Monkeyboy wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

Speaking Monday to Philadelphia’s WPHT-AM radio in an interview promoting fellow Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, McCain made it clear for the first time that Republicans will continue to block anyone the next president nominates to the Supreme Court as well as the last one: “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said.

what BS. There's nothing they can do if she wins. Are they planning to keep the number of justices at 8 forever, adding to the empty spots as others retire?

I hope she punishes this nonsense by picking the most liberal judge she can find that 50 dem senators will vote for. And I was Obama, I would pull the other guy's nomination and not allow them to confirm him while Obama's a lame duck. If there's no downside, they'll do it again when the time comes.

There is a downside:pulling Merrick Garland's nomination would be a rotten thing to do to a fellow human being, and I think Barack Obama is genuinely above that sort of thing, and even if he isn't by instinct, doing so would cede the moral/political high ground.

EDIT: Yes, and the filibuster.

Yeh, they can filibuster, but I'm not sure that's really something to fear here. If not for Trump's insanity, they would be paying a price for not giving this guy an up or down vote. If they lose the election, especially as bad as it looks like they will, how long could they filibuster? Dems could rightfully point out that they lost across the board. People will eventually see the obstruction, as they are now seeing the gender and race discrimination. Let them filibuster and fill the airways with their craziness...more and more people will see that it's not just donald trump.

But agree on the human aspect. Is it that unusual to pull a nomination as circumstances change?

Warszawa wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

Speaking Monday to Philadelphia’s WPHT-AM radio in an interview promoting fellow Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, McCain made it clear for the first time that Republicans will continue to block anyone the next president nominates to the Supreme Court as well as the last one: “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said.

what BS. There's nothing they can do if she wins. Are they planning to keep the number of justices at 8 forever, adding to the empty spots as others retire?

I hope she punishes this nonsense by picking the most liberal judge she can find that 50 dem senators will vote for. And I was Obama, I would pull the other guy's nomination and not allow them to confirm him while Obama's a lame duck. If there's no downside, they'll do it again when the time comes.

There is a downside:pulling Merrick Garland's nomination would be a rotten thing to do to a fellow human being, and I think Barack Obama is genuinely above that sort of thing, and even if he isn't by instinct, doing so would cede the moral/political high ground.

EDIT: Yes, and the filibuster.

Yeh, they can filibuster, but I'm not sure that's really something to fear here. If not for Trump's insanity, they would be paying a price for not giving this guy an up or down vote. If they lose the election, especially as bad as it looks like they will, how long could they filibuster? Dems could rightfully point out that they lost across the board. People will eventually see the obstruction, as they are now seeing the gender and race discrimination. Let them filibuster and fill the airways with their craziness...more and more people will see that it's not just donald trump.

But agree on the human aspect. Is it that unusual to pull a nomination as circumstances change?

Do you expect that the senate will allow a vote on Garland in the lame duck period?

Monkeyboy wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

Speaking Monday to Philadelphia’s WPHT-AM radio in an interview promoting fellow Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, McCain made it clear for the first time that Republicans will continue to block anyone the next president nominates to the Supreme Court as well as the last one: “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said.

what BS. There's nothing they can do if she wins. Are they planning to keep the number of justices at 8 forever, adding to the empty spots as others retire?

I hope she punishes this nonsense by picking the most liberal judge she can find that 50 dem senators will vote for. And I was Obama, I would pull the other guy's nomination and not allow them to confirm him while Obama's a lame duck. If there's no downside, they'll do it again when the time comes.

There is a downside:pulling Merrick Garland's nomination would be a rotten thing to do to a fellow human being, and I think Barack Obama is genuinely above that sort of thing, and even if he isn't by instinct, doing so would cede the moral/political high ground.

EDIT: Yes, and the filibuster.

Yeh, they can filibuster, but I'm not sure that's really something to fear here. If not for Trump's insanity, they would be paying a price for not giving this guy an up or down vote. If they lose the election, especially as bad as it looks like they will, how long could they filibuster? Dems could rightfully point out that they lost across the board. People will eventually see the obstruction, as they are now seeing the gender and race discrimination. Let them filibuster and fill the airways with their craziness...more and more people will see that it's not just donald trump.

But agree on the human aspect. Is it that unusual to pull a nomination as circumstances change?

Do you expect that the senate will allow a vote on Garland in the lame duck period?

They seem to be hinting that way. I guess it's not fair to pull the rug out from under the guy, but it seems like there should be some political price for their refusal to have a vote.

jerseyhoya wrote:The New York Times endorsed Patrick Murphy #gamechange

Also he cancelled a debate he agreed to on Univision because Rubio and Univision wanted the debate to be mostly in Spanish with Murphy's answers translated for viewers, and Murphy wanted the debate to be entirely in English and have them both dubbed.

Warszawa wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Warszawa wrote:

Speaking Monday to Philadelphia’s WPHT-AM radio in an interview promoting fellow Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, McCain made it clear for the first time that Republicans will continue to block anyone the next president nominates to the Supreme Court as well as the last one: “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said.

what BS. There's nothing they can do if she wins. Are they planning to keep the number of justices at 8 forever, adding to the empty spots as others retire?

I hope she punishes this nonsense by picking the most liberal judge she can find that 50 dem senators will vote for. And I was Obama, I would pull the other guy's nomination and not allow them to confirm him while Obama's a lame duck. If there's no downside, they'll do it again when the time comes.

There is a downside:pulling Merrick Garland's nomination would be a rotten thing to do to a fellow human being, and I think Barack Obama is genuinely above that sort of thing, and even if he isn't by instinct, doing so would cede the moral/political high ground.

EDIT: Yes, and the filibuster.

Yeh, they can filibuster, but I'm not sure that's really something to fear here. If not for Trump's insanity, they would be paying a price for not giving this guy an up or down vote. If they lose the election, especially as bad as it looks like they will, how long could they filibuster? Dems could rightfully point out that they lost across the board. People will eventually see the obstruction, as they are now seeing the gender and race discrimination. Let them filibuster and fill the airways with their craziness...more and more people will see that it's not just donald trump.

But agree on the human aspect. Is it that unusual to pull a nomination as circumstances change?

Do you expect that the senate will allow a vote on Garland in the lame duck period?

They seem to be hinting that way. I guess it's not fair to pull the rug out from under the guy, but it seems like there should be some political price for their refusal to have a vote.

Another thing is that if Hillary is serious about trying to work with republicans it would probably be a bad idea to nominate a very liberal judge. On the other hand Hillary just might say fuck it and hope the senate nukes the filibuster.

jerseyhoya wrote:Probably shouldn't have accepted a debate on Univision against a guy who spoke Spanish in the first place, then

@DrJillStein Oct 17
Where is the defense of Wikileaks from all the pundits who've speculated that Trump would try to silence critical journalism?

Bucky wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Probably shouldn't have accepted a debate on Univision against a guy who spoke Spanish in the first place, then

Los Angeles Times @latimes
This is a letter Trump sent us in 2008. He was upset about an article on Trump University, later threatened to sue. http://lat.ms/2dWeAnR