Reply With Quote
No, you seem to be fine with the obstruction now. Is there an actual period of time you wouldn't be fine with putting off a SCOTUS appointment.
1 full calendar year?
2?
TBD November 8th.
No, you seem to be fine with the obstruction now. Is there an actual period of time you wouldn't be fine with putting off a SCOTUS appointment.
1 full calendar year?
2?
The longest vacancy on the Supreme Court was 27 months between the Tyler and Polk administrations - also holds the distinction of a record eight nominees rejected or withdrawn. See Trump's advice - delay, delay, delay- if not for the death of a human being and from all accounts a brilliant mind, this situation is a soap opera. Both sides are laughable - one politicizing and the other hypocritical (like they wouldn't do the same exact thing).
Depends what happens on Nov 8th. Two years would be too long.
18 months then?
The candidate I most agree with is probably Carson (likable [unlike Cruz], conservative, common sense - not too wed to ideology) but unelectable. I'm willing to forego conservatism in the hope that Trump can bring back the jobs - that's the best cure for all our ills.I took a facebook quiz to see which candidate I most agreed with...it was Trump #1 and Paul #2
Why are you crying delay delay delay before you even see a nominee?The longest vacancy on the Supreme Court was 27 months between the Tyler and Polk administrations - also holds the distinction of a record eight nominees rejected or withdrawn. See Trump's advice - delay, delay, delay
It would be funny (in an ironic sort of way) if Obama nominated Ted Cruz.
I don't really believe the repubs should delay, delay, delay - meaning not consider any nominee. I think they should do their cons utional duty, consider but reject the very probable liberal judges Obama is going to nominate. But the way the repubs are that's taking a big chance - some are sure to buckle and vote with the dems - either cut some deal or no backbone.
Or he could nominate someone that both sides could agree on - that a middle of the road judge is replacing a staunch conservative like Scalia is a shift (to the left) in the SC.
Calling for outright rejection of nominees you dont even know the iden ies of kinda sounds like delay delay delay to me. At the top of most people's list is a pro business moderate, Sri Srinivasan, whose appointment to the District Court was confirmed by the senate only a few years ago at a whopping 97-0.
I believe Schummer was at 18 months when Bush was in office with respect to when a president should no longer be able to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court. My feeling is that at any point during the presidency the president should be able to nominate and within 120 - 180 days you have an up or down vote. 4 to 6 months for a lifetime appointment does not seem unreasonable.
I'd venture a guess that such a candidate does not exist. If they aren't anti-abortion climate change denialists, then the Republicans are going to paint them left of Marx.
Holy
Ayn Rand Paul: It’s A ‘Conflict Of Interest’ For Obama To Nominate A Supreme Court Justice
the former Republican presidential candidate said he would likely oppose any Obama pick for the Supreme Court, because he believes Obama has too many of his own policies at stake before the high court — his executive actions on immigration and climate change regulations,
“The president has said he has the power basically to create immigration law out of nothing,”
“He says he has the power to basically cripple entire industries like coal without ever having been given that power by Congress.
So see, we have a Cons utional debate on whose powers is it, the president or Congress?
And I think the president sort of has a conflict of interest here in appointing somebody while we’re trying to decide whether or not he’s usurped power.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...obama-nominee/
That would be a brilliant move. Nominate Cruz, republicans say ok we won't block him, Obama withdraws the nomination.
Um, you do know that Obama is president until January 20, 2017, right?
Cruz would be the nightmare for dems just like Eric Holder would be for the right. I wonder if he would give up a possible presidential run for a sure SC appointment - will never happen, of course.
Carson is a conspira creationist.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-cons...-introduction/
The world is now a-BuzzFeed with the discovery of a video from 1998, in which Dr. Ben Carson opined that the pyramids of Egypt were really built as grain houses — not as majestic tombs for the kings. Carson made his case by citing the Bible — specifically the story from Genesis of Joseph advising the Pharaoh of his day to store up grain in order to prepare for seven years of famine.
The alternative, Carson said, was to listen to all those scientists who say the pyramids were built by aliens. As if there were no middle ground there.
1. Barack Obama Is Part Of The Communist Conspiracy To Bring Down America
In 2014, Carson declared that President Obama and then-Attorney General Eric Holder were acting out roles in a decades-long communist conspiracy to subvert America.
In doing so, he cited a book from the 1950s by fringe right-wing conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist.2. The Theory Of Evolution Came From The Devil
In a 2011 speech to a church group, Carson declared: “I personally believe that this theory, that Darwin came up with, was something that was encouraged by the Adversary.”LOL at anyone being suckered into thinking Trump can reverse trillion dollar global capital flows by fiat.3. Gay Rights Is A Communist Plot — And Men In Prison Prove That sexuality Is A Choice
In a 2014 speech to the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, Carson again referenced the aforementioned Cleon Skousen — and said that “neo-Marxists” had “systematically attacked” the family in order to bring down the United States
...
“Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight, and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question,” Carson said.
Yes — “something” did happen to them in there. In addition to sexual assault, which is rampant in prisons, there is also what is referred to as “situational sexuality,” which occurs to men in prisons.
As a Democrat... please vote for either, because that pretty much locks the presidency for whichever Democrat gets the nod.
Sure. Keep thinking that.
Let's try a quick study in voting blocs, to see if your logic holds up to some minimal scrutiny.
You have a three person voting system. A, B, C.
A and C vote opposite on almost every vote.
Who really makes the decisions?
What the angry idiots on the right don't seem to grasp is that elections are won by pandering to the middle, which Cruz cannot, and will not do.
"A" will always vote for Democrats and "C" will always vote for Republicans. The low-info asshats in the middle pick, and Cruz is laughably unelectable for a national office on the basis that he is far too extremist, with easy sound bites and positions to paint him as a ravening lunatic.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-15-2016 at 05:27 PM.
do you really want to say that in public?
Seriously, you don't understand what I meant by that sentence?
Yes. But I wanted to be sure you yourself fully comprehended what you were saying. But I don't think tying the current presidents hands is worthwhile. I would think so even if there were a Republican in office.
A year plus is far too long to have one branch of the federal government impaired.
Yeah I'm sure if a lame duck Dubya would have had a chance to stack the court you would've been just fine with it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
