Observer

Checks and balances don't relieve the government of the duty to fulfill its Constitutional obligations. The check is that the Senate must consent on the President's nominees. The obligation of nomination sits with the President and the obligation to advise and consent is on the Senate. The Constitution places an obligation on both the President and the Senate to work together to fill Supreme Court vacancies. There is no veto or majority or supermajority check/balance here. The President and Senate have a job to do. One of them can't just say, "I'm not doing it." The Republicans can play a procedural game of "we will not even hold a hearing" but it demonstrates a childishness that goes too far even for the Senate. Watching them do this will fire their base but alienate independents who would prefer to see a government where people work together to problem-solve. It's a stupid move politically. And it's a horrid move for people who would like to see a functioning government.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has often interpreted the Constitution as a living document whose words are subject to different interpretations based on the times. What can be done in the name of search and seizure is a lot more forgiving today than it was at the nation's founding.

They can advise him to each Cocoa Puffs for breakfast but the Constitution does not give them authority to advise the president on nomination. Nomination rests solely with the president. The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... Judges of the supreme Court whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law The "and" is critical there. The President nominates and the Senate advises and consents on the nomination in a diminished role to that of the President. Obama will nominate Sri or some other nominatable person and and the Senate Republicans will lose credibility while they don't do their jobs. The Republicans would have been smarter to put up a fight against each nominee rather than this petulant "take the ball and go home" approach to government.

So Biden and MConnell et al are all wrong. Using a procedural maneuver to block a president from appointing a Supreme Court Justice nomination by a sitting president is base politics, epsecially for a party that pretends to want to uphold the Constitution. "Advise and consent" does not mean "ignore and obstruct." Obama should nominate. The pick should be confirmed barring an exceptional issue arising. Congress has played games with court nominees at all levels for far too long.

Clinton is winning 500-70 in delegate count. Bernie is a footnote in this election but he's a media darling so he gets press.

I've not seen the national polling in the last week. As expected, the people dropping out are lining up precisely around the leading establishment candidates--Rubio flying upwards. That will continue. What will be interesting to see now is where the voters for the loser between Cruz and Trump shift to. We're a long ways off from seeing that resolution.

I have no problem with the dialog. This guy sounds like a clown "women should not be allowed to vote on the HOF ballot" is another of his lines--who is now getting his 15 minutes. No one will miss him.

Bruno Mars > Beyonce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The crappy white guys That's all I thought about it. I didn't even notice it until I saw this post. Now that I know that was what was intended, it was stupid but I'm getting over it by the time I hit submit.

How will Utica survive?

Wasn't Christie's criticism that Rubio speaks in pre-rehearsed speeches? Nothing in those articles counters that fact. I don't see Rubio's preparation as that big of an issue but Christie did a banner job pointing it out and Rubio did a horrible job refuting it.

Wantonly sending soldiers into wars we can't win and with no long term plan trumps (!) Hillary's nefarious web of ambition. Both are issues though.

You might be right about Obama's exec orders. The only ones I remember that got people's breasts in a wringer were about gun control. Obama is so incapable of getting things done that it seems he's not abusing his power to the same extent as Bush. Hillary is terrible candidate. What do you want me to say? But her supporters are galvanized and she's the presumptive Dem nominee. We're talking in most of these threads about who will be the Republican nominee because that's far less clear. ' And what about her statements that the Benghazi attacks were inspired by the Youtube video? Something she knew was not true. That's what he's talking about. It's just a single factor on a list of her flaws but apparently it's the one that he's most fired up about.

Do you think the insane clown posse of Trump-Cruz supporters will outnumber Clinton voters? Not a chance. The only way to win is to put up a candidate that will attract moderates and independents. In the current head-to-head polling, which is admittedly way too early, Rubio trounces Clinton. She beats everyone else and is level with Cruz. The reason Romney came close twice was because he was a moderate. Moderate Republicans can beat Hillary. I'd like Christie because he can get things done and has proven it. But he likely won't have any chance.

She's probably going to win no matter which Republican gets the nod. Only those 4 have a shot at beating her. She will kill Trump-Cruz.

Every time any of them debated Obama, they gave him strength. So much more tearing down of the other guy that discussing specific plans they have to fix things. It was the worst debate yet by far. Clearly Rubio's worst night but bad for all of them and terrible for the party. The winner last night was Hillary Clinton, who had to watch that childish display and know that she'd kill any of those candidates.

I like Christie but Fiorina showed that the ability to win a debate has little to do with winning an election. We are obsessed with debates because they make for good TV. That's why Trump is winning. He can't offer a specific plan on anything but he's good in a soundbyte. Do you want a debate winner or someone who will govern well and work across party lines to get things done? Rubio, Kasich, Bush, and Christie can probably all do that. Cruz and Trump will drive the country to an epic deadlock and probably abuse their presidential authority much like Bush did. Christie bullied Rubio last night.Polls may show that his effort drove up Trump-Cruz's chances because Christie can't seem to catch on with the electorate. Carving 3% off Rubio would only help the Trump-Cruz contingent.

Admirable.

A play on words maybe, but I don't see the pun. Bernie could not do real damage. He has deep integrity and that will prevent him from getting done 5% of what he wants to do. President Sanders doesn't scare me at all--he'd be a less effective Jimmy Carter. Doesn't matter though because he has less chance than Rick Santorum.

You mean the "Poll" thread? You may be right. I thought that was just a poll. Happy to close this thread with this bit of wisdom:

I am so happy to hear that you believe Trump will be the nominee. Please keep saying it.

Lots of separate threads about the candidates but none dedicated to the primary results and process. Iowa's over with surprises in Bernie in a virtual tie Hillary and the other virtual three-way Republican tie. Bernie should win NH (by virtue of a higher than expected %...the Rubio win) but can he build enough momentum in the early states to overcome Hillary's money wall that he has to climb heading into the bigger states? If Trump's bubble bursts, where will his supporters go? If Rubio wins SC and all the money lines up behind him, can he be stopped? Is Cruz the mini-Trump who the Trumpster supporters will flock to? Will any Rep candidate win enough delegates? Next stop New Hampshire. It doesn't look like there will be any surprises there.

Going into the cycle, Cruz was the wacko right winger until Trump stole his thunder. If the Turmp bubble bursts, Cruz will need to gather Trump's supporters to his cause. Hard to imagine courting the crowd of people who would pull the lever for Trump but Cruz seems more suited to the task of connecting with Trump voters than anyone else. The big money will line up behind Rubio if he can win South Carolina. At that point, the 5% crowd of Christie, Bush, and Carson will drop out and those voters will trend Rubio. If Cruz can win most of the Tump people (assuming he drops out) and Rubio gets the rest, it would be tight. If Trump hangs in, Rubio will enter the convention as #1 but I don't know if he'll have enough for first ballot. Has anyone seen a count projection of those three entering the convention?

The winners have to be Sanders and Rubio. Trump obviously the loser. Sanders should win NH, when the going will get tougher. I wonder if he can build momentum. Cruz's win in Iowa is not so much a shock but Rubio's performance is the big thing. What happens to Trump supporters as they defect will be interesting to watch. Cruz has a big nutty contingent and might provide a big enough tent to house Trump people. Rubio probably doesn't provide a comfortable home for the Trump supporters. I thought the race would come down to Rubio, Christie and Bush, with an outside shot at Cruz. I'd revise it to Rubio vs Cruz with an outside shot at Christie. I still see Trump with no shot. She will lose NH. After that, she will probably start to roll. Bernie will need to build a ton of momentum in the next two weeks to defeat Hillary once the big states start piling up.

A most ingenious paradox.

Trump is a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman. And Sanders is a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father. We are always blinded by the arrogance that our time is the most interesting. It's why every doomsday prophet gets followers.