Posted on 03/17/2016 6:16:31 AM PDT by shortstop
Wait until after the election to see if H->! wins or not.
I’ll go one better. I don’t agree with “Bob” at all.
Obama has already had two bites at that apple and I’ll be damned if I countenance either one of my two Senators agreeing to sit down with or hold a vote over this nomination. Not now, not while Obama is in office and then I expect the next President to nominate someone else.
Bob must be left out from some Washington dinner parties, and wants to be loved again.
This nominee is bad, but it could be worse. Debatable whether that matters, but let’s presume for a second it does.
I would suggest dragging the nomination out over the next 7 months, until the election. If Hillary or Bernie win, then accept the nomination, if a Republican wins, reject the nomination.
And what if the new Senate is composed of 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans...
Sorry, but we can not allow this to get out of committee, because we have enough RINO’s in our party that will team up with liberals and approve of his nomination.
Mitch has a lot to make up for, probably too much, honestly, but he can at least partially redeem himself if, IF! - he holds the line here. If he can do that, lots of us will say after he's gone that maybe he wasn't all that bad a guy after all...
Lame Duck session.
In a war, the enemy sets the terms of engagement. The Democrats see themselves at war with us, and have said so, so the terms of engagement are no SCOTUS appointments the last year of a Presidential term, as set by them. Hold them to their own standards, as their own theorist requires.
My solution to this issue is SIMPLE.
Get Ginsberg to retire and we just have 7 judges. Everything stays the same as it was before. The balance of the court would be restored.
The answer to that is “Don’t mess up the election.”
If the committee does their act, and passes him onto a full vote, at best...I think the guy would get the 44 Democrat votes, the two independent votes, and two to five Republican votes...giving you a max of 51. You need sixty.
Now, I read yesterday that at least two Democrat Senators want a rule change where it only takes 51 to pass a Supreme Court nominee. The odds of a rule change right now? Zero. The Republicans might grin and say they would be willing to change the rules...by making it a passage of one single Senator. I’m pretty sure that the Democrats don’t want that to occur, but it would be a humor moment.
Candidate number two? By June, and maybe seven or eight Republicans might go for that deal. Beyond that...the Republicans are finished as a party if they pass this group of guys under President Obama after all their talk.
I’m sorry, but the Biden rule was established long before we mourned Justice Scalia’s death.
Bob Lonsberry is looking at things through his Rove-colored glasses again.
NO. Wait till after the election for the people to have their say.
Who believes Scalia’s death was natural with a pillow over his head?
About as stupid as continually writing in one-sentence paragraphs.
President Trump, or President Cruz, should shove conservative after conservative after conservative down their throats, even if it means SCOTUS has an empty seat for three years until the 2018 midterms, when the GOP could get the Senate back. Politics ain't beanbag.
Oh hell no.
I don't trust the republicans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.