• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Anyone Know Merrick Garland?

Alcoholic Actuary

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
940
Location
SoCal
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470643431/-i-ve-made-my-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee-president-obama-says

Obama's selection for Supreme Court Justice. He seems kind of vanilla (not in a racist way, but in a political way).

I guess there are two ways to go with the nomination:

1) Select someone with your party's political leanings (Sotomayor) and move the legal enviornment in a direction favorable to the party but risk outright rejection (Sotomayor).
2) Select someone closer to the center and increase the liklihood for approval - at least with a sane congress, but risk swing votes on important legal cases with significant political ramifications (Kennedy?)

It sounds like Obama is going with option 2 here. I know it's early but I'm not sure about this guy, yet. He's from Chicago so it also seems like kind of a homer pick.

Anyone know anything about him?

aa
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,935
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Pretty much a well liked guy who is sitting on the 10th most important Judicial seat in the nation. Definitely Option 2. Obama could have played politics with it, gone with a well qualified black or hispanic, but instead, is nominating a moderate who is the Chief Justice of the DC Circuit. It'll piss off the racists that they can't complain about him nominating a white guy. The Republicans couldn't really hope for a better selection, and honestly, I'm quite good with him. I don't want partisans.

This is also a safe pick for the pickee. He is already Chief Justice of the DC Circuit, so it isn't as if he is going to lose an opportunity here.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,273
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.
 

credoconsolans

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
2,900
Location
Texas
Basic Beliefs
neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
21,824
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.
"It's not about what's-his-name, it's about the principle of Obama not choosing to obey a tradition which was entirely invented after Scalia's tragic death, but before he got cold."
 

Alcoholic Actuary

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
940
Location
SoCal
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
...And here is McConnell's response to the nomination, right on cue:

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/470664561/mcconnell-blocking-supreme-court-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person

"It seems clear President Obama made this nomination not, not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election," McConnell said.

And this one is classic:

"I will oppose this nomination"


James Inhofe, R-Okla.

Inhofe is one of the seven sitting Republican senators who voted to confirm Garland in 1997.

"It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have all made statements that the Senate does not have to confirm presidential nominations in an election year. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court's future."

The people did decide. They voted for Obama. Twice.

aa
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,935
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.
"It's not about what's-his-name, it's about the principle of Obama not choosing to obey a tradition which was entirely invented after Scalia's tragic death, but before he got cold."
That's not true at all. He was dead for a while before being discovered, so he was already cold.

- - - Updated - - -

...And here is McConnell's response to the nomination, right on cue:

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/47066...urt-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person
Yup... the only reason to oppose this guy is because you want to put a radical right-wing Alito clone on the bench. I think it is funny, by not playing politics, Obama is playing politics with the selection.
 

funinspace

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,178
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
...And here is McConnell's response to the nomination, right on cue:

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/47066...urt-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person
Yup... the only reason to oppose this guy is because you want to put a radical right-wing Alito clone on the bench. I think it is funny, by not playing politics, Obama is playing politics with the selection.
Well, it makes sense, when you consider the fact that Pres. Obama is primarily responsible for the rise of the Donald.
 

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
6,083
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
Yup... the only reason to oppose this guy is because you want to put a radical right-wing Alito clone on the bench. I think it is funny, by not playing politics, Obama is playing politics with the selection.
Well, it makes sense, when you consider the fact that Pres. Obama is primarily responsible for the rise of the Donald.

And ISIS,
And Kim Jong-un,
And the Cascadia fault
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,273
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Which is going to make the republican politicians look like utter assholes. That's a win ;)

It appears that Republican voters elect their politicians *because* they're assholes.

- - - Updated - - -

Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.

It has been flying very well for them for several years now. Their voters don't seem to mind it and quite possibly actually appreciate it.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,935
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Which is going to make the republican politicians look like utter assholes. That's a win ;)

It appears that Republican voters elect their politicians *because* they're assholes.

- - - Updated - - -

Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.

It has been flying very well for them for several years now. Their voters don't seem to mind it and quite possibly actually appreciate it.
Oddly, the Tea Bagger / Trump support is upset that the Republicans haven't been partisan enough!
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
18,078
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.
"It's not about what's-his-name, it's about the principle of Obama not choosing to obey a tradition which was entirely invented after Scalia's tragic death, but before he got cold."
It looks like the Republicans are playing Calvinball here. That's loudly asserting new rules as one plays.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,510
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470643431/-i-ve-made-my-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee-president-obama-says

Obama's selection for Supreme Court Justice. He seems kind of vanilla (not in a racist way, but in a political way).

I guess there are two ways to go with the nomination:

1) Select someone with your party's political leanings (Sotomayor) and move the legal enviornment in a direction favorable to the party but risk outright rejection (Sotomayor).
2) Select someone closer to the center and increase the liklihood for approval - at least with a sane congress, but risk swing votes on important legal cases with significant political ramifications (Kennedy?)

It sounds like Obama is going with option 2 here. I know it's early but I'm not sure about this guy, yet. He's from Chicago so it also seems like kind of a homer pick.

Anyone know anything about him?

aa

Great pick. He's not who Obama really wants, but was confirmed to his current bench with unanimous approval among Republicans. So they'll look like total assholes for refusing to confirm him, and Obama will not have wasted someone he would really want on the SCOTUS by nominating Garland.
 

Alcoholic Actuary

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
940
Location
SoCal
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470643431/-i-ve-made-my-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee-president-obama-says

Obama's selection for Supreme Court Justice. He seems kind of vanilla (not in a racist way, but in a political way).

I guess there are two ways to go with the nomination:

1) Select someone with your party's political leanings (Sotomayor) and move the legal enviornment in a direction favorable to the party but risk outright rejection (Sotomayor).
2) Select someone closer to the center and increase the liklihood for approval - at least with a sane congress, but risk swing votes on important legal cases with significant political ramifications (Kennedy?)

It sounds like Obama is going with option 2 here. I know it's early but I'm not sure about this guy, yet. He's from Chicago so it also seems like kind of a homer pick.

Anyone know anything about him?

aa

Great pick. He's not who Obama really wants, but was confirmed to his current bench with unanimous approval among Republicans. So they'll look like total assholes for refusing to confirm him, and Obama will not have wasted someone he would really want on the SCOTUS by nominating Garland.

It does seem strategic. Even if this guy gets declined, Obama could submit more and more liberal leaning candidates until the next president is elected. If that's Hillary or Bernie they could move even farther left until the senate openly hopes for a candidate as neutral as Garland. There are also senate and congressional seats up for election with the president this year.

aa
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
5,912
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
Great pick. He's not who Obama really wants, but was confirmed to his current bench with unanimous approval among Republicans. So they'll look like total assholes for refusing to confirm him, and Obama will not have wasted someone he would really want on the SCOTUS by nominating Garland.

It does seem strategic. Even if this guy gets declined, Obama could submit more and more liberal leaning candidates until the next president is elected. If that's Hillary or Bernie they could move even farther left until the senate openly hopes for a candidate as neutral as Garland. There are also senate and congressional seats up for election with the president this year.

aa

I agree with AA and Elixer.

Garland is a strategic pick, and a very good one. Republicans risk shooting themselves in the foot (again) by refusing to perform their official duties and consider him, and they'll be hard pressed to come up with a reason to reject him. If they do reject him, Obama surely will nominate someone like Sri Srinivasan, so they gain noting by being obstinate.
 

MarkW

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2001
Messages
636
Location
Washington State
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470643431/-i-ve-made-my-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee-president-obama-says

Obama's selection for Supreme Court Justice. He seems kind of vanilla (not in a racist way, but in a political way).

I guess there are two ways to go with the nomination:

1) Select someone with your party's political leanings (Sotomayor) and move the legal enviornment in a direction favorable to the party but risk outright rejection (Sotomayor).
2) Select someone closer to the center and increase the liklihood for approval - at least with a sane congress, but risk swing votes on important legal cases with significant political ramifications (Kennedy?)

It sounds like Obama is going with option 2 here. I know it's early but I'm not sure about this guy, yet. He's from Chicago so it also seems like kind of a homer pick.

Anyone know anything about him?

aa

My take would be that Obama is actually combining options 1 and 2 here. Garland is a very safe centrist, but he's replacing Scalia, a very conservative justice, so he does shift the balance on the court, because his appointment changes where the median vote is on most cases. It's been Kennedy for about the past decade, but Garland himself, or Breyer, would now be the median most of the time. That would, at a minimum, mean no new cases like Shelby County, Hobby Lobby, etc., and could very well mean that some of those cases themselves might be reversed or at least narrowed.

That assumes that Garland is confirmed, of course. Right now, McConnell is still sounding his "no vote at all" battle cry, but if the Republicans start to take political heat for this--specifically, enough to threaten their Senate majority and McConnell's access to the Majority Leader's office--he is perfectly capable of reversing course. Doubly so if it also looks like Clinton will win the presidency and have a Senate majority to get a more liberal nominee through.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,186
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Frankly, I look forward to the Republicans refusing to deal with a white Jewish male appointment.
 

Sarpedon

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
2,976
Location
MN, US
Basic Beliefs
the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
Yes, but they can't just shut up either.

Because they are politicians. :D
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,461
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
It does seem strategic. Even if this guy gets declined, Obama could submit more and more liberal leaning candidates until the next president is elected. If that's Hillary or Bernie they could move even farther left until the senate openly hopes for a candidate as neutral as Garland. There are also senate and congressional seats up for election with the president this year.

aa


From what I heard today on NPR (the radio network only slightly to the right of Karl Marx), Garland is the nominee, period. He'll be denied a hearing by the Senate, Obama and the Democrats will use that to hammer the GOP and any Senators up for reelection in November, and then if the White House goes to the Democrats the lame-duck Senate will confirm him for fear of having an even more liberal justice nominated by President Clinton or Sanders.

A risky move, but it makes sense.
 

Tom Sawyer

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 25, 2002
Messages
17,025
Location
Toronto
Basic Beliefs
That I'm God
Well, it's not risky in the sense that there's some kind of risk, since the only way Clinton isn't getting into the a White House is if it gets blown up before November and she needs to put her Presidential office somewhere else.

What would be interesting is if the GOP tries to confirm him in the lame duck session and then the Dems block him so that they can get an even more liberal guy in there.
 

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
Wait, why is it constitutional for Obama to nominate anyone at all?

First of all, Obama is a criminal because he murdered patriot Scalia with a hooker, therefore he should be in jail rather than the Oval Office.

Also, Obama should have been impeached for his involvement in the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy.

Lastly, Obama was never a legitimate president because he was born in Kenya and sent here as a terrorist spy-baby.

Since Obama is not the president, the Senate would be violating the constitution if they approve anyone Obama nominates. You libtards would understand this if you didn't hate the constitution so much. Learn to think for yourself, sheeple! Wake up! Freedom isn't free! Benghazi! The tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants! Benghazi! [/conservolibertarian]
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,935
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
If the Republicans were smart, they would call Obama's bluff, and accept this nominee.
It isn't a bluff though. It is a reasonable selection. He certainly couldn't get Bernie Sanders onto the Supreme Court, but this is a reasonable selection for all involved.
 

Sarpedon

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
2,976
Location
MN, US
Basic Beliefs
the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
Yup, thanks to republican stupidity, they find themselves in a position where all of their courses of action are bad
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,935
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I should qualify my post, this Justice doesn't want to overturn Roe v Wade, therefore he is automatically out with the Republicans.
 

Jolly_Penguin

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
10,366
Location
South Pole
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
Pretty much a well liked guy who is sitting on the 10th most important Judicial seat in the nation. Definitely Option 2. Obama could have played politics with it, gone with a well qualified black or hispanic, but instead, is nominating a moderate who is the Chief Justice of the DC Circuit. It'll piss off the racists that they can't complain about him nominating a white guy. The Republicans couldn't really hope for a better selection, and honestly, I'm quite good with him. I don't want partisans.

This is also a safe pick for the pickee. He is already Chief Justice of the DC Circuit, so it isn't as if he is going to lose an opportunity here.

I hope he wasn't picked because he is a white male and that is felt to be more palatable. That is just as racist and sexist as selecting a minority female just for the sake of "breaking ground".
 

Jolly_Penguin

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
10,366
Location
South Pole
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
Garland is a strategic pick, and a very good one. Republicans risk shooting themselves in the foot (again) by refusing to perform their official duties and consider him, and they'll be hard pressed to come up with a reason to reject him. If they do reject him, Obama surely will nominate someone like Sri Srinivasan, so they gain noting by being obstinate.

I can see how this can be viewed as a strategic pick, but I have to wonder. Is there ANYBODY Obama could have picked without him being accused some some sort of shenanigans? He picked somebody fairly conservative, as a compromise, and it gets spun into some diabolical political ploy.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,935
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Pretty much a well liked guy who is sitting on the 10th most important Judicial seat in the nation. Definitely Option 2. Obama could have played politics with it, gone with a well qualified black or hispanic, but instead, is nominating a moderate who is the Chief Justice of the DC Circuit. It'll piss off the racists that they can't complain about him nominating a white guy. The Republicans couldn't really hope for a better selection, and honestly, I'm quite good with him. I don't want partisans.

This is also a safe pick for the pickee. He is already Chief Justice of the DC Circuit, so it isn't as if he is going to lose an opportunity here.

I hope he wasn't picked because he is a white male and that is felt to be more palatable. That is just as racist and sexist as selecting a minority female just for the sake of "breaking ground".
It has been on the minds of some people since he named Wu Tang Clan to fill 1/3 of his Cabinet.
 

funinspace

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
4,178
Location
Oregon
Gender
Alien
Basic Beliefs
functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
Oh man the Repug asshats want it both ways. If they get slaughtered in Nov, then they will take Pres. Obama's reasonable nominee...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tys-supreme-court-blockade-all-about-politics
The Arizona Republican said that the Senate should consider Garland in a lame duck session if Hillary Clinton is elected president, fearing that Clinton would appoint a jurist who is more liberal than Garland.

"Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican on the Judiciary Committee who is generally deferential on presidential nominees, said “yes” when asked whether he would move to confirm Garland in the lame-duck session if Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, wins in November.

“For those of us who are concerned about the direction of the court and wanting at least a more centrist figure than between him and somebody that President Clinton might nominate, I think the choice is clear — in a lame duck,” Flake said Wednesday after Obama named Garland."

Sen. Orrin Hatch also said he was open to a vote but only in the lame-duck session, and NPR’s Nina Totenberg has “learned that Senate Republicans have signaled via ‘back channels’ that they would approve Garland, but only after the general election in November.”
And what happens if Obama withdraws the nominee on Nov. 9th?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,935
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Oh man the Repug asshats want it both ways. If they get slaughtered in Nov, then they will take Pres. Obama's reasonable nominee...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tys-supreme-court-blockade-all-about-politics
The Arizona Republican said that the Senate should consider Garland in a lame duck session if Hillary Clinton is elected president, fearing that Clinton would appoint a jurist who is more liberal than Garland.

"Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican on the Judiciary Committee who is generally deferential on presidential nominees, said “yes” when asked whether he would move to confirm Garland in the lame-duck session if Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, wins in November.

“For those of us who are concerned about the direction of the court and wanting at least a more centrist figure than between him and somebody that President Clinton might nominate, I think the choice is clear — in a lame duck,” Flake said Wednesday after Obama named Garland."

Sen. Orrin Hatch also said he was open to a vote but only in the lame-duck session, and NPR’s Nina Totenberg has “learned that Senate Republicans have signaled via ‘back channels’ that they would approve Garland, but only after the general election in November.”
And what happens if Obama withdraws the nominee on Nov. 9th?
I mean talk about being 100% born and inbred hypocrites! They won't consider the nominee because Obama is in his last year of his Presidency and they feel the people should decide... but if the people decide on Clinton... they'll try and go with Obama's nomination. What a bunch of assholes!
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
5,912
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
Oh man the Repug asshats want it both ways. If they get slaughtered in Nov, then they will take Pres. Obama's reasonable nominee...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tys-supreme-court-blockade-all-about-politics
The Arizona Republican said that the Senate should consider Garland in a lame duck session if Hillary Clinton is elected president, fearing that Clinton would appoint a jurist who is more liberal than Garland.

"Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican on the Judiciary Committee who is generally deferential on presidential nominees, said “yes” when asked whether he would move to confirm Garland in the lame-duck session if Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, wins in November.

“For those of us who are concerned about the direction of the court and wanting at least a more centrist figure than between him and somebody that President Clinton might nominate, I think the choice is clear — in a lame duck,” Flake said Wednesday after Obama named Garland."

Sen. Orrin Hatch also said he was open to a vote but only in the lame-duck session, and NPR’s Nina Totenberg has “learned that Senate Republicans have signaled via ‘back channels’ that they would approve Garland, but only after the general election in November.”
And what happens if Obama withdraws the nominee on Nov. 9th?

Well, the first thing that would happen is I'd laugh so hard I'd probably hurt myself. The second thing that would happen is I'd pay money to watch the pandemic of conniptions, vapors, and apoplexy in the Republican Party.

No doubt they'll take the nomination under consideration right before the election if the signs point to a Clinton or Sanders victory, just to be safe.
 

Sarpedon

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
2,976
Location
MN, US
Basic Beliefs
the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
What amazes me is how stupid they are not to see this. By anouncing that they wouldn't do anything before the fat fucker was cold, they gave plenty of time to Obama to mature his strategy. Not that it really took very long to figure out how to outmanuever those clowns. They walked up the stairs to the gallows themselves and tied the noose around their own neck.
 

Alcoholic Actuary

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
940
Location
SoCal
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I can't wait for "New Rules" and John Oliver this weekend. Republicans are simultaneously destroying their presidential hopes AND their senate majority all within the last month. One cannot write better material.

aa
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,935
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I can't wait for "New Rules" and John Oliver this weekend. Republicans are simultaneously destroying their presidential hopes AND their senate majority all within the last month. One cannot write better material.

aa
They are losing the Senate regardless. It is whether they'll fall to 49 seats or 45 seats. The House is also in play.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,273
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
I mean talk about being 100% born and inbred hypocrites! They won't consider the nominee because Obama is in his last year of his Presidency and they feel the people should decide... but if the people decide on Clinton... they'll try and go with Obama's nomination. What a bunch of assholes!

Yeah, the Republicans have not been particularly secretive about their douchebaggery.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,029
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Oh man the Repug asshats want it both ways. If they get slaughtered in Nov, then they will take Pres. Obama's reasonable nominee...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tys-supreme-court-blockade-all-about-politics

And what happens if Obama withdraws the nominee on Nov. 9th?
I mean talk about being 100% born and inbred hypocrites! They won't consider the nominee because Obama is in his last year of his Presidency and they feel the people should decide... but if the people decide on Clinton... they'll try and go with Obama's nomination. What a bunch of assholes!

Just remember, if you are not a tea party fanatic, you are not people.
 

RavenSky

The Doctor's Wife
Staff member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
10,705
Location
Miami, Florida
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Oh man the Repug asshats want it both ways. If they get slaughtered in Nov, then they will take Pres. Obama's reasonable nominee...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tys-supreme-court-blockade-all-about-politics

And what happens if Obama withdraws the nominee on Nov. 9th?
I mean talk about being 100% born and inbred hypocrites! They won't consider the nominee because Obama is in his last year of his Presidency and they feel the people should decide... but if the people decide on Clinton... they'll try and go with Obama's nomination. What a bunch of assholes!

And completely open in their hypocrisy, too.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
21,824
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
I mean talk about being 100% born and inbred hypocrites! They won't consider the nominee because Obama is in his last year of his Presidency and they feel the people should decide... but if the people decide on Clinton... they'll try and go with Obama's nomination. What a bunch of assholes!

Just remember, if you are not a tea party fanatic, you are not people.
Maybe the non-Tea Party republicans could count as 3/5ths of a people?
 
Top Bottom