Unknown who it is.
Unknown who it is.
An Asian Driver is likely wrote:
Unknown who it is.
No way, he has a round of golf scheduled that day.
The first one will be a sacrificial lamb knowing they will not get past Senate hearings. The WH will cry about how unfair and unpatriotic the Repubs are and media will be all over it. The second nomination will be their serious pick for next SCOTUS judge
he should nominate his personal attorney like Bushy boy
my sources tell me it is this guy:
Why would he NOT have a round of golf scheduled for Monday? According to the Republicans, he may as well schedule rounds of golf EVERYDAY until Jan 20, 2017.
It's amazing, the same folks who lambast the president for not working and taking too many vacations and playing golf too often are the first ones who say he doesn't actually have to do any work for for an entire year.
Why is that, do you suppose?
Is Toshihiko Seko an American citizen now?
Back in 2006, the Senate was considering W's nominee to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. One democratic Senator voted against this nominee and stated for the record on the floor of the Senate regarding this nominee:
"There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record."
Btw, that Senator was Barack Obama.
Funny how these things play out.
Agree with your sentiment here.Repubs were foolish in how they handled things. Should have told Obama through private channels that a reasonable choice would have a chance of getting confirmed. A liberal version of Clarence Thomas...not so much.
politics is politics wrote:
The first one will be a sacrificial lamb knowing they will not get past Senate hearings. The WH will cry about how unfair and unpatriotic the Repubs are and media will be all over it. The second nomination will be their serious pick for next SCOTUS judge
Judge Judy?
I'd be okay with # 9.http://www.oddee.com/item_97716.aspx
funny how things play out wrote:
Back in 2006, the Senate was considering W's nominee to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. One democratic Senator voted against this nominee and stated for the record on the floor of the Senate regarding this nominee:
"There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record."
Btw, that Senator was Barack Obama.
Funny how these things play out.
Why is that funny? The Republicans stated that don't have any intention of advising, consenting, or examining a potential candidate's philosophy, ideology, or record for at least another 11 months
funny how things play out wrote:
Back in 2006, the Senate was considering W's nominee to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. One democratic Senator voted against this nominee and stated for the record on the floor of the Senate regarding this nominee:
"There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record."
Btw, that Senator was Barack Obama.
Funny how these things play out.
He then followed it up by saying "It doesn't matter who President Bush nominates. We should reject that candidate. In fact, I don't think he should nominate anyone at all. He should let the next President do that. Who the hell does he think he is?"
wtfunny wrote:
Why would he NOT have a round of golf scheduled for Monday? According to the Republicans, he may as well schedule rounds of golf EVERYDAY until Jan 20, 2017.
It's amazing, the same folks who lambast the president for not working and taking too many vacations and playing golf too often are the first ones who say he doesn't actually have to do any work for for an entire year.
Why is that, do you suppose?
What does it feel like to be born without a sense of humor?
funny how things play out wrote:
Back in 2006, the Senate was considering W's nominee to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. One democratic Senator voted against this nominee and stated for the record on the floor of the Senate regarding this nominee:
"There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record."
Btw, that Senator was Barack Obama.
Funny how these things play out.
Obama didn't say that Alito should not even get a vote because they are coming up on an election year. (Yes, I know the Democrats passed a resolution in 1960 stating that there should be no appointments in an election year, but those were largely dixiecrats who became the southern conservative christian republicans of today)
Republicans are not talking about discharging their duty to confirm the nominee. They are saying that Obama's term is only three years. And we wonder why Obama has not been able to work with Republicans.
funny how things play out wrote:
Back in 2006, the Senate was considering W's nominee to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. One democratic Senator voted against this nominee and stated for the record on the floor of the Senate regarding this nominee:
"There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record."
Btw, that Senator was Barack Obama.
Funny how these things play out.
That's not funny at all. He's correct. He also started off that speech by saying
"First off, let me congratulate Senators Specter and Leahy for moving yet another confirmation process along with a civility that speaks well of the Senate."
That's more than critically different from the current Republican position.
He of course went on to explain
[]quote]"And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled.
I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He's an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there's no indication he's not a man of great character.
But when you look at his record - when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American's individual rights.
...
In sum, I've seen an extraordinarily consistent attitude on the part of Judge Alito that does not uphold the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for United States citizens.
Should he be confirmed, I hope that he proves me wrong. I hope that he shows the independence that I think is absolutely necessary in order for us to preserve our liberties and protect our citizens."[/quote]
My guess is you're either ignoring or missing the part about
There are some who believe that the President ...should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee...
He's correct. Some people do believe that. And they're wrong. The president does NOT appoint anyone. He nominates a candidate, and the Senate either appoints or does not appoint that nominee.
That has nothing to do with the current position of the Republican party.
Democrats do everything they can to keep Republican nominees out of office, so Republicans should do everything to keep Democrat nominees out of office.
Use whatever power you have to advance your agenda. Those are the words the Democrats live by so the Republicans better do the same.
Robert Bork
Clarence Thomas
The Democrats have no moral authority to complain, no matter what the Republicans do.
DiscoGary wrote:
Democrats do everything they can to keep Republican nominees out of office, so Republicans should do everything to keep Democrat nominees out of office.
Use whatever power you have to advance your agenda. Those are the words the Democrats live by so the Republicans better do the same.
Robert Bork
Clarence Thomas
The Democrats have no moral authority to complain, no matter what the Republicans do.
Spoken like a true Trump voter. I'm not even Republican and I feel embarrassed for your lot. The level of discourse - if you can call it that - is so sorry. Anyhow, do what you will Repubs - you're only hastening the demise of your party.
I think he will pick Loretta Lynch, ad if/when the Republican majority Senate does NOT confirm her, the Democrats will say they are not confirming her because she is black.
The reason is to make more black people (95% Democrats) turn out in the Presidential elections, by having them mad at Republicans.
Just a guess and I am wrong often.
sorrylot wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:Democrats do everything they can to keep Republican nominees out of office, so Republicans should do everything to keep Democrat nominees out of office.
Use whatever power you have to advance your agenda. Those are the words the Democrats live by so the Republicans better do the same.
Robert Bork
Clarence Thomas
The Democrats have no moral authority to complain, no matter what the Republicans do.
Spoken like a true Trump voter. I'm not even Republican and I feel embarrassed for your lot. The level of discourse - if you can call it that - is so sorry. Anyhow, do what you will Repubs - you're only hastening the demise of your party.
I will be voting for Cruz if I get the chance, Trump if I have to.
All I'm saying is that Republicans should play hardball like the Dems do. If you don't see the Dems playing hardball, then you're not paying attention.