Posted on Mar 16, 2016
4
4
0
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/03/16/Obama-nominates-Merrick-Garland-to-Supreme-Court/ [login to see] 542/?spt=rln&or=3
It seems that President Obama has called the Republican's on their stance.
Whether the GOP Senators fold, call, or raise is going to be interesting (and leave the Democrats lots of time to get the maximum electioneering benefit out of it).
It seems that President Obama has called the Republican's on their stance.
Whether the GOP Senators fold, call, or raise is going to be interesting (and leave the Democrats lots of time to get the maximum electioneering benefit out of it).
Merrick Garland: Supreme Court nomination 'greatest honor of my life'
Posted from upi.com
Election 2016
Politics
Supreme Court
Barack Obama
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 9
2
2
0
What I find interesting is what is playing out is a game of "what is better a bird in the hand or two in the bush"; the Senators are willing to gamble on a possible GOP president selecting a potential GOP minded Supreme Court Judge.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
CPT Pedro Meza they are concerned it will either be Donald Trump (whom their own advertising is attacking) or Hillary Clinton who would be choosing. They are afraid that either way it will not be a GOP friendly nomination.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
CPT Pedro Meza - Control of the Senate is also up for grabs this year. So this could go real south with the GOP losing presidential and Senate races or they can win big gain and keep control of both and choose someone they prefer next year. This is risking a safe fold in hopes of a better hand later for a big win later, knowing the risk of busting out completely.
(2)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT (Join to see) - that is one hell of a gamble, which only points out it is not about the nation, it all about the game.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Okay, this is my take. Hold the hearings and vote on the qualifications of the nominee.
It IS the president's job to nominate and he has. It is the Senate's job to confirm or deny. Do THAT. Do not just advocate you job for the sake of playing politics.
It IS the president's job to nominate and he has. It is the Senate's job to confirm or deny. Do THAT. Do not just advocate you job for the sake of playing politics.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Jean (John) F. B. - Colonel; Fair enough. And, naturally, you opposed the Republican position when the Republican position was that they WERE required to hold hearings. Right?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Jean (John) F. B. - Colonel; My apologies. I didn't realize that you supported the Republican position when the Republican position was that they WERE required to hold hearings AND that you now support the Republican position when the Republican position was that they WERE NOT required to hold hearings.
I thought that you were being inconsistent, but I see that I was wrong and that you support the Republican position NOW regardless of what it was THEN.
I thought that you were being inconsistent, but I see that I was wrong and that you support the Republican position NOW regardless of what it was THEN.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
COL Ted Mc And, already, the hypocrite Democrats and their lapdog presstitutes are decrying the Republican refusal to conduct a hearing to confirm this liberal anti-gun judge. Never mind that it is the same action taken by the Democrats in a similar situation.
Yes, the hypocrites will play this up as a great injustice, with the full support of the liberal press.
Yes, the hypocrites will play this up as a great injustice, with the full support of the liberal press.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Jean (John) F. B. - Colonel; You keep on saying " Liberals just can't stand it when the Republicans do the same thing the Democrats (Harry Reid) did when they controlled the Senate ..." and yet you just as consistently keep on failing to produce any evidence that the Democrats have flat up REFUSED TO EVEN HOLD HEARINGS to consider whether a nominee's name should be submitted to the Senate for confirmation.
For some reason you seem to believe that holding hearings and then voting against confirmation is the same thing as refusing to hold hearings and thus refusing to allow the Senators to vote on the confirmation.
Possibly if you consider the fact that if you allow a candidate's name to go forward for a vote you might lose while if you do not allow a candidate's name to go forward then you will win - even if there are 99 Senators prepared to vote in favor of the confirmation - you might recognize the difference between "democratic opposition" and "totalitarianism".
You are, however, correct when you say that there is no "constitutional requirement for the Senate to hold hearings". In fact the Senate could totally refuse to hold any hearings, on any matter, whatsoever and leave the United States of America with an "Executive Branch" that consists of two people. [Unless, of course, the Senate refused to certify the Electoral College vote - in which case the Senate could completely dispense with the "Executive Branch" (as contemplated) and make the Speaker of the House of Representatives the President of the United States of America.]
For some reason you seem to believe that holding hearings and then voting against confirmation is the same thing as refusing to hold hearings and thus refusing to allow the Senators to vote on the confirmation.
Possibly if you consider the fact that if you allow a candidate's name to go forward for a vote you might lose while if you do not allow a candidate's name to go forward then you will win - even if there are 99 Senators prepared to vote in favor of the confirmation - you might recognize the difference between "democratic opposition" and "totalitarianism".
You are, however, correct when you say that there is no "constitutional requirement for the Senate to hold hearings". In fact the Senate could totally refuse to hold any hearings, on any matter, whatsoever and leave the United States of America with an "Executive Branch" that consists of two people. [Unless, of course, the Senate refused to certify the Electoral College vote - in which case the Senate could completely dispense with the "Executive Branch" (as contemplated) and make the Speaker of the House of Representatives the President of the United States of America.]
(2)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
COL Ted Mc Don't tell me that I have to list all the times that Harry Reid refused to allow things to be taken up by the Senate. This is no different.
The libtards can cry all they want... They are simply getting the same treatment that Harry Reid and the Democrats dished out. The hypocrites don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Too damn bad... They are really going to hate it when we have a Republican President and control both the Senate and the House.
There is absolutely no requirement for the Senate to hold hearing, have a vote, etc. If I was Mitch McConnell, I'd schedule a hearing in February 2017 and tell them to shut up. After all, Obama waited until after two rounds of golf, several fundraisers, and a trip to a festival to nominate an anti-gun judge. He was in no hurry, so why should the Senate be?
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/16/wapo-three-pinocchios-for-declaring-senates-constitutional-duty-to-vote-on-garland/?utm_source=hadaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
The libtards can cry all they want... They are simply getting the same treatment that Harry Reid and the Democrats dished out. The hypocrites don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot. Too damn bad... They are really going to hate it when we have a Republican President and control both the Senate and the House.
There is absolutely no requirement for the Senate to hold hearing, have a vote, etc. If I was Mitch McConnell, I'd schedule a hearing in February 2017 and tell them to shut up. After all, Obama waited until after two rounds of golf, several fundraisers, and a trip to a festival to nominate an anti-gun judge. He was in no hurry, so why should the Senate be?
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/16/wapo-three-pinocchios-for-declaring-senates-constitutional-duty-to-vote-on-garland/?utm_source=hadaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google