If the Senate does not advise AND consent it is not fulfilling it's constitutional duties. This idea that the Senate needs an election to decide who gets nominated is not a bad one. That election was in 2012 and the GOP lost it. Saying the next one is the important one is unconstitutional on the face of it and could very well lead to Democrats preventing the next President from nominating a candidate to the Supreme Court by refusing to invoke cloture until "the next election, which should decide who gets nominated." The GOP is committing ritual suicide at this point. I wish they weren't trying to take all of the rest of us down with them.
Heh. You're so wonderfully pliable. I mean - what did you or any one else know about Merrick Garland before 11:00 am this morning when the day's narrative began to flow? Read much of his work? Or, perhaps spend the day on the phone checking references? Perhaps not. No, the retail news narrative began to tell us that this was an older, well-respected jurist - a "moderate," we're told - and from there, the leap to "impeccable." I'll grant you this: if your broader point is that the herd of sheep who know just as little as you seem to have not a bad word to say about the guy and that, in itself, equates to an "impeccable candidate," then point taken. Proves only that sheep can be trained where to shit. Me? I'm still willing to wait another 6-9 months to see if Scalia shows up for work.
Of course your perspective comes from the leader of a far right conservative group who has been a law clerk to Clarence Thomas. This group had already put up a couple of million to oppose Obama's nominee before one was ever named and doubled down today. You need to go pretty far left of the Judicial Crisis Network to approach the middle.
The point is easy to see. The opinion piece you cited was written by a person who has no concept of what a moderate is.
That's all you have? Nothing about the writer, her stance or her organization? I guess this is why you normally just post links without comment.
I was posting another point of view I found interesting. if you don't like it too bad. I don't really give a flying fuck whether you approve of the source. why you consistently think your opinion on sources is important is beyond me. I don't think anyone really cares except maybe big blocker who does the same gay shit. you guys should start a gay message board alliance. oh no raleturd doesn't like the source!
Got it! You believe if it's on the internet it has to be true! You probably care what abyzmul has to say.
maybe it would be more interesting if you talked about the content instead of just trying to discredit the source.
Great idea. Virtually everything about the judge paints him as a true moderate who was confirmed for his current position 78-23 with 23 Republicans who wanted to reduce the number of judges voting against him. Your link is the only thing I've seen that disagrees. Your turn.
I'm sure you're aware of the potential 2nd amendment implications with this justice appointment. The link speaks to that.
The link shows a writer with a clear bias, for which she is well compensated, attempting to create a question of Second Amendment implications. She fails; but most casual readers, particularly those who would love to see a reason to deny the nomination, will buy into it hook, line and sinker.
wait, are you suggesting there aren't potential 2a implications with this appointment? this isn't some new crazy idea introduced by this writer.
If you're so sure they are make a case for it and don 't leave out the part where his position and Scalia's were the same at least twice.
I'm not talking about this specific judge. I'm referring to this appointment in general. is that a point of contention with you?
There is no separating "this specific judge" and "this appointment in general" after his being named today but the organization you believe worthy of citing did, as mentioned earlier, lay out two million dollars to stall any appointment before any particular judge was named in contravention of the duties of the Senate. Do you not have a problem with that?
I ask you an extremely legitimate question of the Senate fulfilling its Constitutional obligation and that's the best you can do? That would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
