Cracks form in the Republican wall against having hearings and holding a vote.

Jarod said:
So, you think its a valid argument?
Click to expand...

I personally think they should allow Obama to nominate whoever he would like then filibuster or vote them down if that's what they so desire. However the reality of politics is how can one side best sell their position to the public. If Democrats have tried to take this same approach before then yeah Republicans can use it in their argument supporting their actions.
 
In my opinion, its time for a moderate.

Replacing Scalia with a moderate would make me very happy.

Waiting and gambling on a potential HRC appointment with a Democratic Senate could result in replacing Scalia with a strong liberal, but it might not work and would be using the nomination as a tool political gain. I guess it depends on how badly Obama wants to help HRC's election chances.

I say get a moderate passed through... the Supreme Court will be better than it was.

It would likely hurt the Democrats chances at winning the presidency because it would fire up the conservatives who want to deny Obama a win and get a Conservative to replace Scalia.
 
cawacko said:
I personally think they should allow Obama to nominate whoever he would like then filibuster or vote them down if that's what they so desire. However the reality of politics is how can one side best sell their position to the public. If Democrats have tried to take this same approach before then yeah Republicans can use it in their argument supporting their actions.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that if Democrats did something harmful in the past, it makes it okay for Republicans to do it now?

I don't think you are saying that...
 
Konono said:
No petty personal attacks here.

ROFL!!
Click to expand...

He isn't called the Zappocrite for nothing. You see when someone on the right insults, Zappocrite is highly offended and whines and complains. Of course when he or someone on the left insults, it is "fighting fire with fire and they did it first".

He is my little bitch. I own him. He is nothing but a leg humping dog begging for my attention
 
Jarod said:
You are being silly about the advise and consent argument. The spirit of the Constitution should be clear to any statesman that a vote is required without unnecessary delay.

I understand your Bork argument, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Waaah, they did something bad 20 years ago, is not a valid argument to me.
Click to expand...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Looks like liberals want to talk the talk; but don't want to walk the walk.
 
cawacko said:
I personally think they should allow Obama to nominate whoever he would like then filibuster or vote them down if that's what they so desire. However the reality of politics is how can one side best sell their position to the public. If Democrats have tried to take this same approach before then yeah Republicans can use it in their argument supporting their actions.
Click to expand...

You seem to act like Obama is obligated to not nominate anyone; because he was told that it would be a waste of time!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top