Author |
Message |
arcosh
|
Post Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:45 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 2266
Location: Vienna, Austria, EU
|
What about the time between the primaries and the general election?
Say they block all Obama candidates until the primaries for some reasons they make up, and then figure that the next candidate is quite acceptable actually. Because then they either have won their primaries or have lost them anyway.
And hope that for the next election cycle all is old news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kitoba
|
Post Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:02 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 2699
Website: http://kitoba.com
Location: Televising the revolution
|
arcosh wrote: What about the time between the primaries and the general election?
Say they block all Obama candidates until the primaries for some reasons they make up, and then figure that the next candidate is quite acceptable actually. Because then they either have won their primaries or have lost them anyway.
And hope that for the next election cycle all is old news. I think this is likely. Harsh talk until after the primaries are over, and quiet retreat before the general (if the nominee is a moderate).
|
|
|
|
|
baconbotsforever
|
Post Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:19 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:50 am Posts: 1898
Location: Deep in debt, shallow on time.
|
kitoba wrote: arcosh wrote: What about the time between the primaries and the general election?
Say they block all Obama candidates until the primaries for some reasons they make up, and then figure that the next candidate is quite acceptable actually. Because then they either have won their primaries or have lost them anyway.
And hope that for the next election cycle all is old news. I think this is likely. Harsh talk until after the primaries are over, and quiet retreat before the general (if the nominee is a moderate). I doubt it will go down this way. The reason is that getting a discouraged, fed up with "RINOs that let that commie Obama wreck our country!!!11!!1" party base out to vote is their path to victory. If they can trumpet in November "Vote for our guy, he'll keep the Supreme Court conservative!" they have a slightly better chance at victory. If everyone's grumpy Uncle Joe and Aunt Fannie get out to the voting booth, afraid of a liberal Supreme Court, its easier to win. The sad fact is that getting Democratic messaging out is an exercise in herding cats; with the pervasive RW bubble the Republicans can get an organized, coherent (if frequently false) message out to their followers much more easily. Truth be told, I'd be terrified of the Supreme Court going 5-4 liberal if I were a conservative voter. The court has been an agent of change since the beginning, and has continued to advance a more progressive agenda than the Republican party on civil rights since the 50s even with Republican nominees on the court. As a "liberal", I believe that a change of balance in the court will be an excellent start to bringing civil rights, election reform, and a variety of other causes much closer to the consensus of first world countries than where the US sits now. I'd like to see Bernie as POTUS, but I'd trade a good Supreme for that result any day; the results of getting the right person on the Supreme Court would outlast the results of 4 or 8 years of the Presidency.
|
|
|
|
|
baconbotsforever
|
Post Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:25 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:50 am Posts: 1898
Location: Deep in debt, shallow on time.
|
Tee-hee. Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a guy so far from Kagan and Sotomayor it's insane.
I don't think for a second the White House expects Garland to have a single chance at the seat on the SC, but it's sure a finger straight in the eye of Senate Republicans.
"Want to play obstructionist? I'll give you a guy you'd have danced naked on your desk to get nominated the last two times we played this game."
Well played, Mr. President. Well played.
|
|
|
|
|
Jorodryn
|
Post Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2016 4:56 pm |
|
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 2:42 am Posts: 1959
ICQ: 8854007
Yahoo Messenger: jorodryn
Location: Well since the universe expands infinitely in all directions, The center of the universe.
|
I could see the republicans holding out and not confirming anyone and then Obama making an appointment when the congress is not in session.
|
|
|
|
|
weremensh
|
Post Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:26 pm |
|
Moderator of DOOM! |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 15853
Location: Yes.
|
He could, but wouldn't get much for it. As I recall whoever it is would have to be confirmed by the next Senate anyway, so why saddle Clinton with someone she may not want?
|
|
|
|
|
CCC
|
Post Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:56 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 11381
|
He could have a quiet, unofficial chat with Clinton and then nominate someone she does want, surely? Assuming it's someone he also wants, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
weremensh
|
Post Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:47 pm |
|
Moderator of DOOM! |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 15853
Location: Yes.
|
There's nothing keeping them from doing it that way, but if it's really her nominee then she may want to do it herself. Politics, don't you know.
|
|
|
|
|
Silly Green Monkey
|
Post Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:15 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:42 pm Posts: 1021
Yahoo Messenger: bluecloakgirl
AOL: bluecloakedgirl
Location: Colorado
|
It is NOT her nominee and should not be. We've been almost six months now with a even court!
|
|
|
|
|
weremensh
|
Post Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:40 pm |
|
Moderator of DOOM! |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 15853
Location: Yes.
|
Yes, but if Obama cannot get his nominee through the current Senate, then a hypothetical president Clinton will be facing a new Senate and it will be her nominee. If he can, then of course that's different; but this entire hypothetical is based on continued Republican refusal to do their jobs until next Senate is seated (which seems to be the way to bet).
|
|
|
|
|
Dodger77
|
Post Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:37 am |
|
Member of the Fraternal Order of the Emergency Pants |
|
Offline |
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 12:00 am Posts: 3412
AOL: Dodger724
Location: Relative Obscurity
|
I still think they might try and confirm Garland after the election when they're facing the prospect of a Clinton nomination.
|
|
|
|
|
CCC
|
Post Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:26 am |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 11381
|
Silly Green Monkey wrote: It is NOT her nominee and should not be. ...they're on the same side, right? It seems reasonable to me that there may be some candidate that they both agree would do a really good job, and I don't really think they have much to gain from political posturing against each other, particularly in private. Said nominee might be Obama's second choice, or Clinton's third choice, but nonetheless... I mean, I don't know that much about American politics, but it does seem that if they both push for the same candidate, that candidate has pretty good odds, right?
|
|
|
|
|
kitoba
|
Post Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:20 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 2699
Website: http://kitoba.com
Location: Televising the revolution
|
Now that it looks pretty clear the next President will either be Clinton or Trump, I would think the GOP would want to hurry up and confirm Obama's nominee...
|
|
|
|
|
Silly Green Monkey
|
Post Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:18 pm |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:42 pm Posts: 1021
Yahoo Messenger: bluecloakgirl
AOL: bluecloakedgirl
Location: Colorado
|
It's not about side, Obama is president right now and at the time of Scalia's death, had a full year to go. It's his duty to fill the empty spaces as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
weremensh
|
Post Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:32 pm |
|
Moderator of DOOM! |
|
|
Offline |
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 12:00 am Posts: 15853
Location: Yes.
|
Yes, but...he can only nominate someone to the Federal judiciary. It's up to the Republican majority in the Senate whether or not to give those nominees a confirmation vote; and in the unlikely event they do, whether or not to confirm them. Before Obama even got to name a candidate for the open seat in the Supremes, the Republicans in the Senate all publicly announced that they would not give anyone Obama chose a confirmation vote under any circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|