On the Supreme Court nomination...

[pastorjoeboggs]

Apparently one of the candidates Obama is considering for the nomination is Brian Sandoval, a Republican governor with a moderate record.

That would make for some interesting political gymnastics on the part of the Senate Republicans who are claiming they will refuse to even hold hearings.

 

[lbodel]

Apparently one of the candidates Obama is considering for the nomination is Brian Sandoval, a Republican governor with a moderate record.

That would make for some interesting political gymnastics on the part of the Senate Republicans who are claiming they will refuse to even hold hearings.

Not sure how serious it will be (the overall number of people vetted is obviously much more than just 3).

However, the early "favorites" were not exactly controversially liberal.

But make no mistake about it, Obama is the one with the cards to play and also has the loudest microphone in the nation, even as you get later in the year.

It's definitely an interesting situation with a lot of factors at play - not only is the White House up for grabs, but the Senate is very much so too.

 

[qazplm]

Apparently one of the candidates Obama is considering for the nomination is Brian Sandoval, a Republican governor with a moderate record.

That would make for some interesting political gymnastics on the part of the Senate Republicans who are claiming they will refuse to even hold hearings.

They've already said no deal on Sandoval. They are putting all their cards in the basket of winning the presidency.

 

[tigerchump]

They've already said no deal on Sandoval. They are putting all their cards in the basket of winning the presidency.

I wonder what the Senate will do if Hilary wins the White House and nominates Obama for the Court?

 

[qazplm]

I wonder what the Senate will do if Hilary wins the White House and nominates Obama for the Court?

It would probably create a naked singularity.

 

[TheCainer]

It would probably create a naked singularity.

Where

,

and where

, and

????

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I still think (hope) what they say and what they do end up being different if in fact he nominates someone like Sandoval. We'll see. Rhetoric is commonplace with this stuff... They haven't obstructed a thing (in this regard)... Yet.

 

[Purdue97]

I wonder what the Senate will do if Hilary wins the White House and nominates Obama for the Court?

That obviously would get filibustered. That said, not sure Obama wants that nomination right now. He has said he has other goals he wants to pursue with inner city youth. That, and not sure he really wants to go through a review/examination yet. He seems pretty tired of DC for time being. JMO

I will say if Sandoval is the nominee, the Republicans likely have to approve him. He is a Republican, second Amendment supporter, and holds a lot of main stream/common sense type views IMO. I think there is backlash if they stonewall him.

 

[qazplm]

I still think (hope) what they say and what they do end up being different if in fact he nominates someone like Sandoval. We'll see. Rhetoric is commonplace with this stuff... They haven't obstructed a thing (in this regard)... Yet.

You underestimate the extreme. He's pro-choice, and the whole TP/extreme right absolutely hates anything that reeks of compromise. They'd rather hold out for the IMO less than 50% but in their opinion highly probable chance that a republican is President next time around and they can keep the court conservative and possibly make it so conservative that Roe is overturned once a few of the older liberals leave.

They want another Scalia/Alito...not another Kennedy.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Apparently one of the candidates Obama is considering for the nomination is Brian Sandoval, a Republican governor with a moderate record.

That would make for some interesting political gymnastics on the part of the Senate Republicans who are claiming they will refuse to even hold hearings.

Let's see if wing-O-bama actually nominates Sandoval or he's just being a lying punk trying to look moderate.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

They've already said no deal on Sandoval. They are putting all their cards in the basket of winning the presidency.

Talk about presuppositions...

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Let's see if wing-O-bama actually nominates Sandoval or he's just being a lying punk trying to look moderate.

I think there's a 90% chance he nominates a moderate and not a liberal. There's no point to doing anything else and he knows that.

You underestimate the extreme. He's pro-choice, and the whole TP/extreme right absolutely hates anything that reeks of compromise. They'd rather hold out for the IMO less than 50% but in their opinion highly probable chance that a republican is President...

Yep, I get it. As I said, I still think (HOPE) (I think you missed that part...)...

Since all they need for confirmation is a simple majority, I'd bet they can find five or six Senators to swing the vote in the event he nominates a moderate.

 

[qazplm]

I think there's a 90% chance he nominates a moderate and not a liberal. There's no point to doing anything else and he knows that.

Yep, I get it. As I said, I still think (HOPE) (I think you missed that part...)...

Since all they need for confirmation is a simple majority, I'd bet they can find five or six Senators to swing the vote in the event he nominates a moderate.

Has to get out of committee first. He floated Sandoval, they said no...that's as far right as ANYONE could reasonably expect a Dem to pick, and they've already said they won't even hold hearings on it.

Here's what I don't get from a political point. Hold hearings at least. It's one thing to block any candidate out of the committee, that's inside baseball stuff some folks might not get.

But to say, even if you nominate a republican, we won't even have hearings? The average Joe is going to think that's ridiculous. You could accomplish the same effect (no Obama nominees ever again) in a significantly less ham-handed way, but, because of the influence of the far right, they won't even do that.

And thus why I say you underestimate them, hope or otherwise.

 

[qazplm]

Talk about presuppositions...

Presuppositions on what?

They absolutely have already said no to Sandoval. And if a Dem President just talking about nominating a Republican gets an immediate no way, not even a hearing...then what you are saying is...unless you resurrect Scalia and renominate him, we ain't having a hearing.

The only logical reason to do that...to risk your vulnerable purple/blue state senators up for re-election...is because you hope/think that you will win the presidency.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Has to get out of committee first. He floated Sandoval, they said no...that's as far right as ANYONE could reasonably expect a Dem to pick, and they've already said they won't even hold hearings on it.

Here's what I don't get from a political point. Hold hearings at least. It's one thing to block any candidate out of the committee, that's inside baseball stuff some folks might not get.

Again with this. It's all rhetoric until they DO something. Sandoval pulled his name out anyway. Obama has not formally nominated someone. When he does, we can and should have this discussion. Until then, it's politics as usual.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Again with this. It's all rhetoric until they DO something. Sandoval pulled his name out anyway. Obama has not formally nominated someone. When he does, we can and should have this discussion. Until then, it's politics as usual.

Thank you...qazplm, you need help man. I was not aware Sandoval pulled his name out. That is disappointing. I thought he was a fair pick. There's another moderate in the DC court system I've heard rumblings about that I think would be a good choice.

 

[LCBrasefield]

I wonder what the Senate will do if Hilary wins the White House and nominates Obama for the Court?

[URL=http://media.photobucket.com/user/audiodoode/media/Obammy/Urkel.gif.html][/URL]
He would give the right gravitas

 

[qazplm]

Again with this. It's all rhetoric until they DO something. Sandoval pulled his name out anyway. Obama has not formally nominated someone. When he does, we can and should have this discussion. Until then, it's politics as usual.

Yes we get it...more of this they all do all the same things shoulder shrugging that isn't remotely true. I get it, you are tired of "politics." But making statements like "we aren't going to even have hearings, even if it's Sandoval" isn't simply meaningless "rhetoric." It has more meaning then you are trying to tie to it. And EVEN if it didn't, I wasn't making a "this isn't right" point, nor was I making a "this isn't fair" point. I was making a POLITICAL point. I was literally making a point about the tactical and strategic political mistake of saying that and the impact it will have in driving public opinion. so commenting on it as "rhetoric" completely misses the point.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Yes we get it...more of this they all do all the same things shoulder shrugging that isn't remotely true. I get it, you are tired of "politics." But making statements like "we aren't going to even have hearings, even if it's Sandoval" isn't simply meaningless "rhetoric." It has more meaning then you are trying to tie to it. And EVEN if it didn't, I wasn't making a "this isn't right" point, nor was I making a "this isn't fair" point. I was making a POLITICAL point. I was literally making a point about the tactical and strategic political mistake of saying that and the impact it will have in driving public opinion. so commenting on it as "rhetoric" completely misses the point.

Rhetoric, by definition, is meant to make a point, political or otherwise. they don't want Obama to appoint someone and are applying what little political pressure they that end. We all know it is meaningless and he's going to nominate someone anyway, but they are posturing for their base and bringing the issue to the front for the election. I don't understand why it's a big deal at all that they are opposing a president who is of another party. That is politics as usual. Sorry.

 

[qazplm]

Rhetoric, by definition, is meant to make a point, political or otherwise. they don't want Obama to appoint someone and are applying what little political pressure they that end. We all know it is meaningless and he's going to nominate someone anyway, but they are posturing for their base and bringing the issue to the front for the election. I don't understand why it's a big deal at all that they are opposing a president who is of another party. That is politics as usual. Sorry.

You think it is meaningless, plenty of folks don't agree, including folks who are persuadable one way or the other in the next election, which is my entire point.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

You think it is meaningless, plenty of folks don't agree, including folks who are persuadable one way or the other in the next election, which is my entire point.

Granted. So what? The election is 9 months away, and we don't even have candidates yet. If Obama nominates someone in March, and that person is vetted in due time, this isn't an issue come the election, regardless of what people are saying in February. Such a waste of time.

 

[qazplm]

Granted. So what?

lol you don't know the "so what?" Of course you know the so what. I'm discussing the tactical/strategic blunder of doing it the way they are doing it. If you don't care to discuss strategies/tactics, that's fine, but I do find it interesting.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

lol you don't know the "so what?" Of course you know the so what. I'm discussing the tactical/strategic blunder of doing it the way they are doing it. If you don't care to discuss strategies/tactics, that's fine, but I do find it interesting.

Added this after you saw it, apparently:

The election is 9 months away, and we don't even have candidates yet. If Obama nominates someone in March, and that person is vetted in due time, this isn't an issue come the election, regardless of what people are saying in February. Such a waste of time.

 

[qazplm]

Added this after you saw it, apparently:

The election is 9 months away, and we don't even have candidates yet. If Obama nominates someone in March, and that person is vetted in due time, this isn't an issue come the election, regardless of what people are saying in February. Such a waste of time.

Perceptions don't go away. If the perception now is that this dragged, then that's a perception that will drag on for some folks. If they end up caving anyways, then it's actually no better, then it REALLY looks like they were simply being silly. Again, I get it, you don't care about any of this stuff. But you think others don't care...and I think you are wrong...plenty of folks do care, and no I'm not just talking about liberals or democrats.

It's no different than the folly of waiting this long to hit Trump with attacks. It's close to too late. Trump's perceptions already have baked in components to it among those who want to vote for him...yet if these attacks from last night had happened earlier, and more frequently, those very same people might now be in a different place.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Perceptions don't go away. If the perception now is that this dragged, then that's a perception that will drag on for some folks. If they end up caving anyways, then it's actually no better, then it REALLY looks like they were simply being silly. Again, I get it, you don't care about any of this stuff. But you think others don't care...and I think you are wrong...plenty of folks do care, and no I'm not just talking about liberals or democrats.

It's no different than the folly of waiting this long to hit Trump with attacks. It's close to too late. Trump's perceptions already have baked in components to it among those who want to vote for him...yet if these attacks from last night had happened earlier, and more frequently, those very same people might now be in a different place.

I think plenty of people care. I see it on my Facebook feed. But those people that care, like those people judging Hillary on her email scandal, are already people of one mindset. Again, if they vet a nominee in due time, all the rhetoric is meaningless and those people who you think are swayed by words will likely recognize those actions. Democrats are going to be pissed no matter what, and Republicans are happy that they're stalling. Independents are more likely to go by what they do, not what they say, IMO. I think you're overestimating the impact of this because it favors your party to do so, just like you think I'm underestimating it for the same reason.

Now, I've repeatedly said my piece, so I'm out. If you've got something else to discuss, fine. Otherwise, I'm through wasting my time until there is (in)action to discuss.

 

[qazplm]

I think plenty of people care. I see it on my Facebook feed. But those people that care, like those people judging Hillary on her email scandal, are already people of one mindset. Again, if they vet a nominee in due time, all the rhetoric is meaningless and those people who you think are swayed by words will likely recognize those actions. Democrats are going to be pissed no matter what, and Republicans are happy that they're stalling. Independents are more likely to go by what they do, not what they say, IMO. I think you're overestimating the impact of this because it favors your party to do so, just like you think I'm underestimating it for the same reason.

Now, I've repeatedly said my piece, so I'm out. If you've got something else to discuss, fine. Otherwise, I'm through wasting my time until there is (in)action to discuss.

I'm not "over-estimating" anything. I said nothing about this determining the race by itself, or anything other than the unforced error involved by one side.