Merrick Garland SCOTUS judge?

[68custom]

Seems like a good choice and likely pretty moderate. and likely not going to be seated?
Opinions?
BTW I can not stand Mitch McConnell!

[MrPots]

refusing to consider this nomination will only hurt the GOP....in the midterms.

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by MrPots

refusing to consider this nomination will only hurt the GOP....in the midterms.

I would like to think so but we do plainly see how those people are stuck on their brand loyalty. And how they are being played.


Carl

* And Dems have DWS to help them lose again, I forgot about that.

[Pio1980]

They'd prefer stuffing another overt partisan into the slot on their watch.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Ike Bana]

The GOP and right-wingjobs all across the fruited plain are constantly blubbering about "Constitutional responsibility." Well...it's Obama's Constitutional responsibility to place somebody in nomination as quickly as possible, and it's the Senate's Constitutional responsibility to interview and confirm or reject that nominee ASAP as well. If they refuse...the Democratic Presidential nominee needs to beat them to death with it in the campaign. As does every Democratic candidate for a Senate seat. I can only hope that Tammy Duckworth's people are preparing to bash Mark Kirk over his lumpy head if he goes along with the party leaders in refusing to perform their Constitutionally mandated duties.

PS - Anthony Kennedy was confirmed during Reagan's final year as POTUS.

[CarlV]

I like the part when Mitch McConnell states that the people should have a voice in the decision. Oh really? Since when did he start giving a rat's ass about the people LOL.


Carl

[Tom Joad]

Obummer plays right into Republicans hands. Nominates a conservative. All the Republicans have to do is stonewall this guy till after the election. Then, if they win, they stonewall him the rest of the way and wait till their boy can put in someone even more right wing. And if they lose, they hurry up and confirm him and deny the new Democrat the opportunity to nominate someone more liberal.

[whell]

Originally Posted by MrPots

refusing to consider this nomination will only hurt the GOP....in the midterms.

Bologna...

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

The GOP and right-wingjobs all across the fruited plain are constantly blubbering about "Constitutional responsibility." Well...it's Obama's Constitutional responsibility to place somebody in nomination as quickly as possible, and it's the Senate's Constitutional responsibility to interview and confirm or reject that nominee ASAP as well. If they refuse...the Democratic Presidential nominee needs to beat them to death with it in the campaign. As does every Democratic candidate for a Senate seat. I can only hope that Tammy Duckworth's people are preparing to bash Mark Kirk over his lumpy head if he goes along with the party leaders in refusing to perform their Constitutionally mandated duties.

PS - Anthony Kennedy was confirmed during Reagan's final year as POTUS.

So, Joe Biden was wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us...1992.html?_r=0

PS - look how well the Kennedy pick worked out for the right.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

So, Joe Biden was wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us...1992.html?_r=0

PS - look how well the Kennedy pick worked out for the right.

Yes, he was and his position was just as cynical, partisan and reprenehsible as McConnell's and Grassley's. As it happened, Kennedy was indeed confirmed in Reagan's last year. In other words, Biden's floor speech can't be used as any sort of precedent.

Sorry to disappoint you, whell, but most of us on the left don't look at politics as the "blue team versus the red team". We don't try to defend everything "our team" does.

Oh, and Obama isn't a "lame duck". I don't think you've called him that but the Republicans constantly do. A lame duck president is one who is serving out the last few months of his last term after the election which decided his successor.