Trump will fix that.

The good Jews are lawyers?

pacino wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:or he nominated him bc what argument could be made not to approve him beyond the stupid the next president should do it one.

"It's not about the person, it's about the principle of letting the people decide"


^the line you'll see over and over

Orrin Hatch has decided not to meet with Garland. It took a week for Hatch to change his mind. Remember, it's not about the person, it's about the principle of opposing the President.

called it

Dan Coats (Ind.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Orrin Hatch (Utah), James M. Inhofe (Okla.), John McCain (Ariz.), and Pat Roberts (Kan.) have all thrown their weight behind Garland before.

@mkrajuWhy did you vote for Garland in 1997? "I supported him," Pat Roberts said to me. Will you support him now? "It's not about the person."
10:43 AM - 16 Mar 2016

heard someone speculating that if Hilary wins that the lame duck Senate will move to confirm him

won't they be huge hypocrites if they did that?

@natesilver538
Fairly strong possibility that Trump won't get to 1237 delegates on his own but would with Kasich's delegates. Come to your own conclusions.

There you go doc

there you go jh

td11 wrote:@natesilver538
Fairly strong possibility that Trump won't get to 1237 delegates on his own but would with Kasich's delegates. Come to your own conclusions.

There you go doc

One of Trump's supports will watch Highlander drunk one day and attempt to decapitate Kasich to gain his delegates/powers.

#conclusion

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:heard someone speculating that if Hilary wins that the lame duck Senate will move to confirm him

won't they be huge hypocrites if they did that?

if Clinton wins and Garland still isn't confirmed, I wouldn't acquiesce to that as President. he can withdraw the nominee. I say 'too bad, so sad' and let Clinton then nominate someone new.

Garland is being put through the ringer due to his rulings on criminal justice, but most everything else is a big push of the Supreme Court. he's the most likely to be confirmed by THIS Senate (Sri was the other). I, of course, trust President Obama's vetting process for this pick. He previously picked two fairly good justices. Many liberals don't, they've become jaded. Whatever. i'm no longer about appeasing liberals, i'm about wins that actually achieve long-term liberal ends. This still would. Clinton would then be able to nominate someone to replace Ginsburg that is to her equal, or close, and so on and so on. The SC is changed for years.

hillary has two "ls"

CalvinBall wrote:hillary has two "ls"

but hilary has only one

THERE BOTH CRIMINALS!

td11 wrote:@natesilver538
Fairly strong possibility that Trump won't get to 1237 delegates on his own but would with Kasich's delegates. Come to your own conclusions.

There you go doc

actually, i'm confused now. At first I took it to mean that Kasich staying in is a GOOD thing for the #nevertrump movement; now i'm thinking that the conclusion we're supposed to reach is that he's angling for VEEP.

Snyder testifying before Congress about Flint. On deep reflection, he's found everyone but him is to blame

pacino wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:heard someone speculating that if Hilary wins that the lame duck Senate will move to confirm him

won't they be huge hypocrites if they did that?

if Clinton wins and Garland still isn't confirmed, I wouldn't acquiesce to that as President. he can withdraw the nominee. I say 'too bad, so sad' and let Clinton then nominate someone new.

Garland is being put through the ringer due to his rulings on criminal justice, but most everything else is a big push of the Supreme Court. he's the most likely to be confirmed by THIS Senate (Sri was the other). I, of course, trust President Obama's vetting process for this pick. He previously picked two fairly good justices. Many liberals don't, they've become jaded. Whatever. i'm no longer about appeasing liberals, i'm about wins that actually achieve long-term liberal ends. This still would. Clinton would then be able to nominate someone to replace Ginsburg that is to her equal, or close, and so on and so on. The SC is changed for years.

the same speculator said that Obama wouldnt pull the nominee as he considers it HIS nominee and wouldnt do that to Garland

td11 wrote:@natesilver538
Fairly strong possibility that Trump won't get to 1237 delegates on his own but would with Kasich's delegates. Come to your own conclusions.

There you go doc

Pleased that we have at least ONE informed, qualified voter amongst us

Hmm, I'd have to see who said that. I could see Obama thinking that way.

drsmooth wrote:

td11 wrote:@natesilver538
Fairly strong possibility that Trump won't get to 1237 delegates on his own but would with Kasich's delegates. Come to your own conclusions.

There you go doc

Pleased that we have at least ONE informed, qualified voter amongst us

nobody here has said anything different

Senate is not going to consider Garland. They simply can't appear to fold. I don't think the Presidential situation changes their calculus at all. But Dem Sen candidates can use this, particularly in red and purple states, to bang Republican incumbents over the head with "petty obstructionism" over and over again. The Democrats are saying--ok, people decide--decide if they want to continue with Republicans who not only are going to nominate Trump as their candidate, but also won't even consider a moderate nominee for the SC. Had Obama made progressives happy with a more liberal appointee, this strategy would be less effective.

To be sure, I stand by my analysis that McConnell was a total dope with making an ultimatum that simply wasn't necessary.

Finally, if a lame duck Senate does hurriedly confim Garland after November, my understanding is that Obama does not actually have to appoint him. (The actual issue in Marbury v. Madision).

Further on Silver's big reveal, he's played the assertion TD's reported just the way conventional media would: he's known it for awhile, but the "drumpf state wins zomg!!1!" story line pulls more eyeballs, so don't swim upstream until the time is right to 'go rogue'....

td11 wrote:@natesilver538
Fairly strong possibility that Trump won't get to 1237 delegates on his own but would with Kasich's delegates. Come to your own conclusions.

There you go doc

I don't know if he's implying that a Trump/Kasich ticket would get Trump the nomination but (and I know Nate knows this) if Kasich stays in, his delegates are legally bound on the first ballot (not 100% but close) and if they become unbound it's not like the vast majority of them are Kasich/Trump chosen humans who will automatically vote Trump.

My gut says that if he's within 50ish delegates something will get done in the week before hand to get him the nomination on 2nd ballot. If he's way shy then he won't get it.