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.
Why not just pick a moderate candidate with a history that can attract support from a majority in the senate?
Isn't that the point of a checks and balances system? The legislature gets to approve or reject the judicial nominees made by the executive branch?
Ginsburg should leave this to the White House and Capitol Hill. Step down when she she no longer wants to serve. If the White House wants to appoint a radical that will never get approved, that's their business.
Senators don't have term limits and hold office for 6 years. They should not be as easily influenced by voters or the White House. The Senate is and should be where regular Joe Dumbass American ideas go to either get watered down or die.
Ginsburg's concern that they can't get another liberal through the senate suggests that this particular White House has either a history of burning bridges with moderates, a proven record of appointing radicals, or both.
PLEASE what Republican has any chance of being elected in 2016?
Ha. And what Democrat is such a guarantee? Hillary? Hardly. She's going to get torn a part for her past and for her failures. Who else is there but her? Anyone else will have an even tougher time, with the exception that you'll have the media and hollywoods support
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.