Posted on 03/17/2016 7:43:52 AM PDT by Cyberman
It’s a calculated risk. Liberal justice Garland now, or communist justice Obama appointed by President Hillary next year?
It boils down to who wins the Presidency, and the same people on FR and in Congress who bemoan this nomination are among those who are opposing Trump. The best outcome is to refuse Garland and get 100% behind Trump, NOW.
Those who say the only option is to refuse Garland AND oppose Trump in hopes of Cruz presidency are banking on very long odds.
Network Evening Newscasts Paint Garland as ‘Moderate,’ Plead with Republicans to Consider Him
By Curtis Houck | March 16, 2016 | 9:43 PM EDT
ABC, CBS, NBC, Univision Censor El Chapo Weapon Being Linked to Fast and Furious
By Curtis Houck | March 16, 2016 | 11:15 PM EDT
..The willingness of Republican senators to meet with Judge Garland highlights how the degree of difficulty in blocking a nomination rises...
Spinelessness of these Senators.
Merrick is very pro abortion, and rabidly anti gun. He voted for the DC Court to rehear and overturn Heller. What more do they need to know?
The man is acceptable to the communist, sodomite mohammedan from Kenya. Or Indonesia. Or wherever-the-heck he’s from ...
That’s all we need to know about him.
Every Republican turncoat needs a Common Sense Republican to run against them next time they’re up for re-election.
We’re not going to take this lying down.
Should not receive any time. If you give this person any time, you are really stupid.
Nope, they're still opposed to it.
Graham: No Hearing, No Vote On Obama Supreme Court Nominee
McCain Says He's Ready To Block an Obama Appointee to Supreme Court
The correct answer was Mark Kirk and Susan Collins, a couple of worthless turds whose primary challengers had virtually no support from "Tea Party" leaders", and whom numerous FReepers defended by saying they were "the best we can get in a blue state" and would "be with us when it counts"
Kirk says he'll consider Obama's Supreme Court nominee
Collins: Senate should give Obama high court pick 'careful consideration'
Exactly, the media is trying to get everyone to believe that two left wing Republican Senators are part of the confirmation process by meeting with the nominee. They have nothing to do with the confirmation process and will never have a say. They will only have a vote, and that will only happen if there is a real cave. That’s unlikely to happen. This is nothing but theater and efforts by the media to deceive people.
Not a chance.
Trump would blast this at every rally, and the Republicans would lose that voter base forever.
It’s the only thing keeping the Republicans in Congress, as this point.
You are absolutely right.
They are both left wing leaning Republicans from solidly Democrat states. They are concerned about their own skins, just like all politicians.
I'm honestly surprised Obama nominated this "Merrick Garland" for SCOTUS. Looking at the guy's background and ideology, he should be EASY for Republicans to oppose. I would have never nominated him if I was in Obama's shoes and needed some leftist judge to play victim in front of a GOP controlled Senate. I figured Obama would name some token "Republican" judge who is a liberal activist so he can claim its a "bipartisan, consensus pick" and the eeeeeeeeeeeevil Senate Republicans are so hateful they would kill the career of "one of their own" just to stick it to Obama, or he would name that Sri Srinivasan guy that had previously been confirmed by a vote of 97-0, and play up the "historic, ground-breaking" nature of the appointment and portray Senate Republicans as being racist against "brown people" and bigoted against Srinivasan's Hindu religion "because they believe our courts should only consist of white Christians"
Merrick Garland is in a totally different ballpark. Clinton appointee, DC appellate court judge who was ALREADY opposed by a considerable amount of GOP Senators the FIRST time he was appointed, proven leftist record, and he'd be yet another 60+ year old, white liberal Jew on SCOTUS. Remember when the RATs complained there were too many Catholics on the court and it didn't reflect America? GOP Senators can point to Garland's nomination and say Obama's pick does not reflect the "diversity" of America and that he should have consulted with Senators to find judges who better reflected the "changing demographics of America in 2016". If I was a GOP senator, I'd be giving a speech right now saying "It's not surprising that past Presidents often failed to take America's diversity into account, but I'm shocked and saddened that the first African-American President would want to continue the status quo we've had on the court for decades"
Republican Senators should offer their own "suggestions" of SCOTUS judges (Janice Rogers Brown, etc.) who would "better reflect the diversity of 21st century America"). Give Obama a list of conservative Asian, Indian, Latin American, Mormon, Pentecostal, Baptist, etc., judges and dare him to consider them. We need to drag this out as long as possible and keep Obama from pushing the "obstructionist" angle.
>> I fully expect that if the Senate Majority Leader ultimately refuses to to set a hearing for this nomination, leftist infiltrators like Kirk, Ayotte and Flake will threaten to jump ship and “become” demonicrats. <<
This concerns me as well. I doubt turncoats Ayotte and Flake would outright become RATS, but I can honestly see Kirk and Collins deciding to caucus with the RATs to protest the GOP's "extremism" and protect themselves from facing a RAT challenger for re-election.
All you need is enough principled Senators to filibuster until after the election.
Garland works for Obama because he’s fairly old, not a radical left winger (albeit certainly an orthodox liberal) and because (being white) his nomination is seen as good faith and not an effort to stir up minorities to vote for Democrats in November.
I don’t think he gets through before the election, but he’d be a solid bet to be confirmed in the lame duck if Clinton is elected President or the Dmeocrats take the Senate majority, and 100% certain if both happens, because Clinton’s nominee for Majority Leader Chuck Shumer to push through in February will be a 45-year-old bombthrower of a lefty.
[[Give Obama a list of conservative Asian, Indian, Latin American, Mormon, Pentecostal, Baptist, etc., judges and dare him to consider them. ]]
Exactly! But don’t count on the republicans to find spine enough to do this- They may very well be in cahoots with the left
[[ I’m honestly surprised Obama nominated this “Merrick Garland” for SCOTUS.]]
Exactly- He threw out a known liberal when he could have presented a trojan horse instead (someone like john roberts turned out to be)- someone who appears conservative, but who will turn liberal as soon as they are affirmed- Dear leader tipped his hand on this one- Either dear leader isn’t as tricky as people claim he is, or he has some other deceitful plan in mind and this nominee is just a smokescreen
[[GOP Senators can point to Garland’s nomination and say Obama’s pick does not reflect the “diversity” of America and that he should have consulted with Senators to find judges who better reflected the “changing demographics of America in 2016”.]]
Exactly- they shoudl play up the meme that ‘dear leader claism he’s bisex.... err, bipartisan, but he threw up someoen he knew didn’t reflect the values and diversity of America without consulting with us, in a typical partisan manner, which he seems to relish. He’s not a uniter, but a divider, and this is just another perfect example of him trying to stick it to America without consensus and without consulting anyone but hismelf”
Maybe those reported as seeing the guy should be emailed.
Those guys we have on the Hill are pretty stupid, but none of them are that stupid. This message would come through the media filter as: "There's too many darn Joooos on the court already".
Nope; the nomination would be withdrawn at that point and we'd be stuck with a real hardcore leftist after the inauguration.
Time to Gear Up and protest at all fed buildings.
Here are some more politicians that need an asterisk next to their (r*) as a honest (R) does not apply here.
By the same token the GOP needs to by defined as GOP/DEM. As they say, when the shoe fits.
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.