland. Do they actually think they will get someone they like better from a President Trump, Clinton, or Sanders? Seriously, what are the statistical chances the next president won't have one of those names? Are they really willing to bet their brokered convention can come up with someone the same public that elected Obama TWICE will embrace?
Of course they'll get someone better from a President Trump.
Didn't you see the two he named when asked? Also his sister is a very well respected judge Reagan appointee.
Why don't you complain about Obama doing the same thing? Wanting to FILIBUSTER Bush appointments?
What the president should do is block the Republicans from playing their little game. It's obvious that they intend to go through the process during the lame duck session following the election. Obama should withdraw his appointment on Nov 8th, allowing President Hillary to nominate a young flaming lib who will sail through confirmation in a newly Democratic controlled senate.
The Pubs are playing a dangerous game that they're likely to lose. Garland is the best option they have and they're stubbornly and stupidly saying no like petulant children.
I think this is how it will play out.
Let them stonewall until Nov then pull the old moderate and insert young liberal.
The Tea Baggers policy of obstruction has not worked out well for them OR our country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Will/Should Merrick Garland Be Approved for S.C. Justice?
