Dang Biden. He may be a Delaware guy, but there is no one more responsible for screwing up the SCOTUS nomination/approval process than Joe Biden. No matter what else he's done or will do, that will be his legacy.Ibanez wrote:Doesn't matter. Biden advocated for it.dbackjon wrote:
Except that it was never put to test.
Congress has never refused to stonewall all SCOTUS nominees from a President in the HISTORY of our country. They all need to be removed from office.
I'm still feeling the Bern. Remember who it was that told you last year that Bernie was a bigger problem for Hillary than everybody thought.Ivytalk wrote:duncedawg is a front-runner.Baldy wrote: Say wut?
Hillary?
houndy ain't feeling the Bern no more?
I understand the political angle to him - Hispanic, centrist Republican. But he's kinda light on law experience - attorney general for two years in Nevada and then a district court judge, again just in Nevada, for four years. I guess what will be good is the lack of skeletons in his closet as it relates to pressing constitutional issues since he probably hasn't dealt with any of them.Ibanez wrote:Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) is being vetted.
You're probably one of the ones who had a problem with McCain being too old for president in 2008.houndawg wrote:I'm still feeling the Bern. Remember who it was that told you last year that Bernie was a bigger problem for Hillary than everybody thought.Ivytalk wrote:
duncedawg is a front-runner.
The conks haven't even begun to ramp up the sniveling about Benghazi yet. And Cruz is going to have problems with his questionable citizenship whether he's qualified to run or not. Smear those two real well and we get down to Bernie and the Donald. The Donald can beat Hillary but Bernie beats the Donald like Baldy's meat at a cub scout party.
densedawg was leading the charge on that one, 8.ASUG8 wrote:You're probably one of the ones who had a problem with McCain being too old for president in 2008.houndawg wrote:
I'm still feeling the Bern. Remember who it was that told you last year that Bernie was a bigger problem for Hillary than everybody thought.
The conks haven't even begun to ramp up the sniveling about Benghazi yet. And Cruz is going to have problems with his questionable citizenship whether he's qualified to run or not. Smear those two real well and we get down to Bernie and the Donald. The Donald can beat Hillary but Bernie beats the Donald like Baldy's meat at a cub scout party.
CAA Flagship wrote:The racists don't need race as a reason to hate Obama. 7 years of failures have provided the alternative excuse.Grizalltheway wrote:
Look, if you're going to claim that no one is anti-Obama because of race, then you don't get to claim that everyone who's pro-Obama feels that way because of white guilt. Sorry.
That would make heads explodeIvytalk wrote:Your next SCOTUS Justice, the Pride of Harvard Law School:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whiteh ... _hires.jpg
A victim.dbackjon wrote:CAA Flagship wrote: The racists don't need race as a reason to hate Obama. 7 years of failures have provided the alternative excuse.
If Obama is a failure, what do you call Dubya? The Titanic of Presidents?
Career path suddenly comes to an end.Ibanez wrote:Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) is being vetted.
Kind of puts conks in a bind, doesn't it?CAA Flagship wrote:Career path suddenly comes to an end.Ibanez wrote:Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) is being vetted.
It's a shame.
Kind ofGrizalltheway wrote:Kind of puts conks in a bind, doesn't it?CAA Flagship wrote: Career path suddenly comes to an end.
It's a shame.
CAA Flagship wrote:A victim.dbackjon wrote:
If Obama is a failure, what do you call Dubya? The Titanic of Presidents?
Two main things: Bill Clinton's failure to take out Bin Laden and Alan Greenspan's involvement in the financial crisis.
Close - I was less worried about the age than about his getting punched in the head every day for five years..ASUG8 wrote:You're probably one of the ones who had a problem with McCain being too old for president in 2008.houndawg wrote:
I'm still feeling the Bern. Remember who it was that told you last year that Bernie was a bigger problem for Hillary than everybody thought.
The conks haven't even begun to ramp up the sniveling about Benghazi yet. And Cruz is going to have problems with his questionable citizenship whether he's qualified to run or not. Smear those two real well and we get down to Bernie and the Donald. The Donald can beat Hillary but Bernie beats the Donald like Baldy's meat at a cub scout party.
Today? Cloudy.dbackjon wrote:CAA Flagship wrote: A victim.
Two main things: Bill Clinton's failure to take out Bin Laden and Alan Greenspan's involvement in the financial crisis.
Is the sky blue in your world like it is in the real world?
Precisely what I stated earlier. Act a fool now, get fooled in 2017. If I'm Hillary, I just throw one flaming liberal after another through the nomination process and watch public opinion polls of the GOP start flatlining.SDHornet wrote:Interesting play with how Obama will handle the nominee process. I agree with houndie that Obama is going to make the conks feel some pain with some politically motivated nominations that will get ignored/shut down by the Senate and thus provide plenty of fodder leading up to the election.
I disagree with Jon bitching about the Senate not doing it's job. As Harry Reid (correctly) pointed out at the end of dubya's term that the Senate has the Constitutional right to reject/disapprove SCOTUS nominations, the Senate can very well do the same thing now...problem is conks are betting the house...er the SC make-up of the Justices on the general election. Instead of using what limited leverage they have now and settling on a Justice they can live with, they are risking the next 3 Justices being selected by hilldog. I think they will regret this move in the long run.
There's zero chance of that happening- the whole Sandoval thing is being floated just to gauge republican senate reaction on the no approval of nominee stance in 2016. He won't be the nominee. Obama will only nominate a lefty..93henfan wrote:Precisely what I stated earlier. Act a fool now, get fooled in 2017. If I'm Hillary, I just throw one flaming liberal after another through the nomination process and watch public opinion polls of the GOP start flatlining.SDHornet wrote:Interesting play with how Obama will handle the nominee process. I agree with houndie that Obama is going to make the conks feel some pain with some politically motivated nominations that will get ignored/shut down by the Senate and thus provide plenty of fodder leading up to the election.
I disagree with Jon bitching about the Senate not doing it's job. As Harry Reid (correctly) pointed out at the end of dubya's term that the Senate has the Constitutional right to reject/disapprove SCOTUS nominations, the Senate can very well do the same thing now...problem is conks are betting the house...er the SC make-up of the Justices on the general election. Instead of using what limited leverage they have now and settling on a Justice they can live with, they are risking the next 3 Justices being selected by hilldog. I think they will regret this move in the long run.
Or, the GOP can just suck it up and at least get a moderate through on Obama's watch.
If the Republicans keep control of the Senate, why approve a Hillary nominee either? It's their right after all. Just keep the court at 4-4, let the cases get kicked back to the lower courts and wait until a true constructionist gets elected president.93henfan wrote:Precisely what I stated earlier. Act a fool now, get fooled in 2017. If I'm Hillary, I just throw one flaming liberal after another through the nomination process and watch public opinion polls of the GOP start flatlining.SDHornet wrote:Interesting play with how Obama will handle the nominee process. I agree with houndie that Obama is going to make the conks feel some pain with some politically motivated nominations that will get ignored/shut down by the Senate and thus provide plenty of fodder leading up to the election.
I disagree with Jon bitching about the Senate not doing it's job. As Harry Reid (correctly) pointed out at the end of dubya's term that the Senate has the Constitutional right to reject/disapprove SCOTUS nominations, the Senate can very well do the same thing now...problem is conks are betting the house...er the SC make-up of the Justices on the general election. Instead of using what limited leverage they have now and settling on a Justice they can live with, they are risking the next 3 Justices being selected by hilldog. I think they will regret this move in the long run.
Or, the GOP can just suck it up and at least get a moderate through on Obama's watch.
Ha. Good one!CID1990 wrote:Elizabeth Warren?houndawg wrote:Looks like the first nominee up is a Native American female.
Told ya..
Sadly, you may be right on that. Why would the GOP Congress care about public opinion polls when those polls already show today a flatlined, completely negative view of the GOP Congress? Can public opinion polls get worse? And do the public opinion polls really matter when the same public goes out and votes the GOP into power in the Congress as they have done consistently over the past 8 years? Remember, the GOP has had a crappy time of it in public opinion polls since even before Obama came into office, and yet the public has voted them into an historic control of every level of government other than the Presidency.kalm wrote:If the Republicans keep control of the Senate, why approve a Hillary nominee either? It's their right after all. Just keep the court at 4-4, let the cases get kicked back to the lower courts and wait until a true constructionist gets elected president.93henfan wrote:
Precisely what I stated earlier. Act a fool now, get fooled in 2017. If I'm Hillary, I just throw one flaming liberal after another through the nomination process and watch public opinion polls of the GOP start flatlining.
Or, the GOP can just suck it up and at least get a moderate through on Obama's watch.
Which speaks volumes about the DNC.GannonFan wrote:Sadly, you may be right on that. Why would the GOP Congress care about public opinion polls when those polls already show today a flatlined, completely negative view of the GOP Congress? Can public opinion polls get worse? And do the public opinion polls really matter when the same public goes out and votes the GOP into power in the Congress as they have done consistently over the past 8 years? Remember, the GOP has had a crappy time of it in public opinion polls since even before Obama came into office, and yet the public has voted them into an historic control of every level of government other than the Presidency.kalm wrote:
If the Republicans keep control of the Senate, why approve a Hillary nominee either? It's their right after all. Just keep the court at 4-4, let the cases get kicked back to the lower courts and wait until a true constructionist gets elected president.
Heck, I think it speaks volumes about the American public, especially the segment that votes. It's funny, when you hear average people talk about Trump they are all horrified and aghast that he's doing as well as he's doing, and you hear that this will be an embarrassment to America if he wins. Heck, I think the reason Trump is winning (and you can say why the GOP has won as much as they have) is that Trump really reflects much of what America really is - brash, loud, opinionated, and not really concerned all that much with facts. People love Trump because they love the devil-may-care attitude. It resonates with them. People don't care as much about what politicians say as long as they say it loud and say it confidently. It truly is American, for better or for worse.kalm wrote:Which speaks volumes about the DNC.GannonFan wrote:
Sadly, you may be right on that. Why would the GOP Congress care about public opinion polls when those polls already show today a flatlined, completely negative view of the GOP Congress? Can public opinion polls get worse? And do the public opinion polls really matter when the same public goes out and votes the GOP into power in the Congress as they have done consistently over the past 8 years? Remember, the GOP has had a crappy time of it in public opinion polls since even before Obama came into office, and yet the public has voted them into an historic control of every level of government other than the Presidency.
