Hey, liberals: must the Senate suborn perjury?

dangus

[dangus]

The president just stated with unqualified certainty that the rejection of his executive amnesty was a result of the Senate failing to confirm Merrick Garland. In doing so, he just absolved the Senate of any blame for refusing his nominee.

Democrats have been pressing for now for a *hearing.* But what would such a hearing consist of? Is not the most basic purpose of a hearing to ascertain whether the nominee can fairly, impartially and intelligently consider the merits of the cases brought before him? To even ask him whether he would be impartial would be to suborn perjury.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Obama sure has been getting pissed off publicly a lot recently.

[Jack Black]

It's the fun part of his administration!

• His petulance.
• His snide, snarky comments.
• His 'deer in the headlights' look.
• His dawning realization that he no longer matters.
• His certain knowledge that he has a legacy of failure.
• His growing awareness that will not be remembered well.
• His looming knowledge that anything pushed through by executive action can be undone by it.
• His fear of loathing of Donald Trump.
• His inability to remain civil with anyone questioning him.
• His ridiculous sophomoric taunting of the GOP.
• His sad realization that he's going to be tarred with Clinton crimes, by association.
• His internal sadness over seeing himself lumped in with Bush2.

Grand stuff!

[onedoug]

liberals don’t care.

[Arthur McGowan]

What Obama was saying is that HE KNOWS HOW GARLAND WOULD RULE.

That claim by Obama is sufficient reason for Republicans to refuse to hold a hearing on Garland’s nomination.

[dangus]

That was my point.