Observer Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) Refusing to confirm him will do nothing to the party. Just like shutting down the government didn't. No more damage than it's already done to itself? Probably true. Just a continued decline into the sewer. The only real hope here is that with Trump as the nominee and the political hacks of Hatch and others exposed, there's a true break in the party that sensible Dems join. Maybe the Dems can keep their gimme voters and the GOP can keep its evangelical Stepford people, and a 3rd party that forms from people who want a sensibly smaller government footprint emerges...one where you can make compromises on gun control, abortion, spending, trade, etc instead of rushing to an extreme. Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya. Edited March 16, 2016 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Gee, it's too bad we don't know how Garland might view a case like DC v Heller. If only we knew what his position might be if he was ever to provide an opinion in a case like that....... He seems to disagree with the ruling and would like to take another look at the ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 No more damage than it's already done to itself? Probably true. Just a continued decline into the sewer. Trump is the leading GOP presidential nominee, so in case you haven't been able to smell it yet, we're heading toward the sewer at warp speed right now. Ignoring this SCOTUS thing means nothing to anyone other than the far left. And where, precisely, would you like the right to compromise on abortion? Or gun control? Let's start with those two. Precisely WHAT would you like to see happen as a compromise from the right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) LOL............moderation is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Garland's "moderation" seems to be an affinity with the left on government power to regulate, and the right on government power to police/incarcerate. SCOTUS pick Merrick Garland tends to favor "broad judicial deference to law enforcement and wartime executive power" http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/16/obama-nominates-merrick-garland-to-repla … From the Left Garland has basically said that people detained without trial or charge have no rights. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760727/who-is-merrick-garland/ … Lefty group @demandprogress: "Obama missed the opportunity to solidify his legacy by appointing a true progressive." Right after Garland announcement, that's Cecile Richards heading into the West Wing You know.........the moderate president of Planned Parenthood................ \ Edited March 16, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The right hates the pick because Garland is too left. The left hates the pick because Garland is too right. Seems like a solid choice then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The right hates the pick because Garland is too left. The left hates the pick because Garland is too right. Seems like a solid choice then A person on the left would be happy with a slightly left of center nominee replacing a conservative. I will not compromise on the 2nd ammendment or abortion. I don't care what else a nominee thinks if I don't like their views on those 2 issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The new mantra from the white house: DO YOUR JOB. Wish he'd followed it for the previous seven years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 A person on the left would be happy with a slightly left of center nominee replacing a conservative. I will not compromise on the 2nd ammendment or abortion. I don't care what else a nominee thinks if I don't like their views on those 2 issues. Guns and fetuses? LOL, strange combination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 (edited) Trump is the leading GOP presidential nominee, so in case you haven't been able to smell it yet, we're heading toward the sewer at warp speed right now. Ignoring this SCOTUS thing means nothing to anyone other than the far left. And where, precisely, would you like the right to compromise on abortion? Or gun control? Let's start with those two. Precisely WHAT would you like to see happen as a compromise from the right? Compromise is how politics works out problems. If I say, "I want all firearms toe be illegal except for police/military" and you say "I want everyone to have access to any gun he wants," our politicians try to work towards a middle ground and we have to try not to lose our %$^& over it. Abortion: "You must carry rapists pregnancies to term and risk you health pregnancies" vs. "I want to about my baby at 8 months." Etc. No one loves it but right now, there's little appetite for the art of compromise that makes the world go around. So what happens is extremes: Trump with the rise of Cruz vs. Clinton with the rise of Sanders. Setting aside Trump's "Art of the Deal" mantra, there's not a smart deal maker in the bunch. I will not compromise on the 2nd ammendment or abortion. I don't care what else a nominee thinks if I don't like their views on those 2 issues. And the left will not compromise on reforming welfare, Obamcare, defining marriage, etc. See the problem? YOU don't have to compromise. But the politicians you vote for do. The art of disagreement is bruised at the moment. Edited March 16, 2016 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 See the problem? YOU don't have to compromise. But the politicians you vote for do. So we allow the people to elect the politicians who agree with what they want in a Scalia replacement in November. See the Solution ? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 God Mitch McConnell is a dipshit- "Give the people a voice in nominating the next justice" Was Obama re-elected by a coin flip, or decree, or some other alternate process? What a douche bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 So we allow the people to elect the politicians who agree with what they want in a Scalia replacement in November. See the Solution ? . What's the point? Hillary is going to win anyway. This is stupid, childish pouting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Guns and fetuses? LOL, strange combination Yes. I value life, and in particular vulnerable defenseless life, and I value the constitution. I know those are strange concepts to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 God Mitch McConnell is a dipshit- "Give the people a voice in nominating the next justice" Was Obama re-elected by a coin flip, or decree, or some other alternate process? What a douche bag. McConnell, and every Senator was elected by a constituency too B They get to follow the Senate rules, just like Senator Obama did. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 Before becoming a judge, Garland occupied top posts in the Justice Department, where he oversaw some of the biggest investigations of the Clinton era, including the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber case, and the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Obama made particular mention of the Oklahoma City case this morning, noting the diligence with which Garland pursued the case, as well as the care and consideration he showed to victims of that attack and their families including carrying the program from a memorial service for the fallen as he worked on the case. The president quoted Garland saying that the case was "the most important thing I have ever done in my life." Guess the anti-government won't be happy with this guy. Prosecuting right wing terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 A person on the left would be happy with a slightly left of center nominee replacing a conservative. I will not compromise on the 2nd ammendment or abortion. I don't care what else a nominee thinks if I don't like their views on those 2 issues. I think you need to examine it through the prism of reality. It sucks we lost Scalia, but this is as good as it's getting. The chest thumping about Obama not having the right to nominate a replacement is frankly embarrassing and will once again make the GOP look bad. There is zero justification for not holding hearings and a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 The right hates the pick because Garland is too left. The left hates the pick because Garland is too right. Seems like a solid choice then It's a craven political nomination having virtually nothing to do with who's best for the court. There is zero justification for not holding hearings and a vote. It's a craven political justification having virtually nothing to do with who's best for the court. Really...the American people deserve this, for voting in the !@#$s playing these games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 It's a craven political nomination having virtually nothing to do with who's best for the court. It's a craven political justification having virtually nothing to do with who's best for the court. Really...the American people deserve this, for voting in the !@#$s playing these games. Who, pray tell, is best for the court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Who, pray tell, is best for the court? Best, I don't know. But Garland seems pretty decent. Better than Sotomayor, for certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Best, I don't know. But Garland seems pretty decent. Better than Sotomayor, for certain. See, that's the thing. People see this guy and remember her. There's no way he gets past the process. They should hold hearings and reject. And just keep rejecting. They have the margins to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts