Obama nomination for Supreme Court

The very real reality is that an election that looked like a loss for the Democrats is beginning to shape up like it has the real possibility of a rout for the Democrats and HRC. If she trounces Trump like some say she might, and gets the Senate... We are looking at least two years for her to accomplish something major like Obama was able to do with Obamacare.

I wonder what it is she would chose to pursue? Clearly Lilly Ledbetter would get passed, but I doubt that would be big enough. What would she push for? Additionally she would get a very strong liberal on the Supreme Court, maybe three strong liberals.
 
Jarod said:
The very real reality is that an election that looked like a loss for the Democrats is beginning to shape up like it has the real possibility of a rout for the Democrats and HRC. If she trounces Trump like some say she might, and gets the Senate... We are looking at least two years for her to accomplish something major like Obama was able to do with Obamacare.

I wonder what it is she would chose to pursue? Clearly Lilly Ledbetter would get passed, but I doubt that would be big enough. What would she push for? Additionally she would get a very strong liberal on the Supreme Court, maybe three strong liberals.
Click to expand...

Maybe she could get the ERA passed....
 
RacerX said:
Sen. Mike Lee, Utah Republican and a member of the Judiciary Committee, reiterated Wednesday that the GOP won’t consider the nominee.

“In light of the contentious presidential election already well underway, my colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee have already given our advice and consent on this issue: we will not have any hearings or votes on President Obama’s pick,” Mr. Lee said. “Any meeting with any nominee put forward by President Obama would only be a waste of the Senate’s time. The Court has very ably dealt with temporary absences in the past and will do so again now.”


So fuck you Obama.....
Click to expand...

Once again, the rabid right wing ideology forgoes their Constitutional duty and constructs a bogus "reasoning" to justify their obstructionism....and willfully ignorant dullards like Racer X follow them right off the cliff.

"Contentious presidential election".... the dummies keep throwing another brick unto the sinking GOP ship. :clink:
 
SmarterthanYou said:
President Obama tried to tap a moderate to fill the seat of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but he ended up picking a fight with powerful Second Amendment groups that say Judge Merrick Garland has shown antipathy toward gun rights.

In one 2000 case, Judge Garland, who sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, upheld a Clinton administration effort to store gun-buyers’ records.

Later in the decade, he joined other judges in a failed bid to reconsider the landmark case that would eventually establish the Second Amendment’s protection of a personal right to bear arms.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/merrick-garland-has-very-liberal-view-gun-rights/
Click to expand...

You need to get your head out of Rev. Moon's ass, and stop taking his rag at face value. Here's a point for point deconstruction of the latest right wing nut smear campaign:

Merrick Garland Is Being Smeared as an Anti-Gun Nut

Conservatives are trying to paint him as a warrior against the Second Amendment. They have no evidence for that whatsoever.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...r_merrick_garland_as_an_anti_gun_warrior.html

Apropos, Because if what you and the Washington Times assert is true, then all these guys must have been on drugs:

Conservatives Have Been Praising Merrick Garland For Years

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/03/16/conservatives-have-been-praising-merrick-garlan/209303
 
christiefan915 said:
What Are Trump's Chances of Winning the Presidency?

The probability that Donald Trump will become president is tracked by several websites. For example, CNN has published an interactive prediction page that allows users to vote on what they think the outcome of the presidential election will be (along with many other events). The "wisdom of the crowd" predicts Trump only has a 22% chance of winning in November, perhaps because his extreme views on immigration, race and gender would alienate many voters in the general election without mobilizing a sufficient support base to beat a Democratic candidate. OddsChecker's odds are slightly better at 3/1. The site's odds that Clinton will win are 5/11.

Read more: Current Probability of Donald Trump as President | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/article...ties-donald-trump-president.asp#ixzz43784wKdb
Click to expand...

His "extreme views on immigration, race and gender" are what his followers will vote for, and I suspect that they will extend the GOP stranglehold on Congress while they're putting Trump in the White House.
 
Jarod said:
Its a dangerous game the Republicans are playing, they very well might end up with a much more liberal judge due to this course of action.
Click to expand...

with regards to what they care about, a moderate judge isn't going to do them any favors when it comes to gun rights, affirmative action, etc. They might as well roll the dice.

This is the number one thing liberals never understand on this site...liberals LOVE compromise because it means society is always moving in their direction. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but always moving towards their direction. For a conservative, who wishes to preserve the status quo, any movement, any compromise, is a loss.

Hoping for a moderate is not a long term solution. Conservatives need to roll the dice and bank on another scalia or bust.
 
christiefan915 said:
:palm:

What Are Trump's Chances of Winning the Presidency?

The probability that Donald Trump will become president is tracked by several websites. For example, CNN has published an interactive prediction page that allows users to vote on what they think the outcome of the presidential election will be (along with many other events). The "wisdom of the crowd" predicts Trump only has a 22% chance of winning in November, perhaps because his extreme views on immigration, race and gender would alienate many voters in the general election without mobilizing a sufficient support base to beat a Democratic candidate. OddsChecker's odds are slightly better at 3/1. The site's odds that Clinton will win are 5/11.
Click to expand...

so you recognize then that having a 22% chance at the presidency, is still a chance at the presidency, right? The polls don't have Clinton at 100%, do they?
 
Jarod said:
The very real reality is that an election that looked like a loss for the Democrats is beginning to shape up like it has the real possibility of a rout for the Democrats and HRC. If she trounces Trump like some say she might, and gets the Senate... We are looking at least two years for her to accomplish something major like Obama was able to do with Obamacare.

I wonder what it is she would chose to pursue? Clearly Lilly Ledbetter would get passed, but I doubt that would be big enough. What would she push for? Additionally she would get a very strong liberal on the Supreme Court, maybe three strong liberals.
Click to expand...

probably something to do with education. it's the type of big project that likely wont have too much resistance but would be a good legacy-type project.
 
` said:
with regards to what they care about, a moderate judge isn't going to do them any favors when it comes to gun rights, affirmative action, etc. They might as well roll the dice.

This is the number one thing liberals never understand on this site...liberals LOVE compromise because it means society is always moving in their direction. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but always moving towards their direction. For a conservative, who wishes to preserve the status quo, any movement, any compromise, is a loss.

Hoping for a moderate is not a long term solution. Conservatives need to roll the dice and bank on another scalia or bust.
Click to expand...

Always trying to maintain the status quo? That is the problem... nothing is ever perfect, there are always problems with the Status Quo, so...why not fix them?

There are ways to slow down what I cause progress, but the Status Quo can never be maintained for very long, change is a constant. The Republicans could get this guy on the Supreme Court and change will come more slowly, or they can roll the dice and likely get someone who will be more friendly to "progress" and change will come much faster, but the fact is change is coming.
 
Jarod said:
They don't have to, change is always coming, the slow march of progress occurs regardless of how hard Conservatives fight it.
Click to expand...

Huh? Your liberal teachers unions fight change at every step of the way and the kids suffer from it.
 
cawacko said:
Huh? Your liberal teachers unions fight change at every step of the way and the kids suffer from it.
Click to expand...

Mine? No sorry. Not my teachers unions. They don't fight all change, they only fight the attempts at weakening the union. I don't always agree with them, but I find an ally in them with regards to the standardized testing.

To fight change at any level is a Conservative trait, even if its trying to maintain something considered more liberal like supporting our teachers.
 
Jarod said:
Mine? No sorry. Not my teachers unions. They don't fight all change, they only fight the attempts at weakening the union. I don't always agree with them, but I find an ally in them with regards to the standardized testing.

To fight change at any level is a Conservative trait, even if its trying to maintain something considered more liberal like supporting our teachers.
Click to expand...

Teachers unions fight change and competition in the school system. It doesn't affect a rich white liberal such as yourself who can move to a better neighbirhood or send your kids to private school. It does affect those who aren't so fortunate and who liberals supposedly care about
 
Legion Troll said:
His "extreme views on immigration, race and gender" are what his followers will vote for, and I suspect that they will extend the GOP stranglehold on Congress while they're putting Trump in the White House.
Click to expand...

That would be disturbing. I hope voters aren't that stupid... but then again, I didn't think Trump would get this far, either.
 
christiefan915 said:
Are you delusional? When did I ever say polls had Clinton at 100%?
Click to expand...

when you say "no odds give trump the presidency" it's an inaccurate/misleading/nonsensical statement. You can say the odds do not favor a presidency, but that is a different thing. In fact, there are odds that give trump the presidency, currently in some models it is around 22%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top