|
Electric Sugar posted:Of course he did. He's facing off against Tammy Duckworth in November and he's in one of the most vulnerable seats. True, but Toomey and Ayote haven't yet and they're both vulnerable.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
After the Unskewed Polls poo poo in 2012 if October rolls around and polls show a strong lead for Clinton over Trump I think there's a good chance of GOP defections that push a vote on Obama's nominee because if they manage to hold out for the rest of the year and we end up with a Clinton presidency and more Dems in the Senate then the pressure is going to come down on them even harder. If the Dems also manage to take a majority in the Senate then the GOP is hosed because if they try to block a nominee at that point the Dem majority will go nuclear.hobbesmaster posted:"I just nominated the only guy they said was acceptable. This just proves that Republican senators have no intention of governing this country" "As we've seen today the GOP has no desire to govern as a part of this country, but to rule it while ignoring their Constitutional duties." Alternately, we end up with a bunch of at-risk senators, like shithead Toomey, breaking ranks to try and force a vote so they can keep their seats and a possible GOP majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Mark Kirk just broke ranks with McConnell. He did before the nomination, and he helpfully (for him and McConnell) has no ability to do anything whatsoever about getting to a vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
My take on it is that this is partly an implied threat: get Garland through in the next three months or I pull him myself in the fall/arrange for him to withdraw when Trump clinches your nom. Offer good while supplies last.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
I don't get the disappointment in this thread. If we imagine a fictional universe in which the Senate was actually going to consider Obama's nominee, this is the kind of justice we'd get. You don't get a 40 year old RBG with a year left in your term and a Republican Senate. Garland looks like a very good judge, and as far as political questions go he'd side with liberals more often than not. The reported deal for a lame duck nomination of garland if Clinton wins is a bad one, but the nomination itself is pretty good. Turns out getting creamed in 2010 and 2014 has consequences. Who knew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Adar posted:My take on it is that this is partly an implied threat: get Garland through in the next three months or I pull him myself in the fall/arrange for him to withdraw when Trump clinches your nom. Offer good while supplies last. If you think the GOP is actually more scared of a Trump nom than an Obama/HRC nom then
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
fourwood posted:If you think the GOP is actually more scared of a Trump nom than an Obama/HRC nom then The threat is that Trump is very good at getting people to vote against him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I don't get the disappointment in this thread. If we imagine a fictional universe in which the Senate was actually going to consider Obama's nominee, this is the kind of justice we'd get. You don't get a 40 year old RBG with a year left in your term and a Republican Senate. Yeah, but this is the universe where the GOP has categorically stated they will never ever consider any nominee. Garland is the sort of pick you throw to the GOP if they aren't in 100% gently caress You Dad mode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:https://twitter.com/bridgetbhc/status/710133812483780608 Just pure, naked, power politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
fourwood posted:If you think the GOP is actually more scared of a Trump nom than an Obama/HRC nom then Trump as GOP nominee means a Clinton appointment, which does scare the GOP, and rightly so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Hypothetically speaking (since I don't think it would happen), what are the consequences if Obama yanks the nominee if/when Hillary wins?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:https://twitter.com/bridgetbhc/status/710133812483780608 So isn't that an admission that Obama is not now a lame duck president.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
you guys are forgetting the nightmare scenario trump wins president, nominates sarah palin as a new supreme court judge
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
I said when this first started obamas best move and the GOPs best result is old moderate. And here we are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you guys are forgetting the nightmare scenario They are Justices not judges. But I do think he would do that yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I don't understand the kneejerk response that Garland won't get to a vote. (Well, I understand it, I should say that I don't agree with it.) Haha, no. The Majority Leader and one of its most influential members (Graham) have already said no way. Picture an old white man with his dick in one end of a Chinese finger trap and his finger in the other. That is the GOP right now. i am the bird posted:Hypothetically speaking (since I don't think it would happen), what are the consequences if Obama yanks the nominee if/when Hillary wins? I don't think he'd need to. The lame duck Congress would never get its act together in time to dash together hearings for Garland before January, and after that they'd STILL need to come up with 60 votes for cloture--otherwise Obama can say "They didn't even give him an up-or-down vote. Shameful." Then Hillary nominates Bill and every Republican in the world dies of an anger stroke. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Hypothetically speaking (since I don't think it would happen), what are the consequences if Obama yanks the nominee if/when Hillary wins? If he doesn't nominate someone else, then Hillary nominates someone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you guys are forgetting the nightmare scenario Supreme Court Justice Chris Christie
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Supreme Court Justice Chris Christie They don't make robes big enough Seriously, though, I would be SHOCKED if the GOP caves on this. McConnell has already drawn a line in the sand: No hearings. If he backs down the base will go nuts and either primary the poo poo out of everyone in sight or stay home to punish them on Election Day. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Then Hillary nominates Bill and every Republican in the world dies of an anger stroke. Too old. If she was really trying to troll the Republicans it would be Barack Obama. And then Ginsburg would retire and she would nominate Michelle Obama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Hahaha, I just heard on Fox News this woman arguing that Obama had selected Garland because he prosecuted Timothy McVeigh and that would upset right wingers who were on McVeigh's side. Like as if that was Obama really sticking it to the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Hahaha, I just heard on Fox News this woman arguing that Obama had selected Garland because he prosecuted Timothy McVeigh and that would upset right wingers who were on McVeigh's side. Like as if that was Obama really sticking it to the GOP. So from the transitive property I can infer that Fox News supports Timothy McVeigh!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Hahaha, I just heard on Fox News this woman arguing that Obama had selected Garland because he prosecuted Timothy McVeigh and that would upset right wingers who were on McVeigh's side. Like as if that was Obama really sticking it to the GOP. In that case he should nominate whichever judge issued the arrest warrants on the Bundys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:In that case he should nominate whichever judge issued the arrest warrants on the Bundys. Or Lois Lerner. vyelkin posted:Too old. If she was really trying to troll the Republicans it would be Barack Obama. I don't think we'll ever see Michelle Obama again as far as politics go. She will probably go the activist route. Or she'll create a squad of brownshirts that go door to door confiscating junk food. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:So from the transitive property I can infer that Fox News supports Timothy McVeigh! If Timothy McVeigh, without changing his ideology one bit, had run for Congress instead of blowing up a building, he would be a hero of the Tea Party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Hahaha, I just heard on Fox News this woman arguing that Obama had selected Garland because he prosecuted Timothy McVeigh and that would upset right wingers who were on McVeigh's side. Like as if that was Obama really sticking it to the GOP. The GOP is in bed with domestic TERRISTS!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:If Timothy McVeigh, without changing his ideology one bit, had run for Congress instead of blowing up a building, he would be a hero of the Tea Party.  Also I love how Fox and the right must search for a way this pick screws them. After all, if they were in power it's exactly what they'd do, therefore it must be Obama's modus operandi as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Hypothetically speaking (since I don't think it would happen), what are the consequences if Obama yanks the nominee if/when Hillary wins? If he withdraws the nominee it'll be before the general election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:
The thing is they're right (in that it screws them) but not for the reason they think. I love it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:If he doesn't nominate someone else, then Hillary nominates someone. Well, duh. I was more asking if there's a meaningful backlash to something so nakedly political even if it is in the face of blatant GOP obstructionism. Would that negativity carry over to Hillary and her nominee or would it not matter? timeline being: GOP does nothing on Garland, Hillary wins, Obama withdraws Garland's nomination on November 9th and leaves it open to Hillary (and trolls GOP by saying the next president should decide after all)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:If he doesn't nominate someone else, then Hillary nominates someone. "The vacancy happened during the previous President's term! Too bad that wonderful moderate compromise broker Obama didn't nominate anyone acceptable. This nominee of the Evil Mega-Liberal Hillary Clinton is clearly unconstitutional because she wasn't President when Scalia died. Guess it's an eight member court now!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Mediaite is on it, here's the clip I heard: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/heres-the-dumbest-argument-youll-hear-all-day-about-the-merrick-garland-appointment/ quote:But I do want to quickly talk about the political aspect of this. Merrick Garland was the one who prosecuted right-wing extremists in Oklahoma City. You heard him mention this. This is Obama’s effort to look bipartisan and reasonable. He knows that the right is divided. He’s capitalizing on that division. He knows that he is going to call them ‘allegedly violent’ Trump supporters — [they’re] going to stand up and he’s gonna say, “You’re blocking him because this is payback because he prosecuted the Oklahoma City Bombers!” He knows that that attack is coming. I believe it is a political trap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:If Timothy McVeigh, without changing his ideology one bit, had run for Congress instead of blowing up a building, he would be a hero of the Tea Party. Well, okay, but I think committing mass murder is sort of the issue here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
I'm with evilweasel. This pick is kind of the worst part of Obama's pragmatism. He nominates a slightly liberal old white dude in hopes the petulant children in the senate stop being obstructionist babies. The fact that they're talking about a lame duck vote on this demonstrably belies their "not in an election year; let the american people be heard in this choice" attitude. I only wonder if this pick is mediocre enough to get Senate republicans to "forget" to not go on summer recess. If that happens and gives Obama the implicit opportunity to do a recess appointment, can he change his mind and put someone else up instead? I'm reminded of the boring centrist white dude that was being considered to replace a republican against a hostile congress in The West Wing episode The Supremes where the administration got the liberal lion of the court to also retire so they could "maintain balance" and put up a hard core republican and super liberal option at the same time. I want to believe Obama tried to pull this by talking to RBG but she, rightly, refused and here we are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you guys are forgetting the nightmare scenario sarah palin: "I AM THE LAW"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Well, duh. I was more asking if there's a meaningful backlash to something so nakedly political even if it is in the face of blatant GOP obstructionism. Would that negativity carry over to Hillary and her nominee or would it not matter? Not confirming Garland would be pretty nakedly political, so big deal on that score. The Republicans have manufactured outrage over anything and everything for the last 8 years, so of course they'd raise a stink. I doubt it would make any difference to anyone other than Republicans, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
NPR is reporting that the Republicans will confirm Garland in lame duck session if Hillary wins. Seeing there is no chance Obama withdraws and punts to Hillary he is good as confirmed. There goes our hopes of ending capitol punishment
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:They don't make robes big enough 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Seeing there is no chance Obama withdraws and punts to Hillary What makes you think that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
But nothing could contain that mustache 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 18:50
|
|
