Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Feb 2016, 8:58 pm

All this discussion about the Magna Carta is very interesting.

Thank you all for the information. However, what do you all think of the Biden and Schumer hypocrisy concerning Supreme Court appointments?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-the-schumerbiden-test-20160226-story.html
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Feb 2016, 9:22 pm

Schumer's position was different than the current Republicans. He basically said that Democrats should not approve Bush nominees who were not mainstream. He did not say he would not approve any nominees (and said nothing about not holding a hearing to consider them), just not ones that were too conservative. Yes, he assumed that Bush would propose extreme nominees but never said he would not even consider them.That lies within the acceptable range of views. Biden's statement was more problematic but it was a hypothetical. Whether he would have followed through with it is doubtful. Moreover, these are isolated statements from two Democrats who would have had to convince the rest of the Democratic Party to go along with their ideas. The Republican Party is acting as a unified bloc on this.

Apples and Oranges...where Republicans crossed the line was to say they were not going to hold hearings on any Obama nominee.

Now if this occurred after the first week of November Republicans would have a much stronger argument. Perhaps even close to that. But this is too far out.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Feb 2016, 10:19 pm

Weren't Schumer's comments 583 days out?

I am fine with Obama nominating. He should.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Feb 2016, 10:57 pm

And Republicans can try to knock them all down. They just can't prejudge the nominees ahead of time. The problem is, Republicans don't trust some members of the party not to vote to approve a well-qualified nominee. So McConnell threw down the gauntlet to try to avoid a hearing altogether or--since that is probably unavoidable I think--to box in any Republican thinking of voting for an Obama nominee.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Feb 2016, 7:17 am

bbauska wrote:Weren't Schumer's comments 583 days out?
You did read what Freeman said about the difference being Schumer was saying was not

"Democrats should block any and all nominations, let alone should not even consider them."

Which is more significant.

I am fine with Obama nominating. He should.
I agree. For a laugh he should nominate himself and we can watch everyone's head explode.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 29 Feb 2016, 7:20 am

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:Weren't Schumer's comments 583 days out?
You did read what Freeman said about the difference being Schumer was saying was not

"Democrats should block any and all nominations, let alone should not even consider them."

Which is more significant.

I am fine with Obama nominating. He should.
I agree. For a laugh he should nominate himself and we can watch everyone's head explode.


Yes, I did.

Self nomination would be funny and predictable.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Mar 2016, 2:10 pm

bbauska wrote:Self nomination would be funny and predictable.


It would be the perfect capstone to his presidency. No President can top my main man Barry for being self-absorbed.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 02 Mar 2016, 12:34 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
bbauska wrote:Self nomination would be funny and predictable.


It would be the perfect capstone to his presidency. No President can top my main man Barry for being self-absorbed.

Then again, he pales against those others who are obsessed with him :grin:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Mar 2016, 10:20 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
bbauska wrote:Self nomination would be funny and predictable.


It would be the perfect capstone to his presidency. No President can top my main man Barry for being self-absorbed.

Then again, he pales against those others who are obsessed with him :grin:


Nah, I can't spend all day admiring myself in the mirror. Only he can do that. He makes Narcissus seem self-effacing. He makes Trump seem humble. He makes Putin seem selfless and thoughtful.

Obama thought "OTV" about him.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 16 Mar 2016, 12:30 pm

So what do we think of the nominee ? I obviously don't know the first thing about him, but from what I've read Garland is about the best the Republicans could ever expect to come from a Democratic President. Do they go for broke and hope that Trump gets elected and nominates somebody more palatable (a double gamble in that respect of course) or do they figure this is better than risking Hillary getting elected and nominating somebody more liberal ?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Mar 2016, 12:47 pm

Sassenach wrote:So what do we think of the nominee ? I obviously don't know the first thing about him, but from what I've read Garland is about the best the Republicans could ever expect to come from a Democratic President. Do they go for broke and hope that Trump gets elected and nominates somebody more palatable (a double gamble in that respect of course) or do they figure this is better than risking Hillary getting elected and nominating somebody more liberal ?


If they expect to have any credibility, they'll hold fast.

My expectation: they'll crumble sometime before the election.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 16 Mar 2016, 12:49 pm

Sassenach wrote:So what do we think of the nominee ? I obviously don't know the first thing about him, but from what I've read Garland is about the best the Republicans could ever expect to come from a Democratic President. Do they go for broke and hope that Trump gets elected and nominates somebody more palatable (a double gamble in that respect of course) or do they figure this is better than risking Hillary getting elected and nominating somebody more liberal ?


Yeah, he's a strong nominee, and relatively moderate ... based on what they say, the Republicans will continue to act some weird kind of crazy ... what's that disease where mice have their brains infected so that they purposefully get caught by cats?

(cross posted with Dr. Fate -- enjoy the contrast)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Mar 2016, 12:58 pm

Ray Jay wrote:
Sassenach wrote:So what do we think of the nominee ? I obviously don't know the first thing about him, but from what I've read Garland is about the best the Republicans could ever expect to come from a Democratic President. Do they go for broke and hope that Trump gets elected and nominates somebody more palatable (a double gamble in that respect of course) or do they figure this is better than risking Hillary getting elected and nominating somebody more liberal ?


Yeah, he's a strong nominee, and relatively moderate ... based on what they say, the Republicans will continue to act some weird kind of crazy ... what's that disease where mice have their brains infected so that they purposefully get caught by cats?

(cross posted with Dr. Fate -- enjoy the contrast)


This:

I repeat that I have very high regard for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland’s intellect and decency, and, at the risk of engaging in the soft bigotry of low expectations, I think that he’s as good a nominee as anyone President Obama might plausibly have selected. That said, I believe that Garland would move the Court markedly to the Left and that Senate Republicans should and must adhere to their position that no nominee should receive Senate consideration before the election. If Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is elected president in November, the Senate could then proceed to act on the Garland nomination.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 16 Mar 2016, 12:59 pm

I suppose the more interesting question is what's in it for Garland ? On the face of things he's just signed up to months of vitriolic attack with no real prospect of actually becoming a Supreme Court justice at the end of it all. He must see things differently though. Perhaps he's calculating that either the Senate will back down once it becomes obvious that Trump will be the nominee or that Hillary will honour Obama's pick if she comes to power, both of which are possible.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Mar 2016, 2:07 pm

fate
If they expect to have any credibility, they'll hold fast.


yes they certainly want to maintain their credibility as it will help them maintain their high approval rating.


http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm