|
Would Sandoval accept? I thought he was gearing up for a run at Reid's seat. Or is that just the established narrative?
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Aurubin posted:Would Sandoval accept? I thought he was gearing up for a run at Reid's seat. Or is that just the established narrative? He has agreed to go forward with vetting but not agreed that he would accept. Which, you know, he'd have to do before getting the offer 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Would Sandoval accept? I thought he was gearing up for a run at Reid's seat. Or is that just the established narrative? You'd rather run for the Senate than be appointed for life to the highest court in America? I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, but SCOTUS would be a sweet gig.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
myron cope posted:You'd rather run for the Senate than be appointed for life to the highest court in America? If you want to live in DC for the rest of your life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:If you want to live in DC for the rest of your life. Nah. You get summers off, and summer is the worst part of living in DC. (Also, being a Senator means spending half your life in DC anyway.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:Would Sandoval accept? I thought he was gearing up for a run at Reid's seat. Or is that just the established narrative? Would he choose running for a senate seat maybe or the highest court in the country for life? Well gee hard choice. Still all we have is 'vetted' which doesn't mean anything concrete. Lots of people get vetted either as probes for future other appointments or just a genuine 'let's look at this due more because I'm not sure'. If this turned out to be a trick to get some republicans to say 'well gee maybe we should vote' purely because of the R next to his name and open the door for 'see how this is total bullshit?' I wouldn't be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/702565467374940162 https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/702571193073836033 Obama is the greatest troll that has ever trolled.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
I don't think Obama would publicly nod toward a potential nominee if he weren't okay with them being appointed as a potential end result. He's not the kind of guy to explicitly throw up a feint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
This post already happened. Something went gone wrong. How are you?
Twinty Zuleps fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Feb 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
He said he didn't want Syrian refugees though. I know, politics, but I don't trust him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
TPM put up a good post about what the Republicans are doing, essentially arguing that all of their very public binding themselves to the mast isn't about blocking a nominee. It's about trying to limit the damage that discussion of the subject could cause. It's worth a read: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-lot-weaker-than-they-look Essentially, the Republicans are trying to make this as much of a non-story as possible to try to be able to say "there's no story here, move onto other things". But it's less a demonstration of power than an implicit statement that yes, this could backfire hard in the elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
A republican nominee would kind of be even worse to allow a hearing/vote on. It would put republicans in a marginal republican seat in the position of looking especially bad for not voting for the guy and republicans in deep red areas are at more of a risk of a primary were an Obama nominee nominee to actually get through
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
whydirt posted:I don't think Obama would publicly nod toward a potential nominee if he weren't okay with them being appointed as a potential end result. He's not the kind of guy to explicitly throw up a feint. I'm sure he's ok with it happening and from my very weakass google 'vetting' I'm not really seeing anything BAD, just some generic center left things and a few meaningless rear end in a top hat things that don't mean anything about judicial stuff like 'republican governor said he wasn't happy about getting refugees' and 'NV politician has opinions about Yucca'
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
whydirt posted:I don't think Obama would publicly nod toward a potential nominee if he weren't okay with them being appointed as a potential end result. He's not the kind of guy to explicitly throw up a feint. It's not clear to me who leaked this. Could have been Reid, Obama, or Sandoval himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
That's fair. I can see Reid wanting to put the screws to McConnell as often as he can before he retires, heh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:TPM put up a good post about what the Republicans are doing, essentially arguing that all of their very public binding themselves to the mast isn't about blocking a nominee. It's about trying to limit the damage that discussion of the subject could cause. It's worth a read: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-lot-weaker-than-they-look LOL @ them trying to hide this once Obama picks someone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
The official nomination probably won't happen until late-March. In that time, a few other names could leak like a real liberal and a moderate democrat just to keep the narrative on the Republican obstruction. Then he could nominate Sandoval for real and legit say "I passed on favorites from my base for this motherfucker. Let's do this." It'd be a devastating narrative for Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
quote:Obama also said he’s spoken with lawmakers and “told them I’m sympathetic” to the political pressures they face from their constituents and the party base. He also said he thinks Republicans’ remarks about blocking a nominee are disingenuous. trollbama is activating
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:The official nomination probably won't happen until late-March. In that time, a few other names could leak like a real liberal and a moderate democrat just to keep the narrative on the Republican obstruction. Yeah, it's really hurt Republicans in the past when they seem intransigent against something Obama wants
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
The difference here is that it's an election year and this is a concentrated issue. It's not like getting a huge bill through Congress. It's a specific thing only the Senate does and it's widely understood to be one of the most important things the Senate does. Senators can't blame an out-of-step tea party in the House for proposing insane ideas. This is on the Senate and, specifically, Republicans in the Senate. And all the judicial committee members just signed some weird pledge to not fulfill one of their most important duties. Every Republican senator up for re-election will get asked why their friends don't just have a vote and say no. As an aside, I think the big winner in all this: Paul Ryan. No one is talking about the House anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:it's widely understood to be one of the most important things the Senate does. I think you're giving waaaay too much credit to the American electorate here. 49% of Americans can't name one of their two senators, and most Americans can't name all three branches of government. I'm confident all of this can be spun as blocking Obummer's trickster agenda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I remember "upperdown vote" being a common refrain around 2004-2005. Should be plenty of attack material for Dems there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I think you're giving waaaay too much credit to the American electorate here. 49% of Americans can't name one of their two senators, and most Americans can't name all three branches of government. I'm confident all of this can be spun as blocking Obummer's trickster agenda. Yeah, I'm not saying every American knows the major responsibilities of the branches of government or is even really very civics literate. But it's really easy to point out that the Senate has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of Supreme Court nominees and that the Republicans aren't even doing that. The TPM article above goes into it in a bit more detail but it makes the point that the average middle-of-the-road (politically) voter is more frustrated by Congressional inaction and gridlock than anything else. And here you've got all the gridlock and naked political cynicism laid bare. To further complicate things for Republicans, the kind of voter that cares about not having Obama appoint a justice is a Republican primary voter. So the Republicans have really backed themselves into an awful corner and picked "not get primaried" over "potential losses in November". They can hope their (false) argument that "the American people should decide who gets to nominate the next justice" floats but it's their only hope. The more Obama keeps the story in the news, the more pressure the Senate Republicans will feel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:trollbama is activating If I were him I'd take a casual stroll through the Senate offices, dropping by to visit each Judiciary Committee member for a friendly clarification. Make them all say the words out of their own faces, smile and heel-pivot and saunter away. Like the friendly visit you get from the mobster the week before your protection money comes due.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
whydirt posted:I don't think Obama would publicly nod toward a potential nominee if he weren't okay with them being appointed as a potential end result. He's not the kind of guy to explicitly throw up a feint. If he were just feinting, he could have chosen someone even further to the right. Either he’s okay with Justice Sandoval or it’s an especially masterful feint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
mdemone posted:If I were him I'd take a casual stroll through the Senate offices, dropping by to visit each Judiciary Committee member for a friendly clarification. Make them all say the words out of their own faces, smile and heel-pivot and saunter away. Like the friendly visit you get from the mobster the week before your protection money comes due. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK8HfO6jXxA&t=262s
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Fox News calling out a Republican senator on this  quote:"The president has laid out I think what anyone would say is a very fair set of circumstances for nominating someone, so why not give this person hearing?" MacCallum asked Lee During a Wednesday interview on Fox News' "America's Newsroom." http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-grills-mike-lee-scotus
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
So how much of an rear end in a top hat is this Sandoval guy, my Twitter feed is in a frenzy
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:22
|
|
Tater Love 
|
zakharov posted:So how much of an rear end in a top hat is this Sandoval guy, my Twitter feed is in a frenzy "Sandoval is pro-choice; while he's not exactly pro-marriage equality or pro-Obamacare, as governor he abandoned the state of Nevada's legal efforts to enforce a same-sex marriage ban and has not opposed the implementation of the Affordable Care Act." I dunno, probably he's a little bit of an rear end in a top hat somehow, or he wouldn't be a Republican governor, but he seems qualified and unterrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:trollbama is activating Oh yes. It cannot end well for those who continue opposition. The base will eat them alive. I will gladly eat my hat if dems take the Senate back due to this entertaining series of events.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
mdemone posted:"Sandoval is pro-choice; while he's not exactly pro-marriage equality or pro-Obamacare, as governor he abandoned the state of Nevada's legal efforts to enforce a same-sex marriage ban and has not opposed the implementation of the Affordable Care Act." I don't know if I would consider him qualified - his resume is a few steps worse than every other justice on the court, and only one or two steps above Harriet Miers'. He's a career politician with a JD from Ohio State - he spent a few years as NV AG and on a district court but that's about it. As far as I can tell, no one has ever considered him a brilliant jurist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Being governor is a tremendous real world qualification and experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
On the contrary, it's absolutely about the person. It's just that the person it's about isn't the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Problem is that there's an easy solution: vulnerable senators defect and say they support hearings, but mean ol' mitch won't hold them so what can they do. Easier said than done. Making a simple statement that you'd sure like to vote but that mean turtle won't let you doesn't placate Democrats or Independents while infuriating the Republicans who now are convinced that you're a secret Muslim enabler. So the only way to pull off this solution is to say nothing or support McConnell up until your primary filling deadline, and then come out vocally and forcefully against McConnell. Which looks a hell of a lot like flip flopping and doesn't really help you all that much if the Senate still refuses to do anything. This is especially magnified if Obama actually picks someone like Sandoval, who the general public is going to be unable to see as anything other than a conservative candidate that Obama is putting up as a compromise attempt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
zakharov posted:So how much of an rear end in a top hat is this Sandoval guy, my Twitter feed is in a frenzy Good: Replaced this rear end in a top hat by beating an unpopular incumbent in a primary. Accepted Obamacare and Medicaid expansion after Reid made the feds kick the money in for eternity, saying the state's unemployment was too high to ignore Medicaid. When a margins tax for schools that was opposed by pretty basically everyone but education unions and the farthest left was voted down by the conservative wave election of 2014, he got a tax increase passed that gave them about 70% or so of what they had asked for. This caused him to be labelled a sellout by Republicans who cried and cried some more about how he "turned his back" on the "groundswell of conservatism" that occurred when the Democrats forgot to get out the vote in 2014. Bad: The state's healthcare exchange was a wreck and eventually outsourced to healthcare dot gov, but that's mostly because of outside contractor Xerox bungling it all. The state AG, acting on behalf of his office, once wrote a universally terrible defense of the state's gay marriage ban, but she's a Democrat and was "just doing her job" and said that Sandoval tells her office what to defend or not, with both sides agreeing to stop defending the ban in 2014. Ugly: There's this state solar power thing, but opinions on personal solar panels are divided. The core problem is one of utility monopolies and allowing the rich people to buy solar panels and wean themselves off funding the power monopoly (raising rates on the poors who cannot afford solar panels) does not actually address the core problem and will become regressive in time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Good: Well that all looks about as bland as possible. No wonder this guy is the first balloon, just by floating the idea it's going to make the relevant Senators either take a harder line or capitulate entirely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Being governor is a tremendous real world qualification and experience. I strongly disagree. I don't think leading a state or city or country makes a person a better jurist at all - at least not for the type of analysis that SC justices are expected to perform. I wouldn't consider Chris Christie or Jeb Bush good potential candidates either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I strongly disagree. I don't think leading a state or city or country makes a person a better jurist at all - at least not for the type of analysis that SC justices are expected to perform. What about Earl Warren?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
esquilax posted:I strongly disagree. I don't think leading a state or city or country makes a person a better jurist at all - at least not for the type of analysis that SC justices are expected to perform. There's been a whole lot of justices with no prior judicial experience at all, so it seems to matter less than you think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
esquilax posted:I strongly disagree. I don't think leading a state or city or country makes a person a better jurist at all - at least not for the type of analysis that SC justices are expected to perform.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:03
|
|