Posted on 03/16/2016 7:34:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ooops - at least the editors knew what the hell they were talking about, even if I went off on the headline alone.
From 1994 until his appointment as U.S. Circuit Judge, Judge Garland served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, where his responsibilities included the supervision of the Oklahoma City bombing and UNABOM prosecutions.
Hmmm....
Can Republicans run the clock to Nov and send him thru if a Dem wins POTUS? (Assuming he’d be better than the next nominee)
This guy must be a glutton for punishment accepting the nomination knowing he is going down in a ball of flames. That alone puts his judgement in question and thus I vote “no”.
Hold that line! Hold that line!
DOA!
She quotes the Politico:
President Obama will nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court
He can nominate anybody he wants. The senate can just ignore it as they have indicated they will.
And the future of the GOP rests on whether or not that nominee gets approval.
Garland clerked for Democrat lefty Supreme Court Justice Brennan. That is all I need to know. Now where is that waste basket?
How bad is this guy.
Close; this is a nominee designed to have a confirmation process. One who was selected to be rejected. Do the process for this one, the next one will be presented which is whom the White House really wants, and very little leg to stand on in refusing to hold hearings at that point, and pretty much exactly what I predicted.
Here's your bait, Republicans - do you let the nominee sit there and wait for the president to withdraw it after throwing repeated fits, or will you cave? I'd put money on the caving, but I think I'll more prudently tuck it away in a more exchangeable form.
IF the do hold until January, it will be at a pretty high cost. You can quote the Constitution all day, but the Senate not acting will come across as lazy slackers not doing their job, not as a tactical move.
It would have been much smarter to let the President appoint, and let the Senate vote, but voting down the appointment.
Delay and obstruction is ALWAYS bad optics to the middle ground. Partisans see the usefulness, and of course the Democrats did the same thing (and arguably paid a political price for doing so), the Independents, however, call BS, I think the vast majority of them think EVER appointment should ALWAYS get an up or down vote and to hell with committees.
How ironic. An old White male from Harvard. I guess he’s the sacrificial lamb.
Sen. Mike Lee (member, Senate Judiciary Committee) on Fox just now said there will be no hearing for Garland.
And he’s Jewish. Am I the only one asking “are there NO PROTESTANTS capable of being a SCOTUS judge?!” Protestants are the majority in America and yet all but two of the SCOTUS judges are either liberal Catholics or Jews.
It’s he anti 2nd amendment? If so, that in my opinion is the game plan...........ban guns or at least more of them
I’d be careful if I were the zGOP. This could be a bait as switch by Obambi. Republic set hearings because this guy isn’t as bad as they feared, then Odumbo has the guy pull out, and then he nominates a more liberal, more far left, judge. It would be impossible for the ZGOP to claim precedent of not allowing a president in his last year to nominate, after they were all set to hold hearings on this guy.
According to a reader he is. That is probably why that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave wants him.
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.