- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:53 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
He's pretty moderate, especially compared to Sotomayor. I was surprised Obama nominated him to be honest
It was a strategic choice to get him through in the last months of his presidency. A left wing ideologue like a Kagan, Sotomayor, or Ginsburg stood no chance. The strategy was a more pragmatic, less ideological, but left of center nominee would stand a better chance.
I was actually surprised the republicans had the backbone to still oppose.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:54 pm to Sao
quote:
Pawn?
How?
Obama and the DEMs knew with 100% certainty that one way or another, Garland was never sniffing the USSC. that's why they went with the "moderate" pick: optics. they thought this would gain traction. add that up to their arrogance about 2016 and they figured they'd just be able to nominate their real choice (a progressive like Kagan/Sontamayor)
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/15/23 at 4:56 am
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:55 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:More like extremely foolish question.
Honest question.
quote:
I am also good with Scalia being replaced by some ideologically similar.
quote:The predecessor is absolutely irrelevant. So your question depends on what you mean by viable. Garland is not a good option. All liberal justices have no interest in honest decisions, only activist "interpretations".
assuming it is one of the more liberal justices, is Garland not a viable option?
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
ADR, but your assessment doesn't jive whatsoever.
Simply, why not provide quorum to vote him down then?
You're trolling the uneducated.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
they had no plan B
Exactly, they had the roles completely reversed and they were counting the money.
Plans were ruined. Promises broken and the whining and shite is the result.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:56 pm to msutiger
if the GOP forces the nuclear option, all bets are off
even liberals on here like DS don't want that b/c he knows what will happen
even liberals on here like DS don't want that b/c he knows what will happen
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:57 pm to GeorgeWest
quote:
I don't think the Dems ever refused to have hearings or a vote on a nominee by a Republican POTUS
It has happened for decades. Nothing new. And both sides have done it.
My former boss at the DOJ was nominated by Clinton for the Court of Appeals in the last year of his term. He never received a hearing.
The Democrats do the same thing.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:58 pm to Sao
quote:
Simply, why not provide quorum to vote him down then?
they took a HUGE gamble that they'd win the longshot of the 2016 Presidential race
a vote is a record that could be used against them. denying a vote saves the group as a whole by protecting the individuals from potential election exposure
if forced into a corner, every Senator can go back home and say "i didn't want to block the nomination but i didn't make that decision" except Mitch
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Obama and the DEMs knew with 100% certainty that one way or another, Garland was never sniffing the USSC. that's why they went with the "moderate" pick: optics. they thought this would gain traction. add that up to their arrogance about 2016 and they figured they'd just be able to nominate their real choice (a progressive like Kagan/Sontamayor)
Bingo!!!!!
Exactly what happened. Their arrogance came back to bite them on the arse. They knew the GOP would block the nomination. Then they would go harder left under HRC and let the press eat the GOO alive.
One problem.
The golden haired king arrived......
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if the GOP forces the nuclear option, all bets are off
even liberals on here like DS don't want that b/c he knows what will happen
Agreed. If we are forced to go nuclear we have no choice but to lock down the court right now. Democrats will wreck shop whenever they have all three branches again (Which I don't see them having the senate anytime soon).
The nuclear option will change our government forever.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:00 pm to msutiger
if the nuclear option happens, the DEMs WILL pass a law when they have power to expand the court to 13-15 members
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
Which is absolutely horrifying
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:05 pm to Kafkas father
Looks like Obama had Scalia knocked off for nothing.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:05 pm to Ag Zwin
Garland is not as liberal as Kagan but he is as liberal as Breyer, which is to say liberal. Even if the Ginsburg or Kennedy seat comes up, the replacement should be a strict constructionist. Maybe you can't get someone as solid as Gorsuch in but you can do better than Garland.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:09 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Is Merrick Garland an objectionable nominee?
Merrick Garland is literally Hitler.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if the nuclear option happens, the DEMs WILL pass a law when they have power to expand the court to 13-15 members
By the time that happens, the dems will be in a bunker with a dead girlfriend and a pistol.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:12 pm to bamafan1001
quote:
Why would we nominate a leftist shill? I hope we nominate three Scalia clones
I don't think he is that, and I don't want a bunch of groupthink on the SC. I would want it to tilt conservative, but have a robust group of different thinkers.
I want the same in people who work for me. If all you have is people who all think the same, that's just dumb.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:15 pm to Ag Zwin
Elections have consequences
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News