|
https://wh.gov/scotus#confirmation-tracker The "number of days" for Garland ticks up every day. Looking forward to seeing how this looks in... 200+ days when it hasn't budged from the first stage
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:30 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:In the short run, yes. In the long run it's destroyed the party and will leave them crippled for a generation. It's not their fault all those solid conservative justices tend to become more
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:I'm still frustrated at this pick because of Garland's age. If this isn't a sacrificial appointment, then IMO this is a huge Obama blunder. This is the opportunity to stack the court with liberals for a good while but instead he picks an aging centrist who's older than John Roberts and will likely get replaced by the two term conservative president that is elected when Hilary's re-elect campaign fails. Garland's age kind of sucks but Obama has a 0.01% chance of getting him on the Supreme Court and a 0.0000000001% chance of appointing someone to the left of him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Reaganomicon posted:Garland's age kind of sucks but Obama has a 0.01% chance of getting him on the Supreme Court and a 0.0000000001% chance of appointing someone to the left of him. Keep in mind both percentages are pretty much the same so he might as well get more of a leftist anyway. It's like when he was debating healthcare. He kept steering right despite receiving nothing for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
He may have been the only one who agreed to do it, guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Why are people acting like Garland is Scalia 2.0 and someone Obama would have had to hold his nose to nominate? Isn't it perfectly likely that Obama (who is not nearly as much of a flaming leftist as people like to imagine) just thinks this guy (whose record is lightyears to the left of Scalia's) would be a good justice? He is old as poo poo and why settle? Plus I'm pretty loving salty it isn't a sista gohmak fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Mar 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
euphronius posted:He may have been the only one who agreed to do it, guys. He seemed so happy to get the nomination... did nobody tell him? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:In the short run, yes. In the long run it's destroyed the party and will leave them crippled for a generation. Said liberal pundits since 2001
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Said liberal pundents since 2001 There probably will never be another republican president.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:Keep in mind both percentages are pretty much the same so he might as well get more of a leftist anyway. Orrrr, he might as well pick someone who makes the GOP look like asses. Look how many of them have already been forced to declare that their position has nothing to do with Garland's merits as a nominee. They're backed into this hilarious petty position of "We're fine with the nominee but we don't like who nominated him" and I doubt it'll play well with the public.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:Keep in mind both percentages are pretty much the same so he might as well get more of a leftist anyway. It's like when he was debating healthcare. He kept steering right despite receiving nothing for doing so. A more leftist guy gives Republicans a valid reason to oppose him. A bland white centrist gives them no political cover and helps the Democrats in the 2016 Senate races. If he's not going to get confirmed anyway, then going for the guy with immediate political value matters more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:There probably will never be another republican president. I predict there will be one 2020.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
gohmak posted:I predict there will be one 2020.  or bust bro.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:A more leftist guy gives Republicans a valid reason to oppose him. A bland white centrist gives them no political cover and helps the Democrats in the 2016 Senate races. Not only this but nominating someone much younger and lefter than Garland will taint that future candidate. It's pretty much the best move Obama can make other than a token gesture to win over the far left crowd... which would still hate him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
euphronius posted:There probably will never be another republican president. But we elected the most bland, white bread cardboard cut out of a person to represent the Democratic party and....
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:You could have said the same after Clinton's high on the hog 90s He won?? Also, no, totally different eras.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:You could have said the same after Clinton's high on the hog 90s Not really since the demographics weren't as absolutely stacked against republicans in presidential elections as they are now. Right now republicans have to essentially sweep every single "swing" state to get to 270 while democrats only have to win one swing state that isn't New Hampshire to win, and there are several swing states that are getting more and more blue every year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:You could have said the same after Clinton's high on the hog 90s Well fortunately Obama is not loving his interns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Not really since the demographics weren't as absolutely stacked against republicans in presidential elections as they are now. And their primary process appears to be broken.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well fortunately Obama is not loving his interns. The intern-loving isn't what sank the Democrats, it was nominating one Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. for the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Chamale posted:The intern-loving isn't what sank the Democrats, it was nominating one Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. for the presidency. who then went on to win the election
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
He won but whatever it's not relevant to today. For the foreseeable future it is extremely unlikely the GOP wins the White House in its present form . This point I only made to support the idea that the GOP is loving itself nationally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Not really since the demographics weren't as absolutely stacked against republicans in presidential elections as they are now. Isn't Texas turning blue, too?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
You're all being way too optimistic and short-sighted. If nothing changes then the Republicans can't win, sure. But if there's a terrorist attack or recession in the next eight months we're looking at President Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
the loss of :arzy: is still sharply felt to this day
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Garland's roll in the court would be to replace Kennedy as the center, complaining about that fundamentally misunderstands the role of the court instead casting it solely as a place to win 5-4 decisions over social conservatives.. What you need is an impeccable jurist who can hold the center in a more favorable place. You don't need a 48 year old to camp out on the seat for four decades to do that, you want that person to be your progressive lion. A centrists who can craft solid 6-3 majorities is good for the institution while allowing for those crucial 5-4 decisions that don't require dragging Kennedy to the center or a surprise Roberts legacy vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:Isn't Texas turning blue, too? It's starting to, but Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Colorado will be solidly blue before then and any one of those becoming a democrat lock means that republicans would have to steal a blue states to win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
I still don't comprehend that Roberts ACA opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I still don't comprehend that Roberts ACA opinion. http://www.theonion.com/article/scalia-thomas-roberts-alito-suddenly-realize-they--32972
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:the loss of :arzy: is still sharply felt to this day  Obama is down 2 points Arzy or  unskew the polls Romney is winning Arzy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
gohmak posted:
oh nice! first one, then the other
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Chamale posted:You're all being way too optimistic and short-sighted. If nothing changes then the Republicans can't win, sure. But if there's a terrorist attack or recession in the next eight months we're looking at President Trump. We had a "terrorist attack" last year and all that happened is that Apple's now in court about privacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:http://www.theonion.com/article/scalia-thomas-roberts-alito-suddenly-realize-they--32972 I'm still not convinced The Onion doesn't have an actual crystal ball.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Remember how the voters punished W for 911.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
euphronius posted:He won but whatever it's not relevant to today. For the foreseeable future it is extremely unlikely the GOP wins the White House in its present form . Which is why there's a guerrilla movement to sneak in by night and add a nice verandah off the back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I still don't comprehend that Roberts ACA opinion. From what I recall, he thought Kennedy was going to vote to uphold it. That way, Roberts could oppose the decision without striking the ACA down. When it turned out that Kennedy thought the ACA was unconstitutional, Roberts was basically forced to actually do his job. He ended up writing both the decision and the dissent, if I'm not mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:the loss of :arzy: is still sharply felt to this day How much are smilies again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:Isn't Texas turning blue, too? Clinton/Castro against Trump, you tell me. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Clinton/Castro against Trump, you tell me. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:30 |
|
|
Obama lost Texas 57%-41% to Romney, by a vote margin of less than 1.3 million. 61% of eligible-voter Hispanics in Texas did not vote in the 2012 presidential election. That's more than 2.5 million people. Romney beat Obama 53%-47% among white women in Texas, who make up more than 4.5 million votes. I can keep going if you're not there yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 02:05
|
|