Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Anyways back on topic.http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/harry-reid-brian-sandoval-supreme-court/index.html
Now that's a curve ball. Replacing a 'Scalia' with a 'Kennedy'- not a left judge, but a swing judge.
It gives the Republicans a hard choice- if they stall, they risk getting a much more liberal justice if Hillary wins. And excuses for obstructionism seem less, they can't claim that Obama is throwing a partisan choice at them.
This, this is going to be interesting.
Btw, a story on him from a few days ago, on how despite him being a Republican governor with high approval ratings, not long ago considered one of the two most valuable endorsements in the party (and still likely valuable in the general), the campaigns (*especially* Cruz) were shunning him due to him going for a tax raise to specifically fund Nevada's underfunded education system.
So that's some additional background.
-John Oliver pounds GOP for invoking ‘bullsh*t’ rule to keep from voting for Scalia’s replacement -
YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo6SFZf_hMo
Mitch McConnell hypocrisy @ 03:29
Originally posted by Raisen
why do liberals always use comedians as their news.
I guess liberals are generally more honest, so they can admit that they like their politics wrapped in entertainment, unlike people like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, who are obviously clowns and comedians, but pretend not to be.
Hilary is the most dishonest politician in existence, it does not show much when the democrats are split between an all out socialist and herself. I see your losing touch with the movement and more concerned about TV show hosts. Just currently the only one under federal investigation by congress, the courts and FBI.
Sandavol said to Obama "nah, I'm good brah."
This will sink the Democrats
Apples to Oranges.
Bork was blocked for many reasons noted, here's some from your article:
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.Senate Democrats brought up legal writings from Bork dating back in 1963, when he wrote a New Republic article about public accommodations and the proposed 1964 Civil Rights Act. Bork’s opponents were critical of his opinions about the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. Bork’s testimony was also broadcast on live television.
That's not the same as McConnell's "no matter who is nominated we will reject, Obama doesn't get to choose!" stance.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Sorry Biden's 1992 Rule Trumps your agreement.
No, Joe Biden Didn’t Say That The Senate Should Block Supreme Court Nominees During An Election Year
Well Obama tried to pull a fast one.
Look like Garland will be far left then his claim of being a "moderate."
Even the NYT calls this bull shit out
"A Supreme Court with Merrick Garland Would Be the Most Liberal in Decades"
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html
If it were up to Judge Garland, DC citizens would have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights and the EPA would have virtually unlimited control over the private property of Americans.
Republican Senate leaders should be applauded for standing on principle and upholding their role of advice and consent in filling Supreme Court vacancies.