America will tilt left for years to come

christiefan915 said:
That's just sick, holding the poor guy hostage for partisan reasons. However, seven senators said they'd be willing to meet with him: Grassley, Kirk, Ayotte, Flake, Collins, Inhofe and Portman.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/republicans-scotus-nom-flake-inhofe-kirk-ayotte
Click to expand...

Nominees get held up all the time for partisan reasons. Nothing new about that. What they had said prior is they wouldn't even give him a chance to come up for a vote. In this scenario maybe he goes through the q&a process on the Senate floor and then they wait until the election results.

I'm not saying this is what they are going to do, I just read it as a possible scenario.
 
cawacko said:
Nominees get held up all the time for partisan reasons. Nothing new about that. What they had said prior is they wouldn't even give him a chance to come up for a vote. In this scenario maybe he goes through the q&a process on the Senate floor and then they wait until the election results.

I'm not saying this is what they are going to do, I just read it as a possible scenario.
Click to expand...

None of those others were asked to put their futures on hold for seven or more months, either. And even if Hil wins that's no guarantee she would want Garland for the job. Maybe she'd have another person in mind.
 
Thing1 said:
She's the worst kind of intolerant liberal.

There are hacks like that on both sides, and it's so unhealthy for the country. Like quite a few old timers that I know, I get really nostalgic about the "old days." I remember when Reagan & Tip O'Neil set the tone, and actually exchanged ideas respectfully and reached effective compromise. People could talk politics back then without being shouted down.
Click to expand...

Tip O'Neil was a pussy who let conservative Republicans walk all over him and ram the conservative revolution down America's throat. God knows how much damage that evil man did to our country. Of course Reagan loved him, Tip O'Neill was Reagan's bitch.
 
christiefan915 said:
None of those others were asked to put their futures on hold for seven or more months, either. And even if Hil wins that's no guarantee she would want Garland for the job. Maybe she'd have another person in mind.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm explaining this clearly. Obama has already nominated this guy. If Hillary wins in Nov. Obama can't un nominate him. A vote on him would be taken in November or December in this scenario.
 
cawacko said:
I don't think I'm explaining this clearly. Obama has already nominated this guy. If Hillary wins in Nov. Obama can't un nominate him. A vote on him would be taken in November or December in this scenario.
Click to expand...

Okay, got it. If Hil wins repubs can still vote no on him. And if they do, she can pick someone else that she likes. Right?

Seems like a big gamble, but that's because I don't believe Trump can win in the general.
 
christiefan915 said:
Okay, got it. If Hil wins repubs can still vote no on him. And if they do, she can pick someone else that she likes. Right?

Seems like a big gamble, but that's because I don't believe Trump can win in the general.
Click to expand...
The strategy as I understand it would be to vote and confirm him as the nominee (in November or December) if Hillary wins.

If Hillary wins, and the Republicans vote this guy down then Hillary will get her own pick. Baring some unknown information I have no idea why Republicans would do that as Hillary would clearly pick someone more liberal.
 
Thing1 said:
I meant in terms of continuing on a more left-wing path. Hillary will be slightly more centrist than Obama was - but she won't do much about spending or the debt. The biggest impact of a Hillary Presidency will be w/ the court. It might be the most liberal court in modern history by the end of her term.
Click to expand...
I pretty much concur with what you are saying except the court. I think Hillary will by and large support the status quo. I also think she'll be a one term President. The public is too restless for maintaining the status quo but isn't about to elect a loose cannon plutocrat or another right wing Texan. Assuming Hillary is elected, and the odds right now are something like 3:1 in her favor the Senate will give Merrick a real quick confirmation. If I know my GOP Senate I know that as much as they hate Barry, they hate Hillary even more. Merrick is a technocrat, he's not a politician. So if a Dem wins the POTUS election, as looks likely, Merrick will be confirmed. If a Republican wins he's screwed.

Given the age distribution and the frequency a President replaces a justice (about once per four year term) Hilliary will probably only get one opportunity to nominate a SCOTUS Justice. More than likely, she'd be replacing a Democrat. Probably Ginsberg. So who knows?

Hell Merrick being confirmed will be a significant swing in the courts balance of power.

However Barry could upset the apple cart if Hillary wins by pulling his nomination. I bet the GOP Senators would cry foul if he did that. LOL
 
Thing1 said:
You know what? You should care about that a bit more, if you care about racism.

Calling every other person a racist dilutes the term, and makes it almost meaningless. If you think racism is a serious issue - you should take it seriously when someone uses that term.

Racism makes me sick. Desh calling just about everyone a racist makes it seem like nothing.
Click to expand...

Again why do you pay attention to her?
 
christiefan915 said:
We lived without such a law for over 200 years.
Click to expand...

I'd have to look, but I seriously doubt campaign financing limits (or lack of) has been much of a Congressional concern.
I think it started in the 1970's or so.

And I'm all in for public financing - but I do understand trying to find a Constitutional limit on "money=political speech"
is a fools game.. it keeps shifting because there is no way to define it.
 
cawacko said:
No, that's a facile answer. Raising taxes won't get us out of our current deficit let alone touch the national debt.
Click to expand...
It was an example Wacko. I'm just saying we would just have to make some hard choices but don't have the political will to do so. The US tax rate to GDP ratio is like 54th in the world at 27%. So taxes alone may not get us out of these difficulties but it may damned well be part of the solution and we can definitely afford modest tax increases and yea it will be painful to those of us who will pay for it.

Before we can do anything or make any compromises that will solve these problems the people will need to have the will for political change.
 
cawacko said:
He's anti-gun. Heller will be overturned if he's on the court and that's what the nomination battle will most likely be over. (from my brief reading of the situation)
Click to expand...
How do you know he's anti-gun or is this a knee jerk that would be said about any Obama nominee? Besides....if Heller being over turned is all you have to worry about take a deep breath...it could be a hell of a lot worse.

Think about this scenario. Hillary wins in November. The day after President Obama withdraws Merrick and nominates Elizabeth Warren. Hillary makes it clear that if left to her she will nominate Bernie Sanders. Merrick starts looking a whole lot better, doesn't he? :)

Now it's possible that Cruz or Trump could win....but the odds are against them.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
How do you know he's anti-gun or is this a knee jerk that would be said about any Obama nominee? Besides....if Heller being over turned is all you have to worry about take a deep breath...it could be a hell of a lot worse.

Think about this scenario. Hillary wins in November. The day after President Obama withdraws Merrick and nominates Elizabeth Warren. Hillary makes it clear that if left to her she will nominate Bernie Sanders. Merrick starts looking a whole lot better, doesn't he? :)

Now it's possible that Cruz or Trump could win....but the odds are against them.
Click to expand...

I know nothing about the guy other than what I've read today. Anti-gun is what I've seen others say.
 
leaningright said:
2nd amendment. About the only thing that remains for the SC to rule against the way I believe. And they will now ... eventually if not sooner.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have the least to worry about in that score. I mean when West Virginia makes it legal to carry a concealed weapon with out a permit (read: no training), than current gun rights aren't going away any time soon. Not unless they want a real shit storm.

Besides, do you know anything on his track record on guns?

I mean I like Merrick. He prosecuted Tim McVeigh's ass and had him executed. Hell I'm a death penalty opponent and I like that. Anyone who could get Tim McVeigh executed can't be all bad. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top