ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Feb 22, 2016 4:42pm
Yeah, Snoopes has it mostly false.
http://www.snopes.com/obama-snubs-scalias-funeral/
And sounds like he spent most of the day going over nominees.
But, still, the POTUS should have been there at the funeral.
http://www.snopes.com/obama-snubs-scalias-funeral/
And sounds like he spent most of the day going over nominees.
But, still, the POTUS should have been there at the funeral.
S
superman
Posts: 3,582
Feb 22, 2016 7:37pm
When are people going to realize that Snopes is no more reliable than most other sites on the Internet.ptown_trojans_1;1782816 wrote:Yeah, Snoopes has it mostly false.
http://www.snopes.com/obama-snubs-scalias-funeral/
And sounds like he spent most of the day going over nominees.
But, still, the POTUS should have been there at the funeral.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 22, 2016 7:38pm
Cite?superman;1782839 wrote:When are people going to realize that Snopes is no more reliable than most other sites on the Internet.
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Feb 23, 2016 2:06am
This web site was chosen randomly from Googlequeencitybuckeye;1782840 wrote:Cite?
http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html?m=1
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Feb 23, 2016 2:11am
Here's another web site that disputes the one I just posted.FatHobbit;1782877 wrote:This web site was chosen randomly from Google
http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html?m=1
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Feb 23, 2016 9:30am
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/23/biden-argued-against-weighing-supreme-court-nomination-during-1992-campaign.html?intcmp=hpbt2
Joe Biden begging to delay supreme court nominee ............... lol
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Feb 23, 2016 1:25pm
Yep, he was on the job and he's got plenty of photos to prove it! (unlike Benghazi).And sounds like he spent most of the day going over nominees.
But, still, the POTUS should have been there at the funeral.
He had to get that done on Saturday, because he had a tee time Sunday morning.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Mar 16, 2016 10:20am
Obama to nominate Merrick Garland to replace Scalia as SCJ.
Moderate liberal, I highly doubt the senate votes him in.
Moderate liberal, I highly doubt the senate votes him in.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Mar 16, 2016 10:34am
The senate already said they are not going to consider anyone this year. But as usual, obama does only what he wants to do.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Mar 16, 2016 10:37am
fifyQuakerOats;1787124 wrote:The senate already said they are not going to do their job. But as usual, obama does his job.
like_that
Posts: 26,625
Mar 16, 2016 10:51am
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1787126 wrote:it should read "But as usual Obama does his job when it only benefits him or his party."
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Mar 16, 2016 11:03am
ZWICK 4 PREZ;1787126 wrote:fify
Maybe we should all donate a copy of the constitution to you so you can read it.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Mar 16, 2016 11:16am
So, he shouldn't have even tried to nominate someone at all?QuakerOats;1787124 wrote:The senate already said they are not going to consider anyone this year. But as usual, obama does only what he wants to do.
Come on.
It is the President's job to nominate someone.
He has.
Now, it is in the Senate's court. And, they could very well not take up the nominee at all. They have that right. The same right the President, no matter the party or time of year, has to nominate someone.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Mar 16, 2016 11:23am
I don't know much about this, but from everything I'm reading, he seems to be very anti-2nd amendment. And that practically all republican senators will be voting against him because of this. Obama knows this but nominated him to say he's a moderate who's done a lot of public service and those evil republicans vetoed him.
Politics suck
Politics suck
B
bigkahuna
Posts: 4,454
Mar 16, 2016 11:28am
I find it funny that people are all up in arms about Obama nominating someone at this point of his presidency.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Mar 16, 2016 11:31am
Politics suck, agree.SportsAndLady;1787147 wrote:I don't know much about this, but from everything I'm reading, he seems to be very anti-2nd amendment. And that practically all republican senators will be voting against him because of this. Obama knows this but nominated him to say he's a moderate who's done a lot of public service and those evil republicans vetoed him.
Politics suck
I would be careful I was were the R's.
This is a dangerous game to play. Let's say Trump is the nominee and Clinton absolutely destroys him. (Not a crazy thought given Trump's high negatives).
Clinton may want to appoint a more liberal judge and suddenly this guy seems like a good choice.
We could be in December with a lame duck Congress trying to approve this guy instead of settling for a Clinton nominee.
Because, the whole argument the R's are making is the next President should appoint the next judge. So, if that is the case, it is kinda hard for the R's to really turn down a Clinton nominee.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Mar 16, 2016 11:37am
You mean like the Ds said they were going to do if either Bush POTUS nominated someone in their lame duck year?ZWICK 4 PREZ;1787126 wrote:fify
I think the hearings and vote should happen, but just find it hilarious the hypocrisy that the liberals are showing.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Mar 16, 2016 11:39am
The Senate should give him a fair hearing and vote him down.
ZWICK 4 PREZ
Posts: 7,733
Mar 16, 2016 12:03pm
Probably. That wasn't the intent of QQ's message though which was omg I cant believe Obama is doing his job!!!like_that;1787134 wrote:it should read "But as usual Obama does his job when it only benefits him or his party."
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Mar 16, 2016 12:07pm
The same hypocrisy that certain conservatives are showing. Like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, who said that it should wait until the new president is in office, but was cool with approving Reagan's pick during his final year. It's a politics thing, not a liberal or conservative thing.jmog;1787160 wrote:You mean like the Ds said they were going to do if either Bush POTUS nominated someone in their lame duck year?
I think the hearings and vote should happen, but just find it hilarious the hypocrisy that the liberals are showing.
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Mar 16, 2016 12:08pm
If he's not doing his job, QQ will be the first to bitch about it. If he is trying to do his job, QQ will be the first to bitch about it. It's the life of a blindly partisan nutjob. Sort of entertaining to watch, in the same manner a poorly choreographed cat-fight on Jerry Springer is.ZWICK 4 PREZ;1787171 wrote:Probably. That wasn't the intent of QQ's message though which was omg I cant believe Obama is doing his job!!!
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Mar 16, 2016 1:19pm
I don't believe I said it wasn't. I agree that the Rs in this case are just as bad as the Ds in the past.Heretic;1787173 wrote:The same hypocrisy that certain conservatives are showing. Like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, who said that it should wait until the new president is in office, but was cool with approving Reagan's pick during his final year. It's a politics thing, not a liberal or conservative thing.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Mar 16, 2016 4:03pm
Nate Silver on the R's best play may be to at least consider this guy.
If Clinton wins, the next appointment could be more liberal and younger, and with Trump, you have no idea what he will do.
There is also the possibility that the Senate goes Blue.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-could-do-a-lot-worse-than-merrick-garland-under-president-clinton-or-president-trump/
If Clinton wins, the next appointment could be more liberal and younger, and with Trump, you have no idea what he will do.
There is also the possibility that the Senate goes Blue.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-could-do-a-lot-worse-than-merrick-garland-under-president-clinton-or-president-trump/
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Mar 16, 2016 4:13pm
While attempting to sell the "moderate" tag, this justice is on record as being against the Heller decision. Not much is more far left than the idea of undoing settled law with respect to one of the rights in the Bill of Rights.ptown_trojans_1;1787231 wrote:Nate Silver on the R's best play may be to at least consider this guy.
If Clinton wins, the next appointment could be more liberal and younger, and with Trump, you have no idea what he will do.
There is also the possibility that the Senate goes Blue.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-could-do-a-lot-worse-than-merrick-garland-under-president-clinton-or-president-trump/
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Mar 16, 2016 4:24pm
If he is that far left, then the committee should vote him down.queencitybuckeye;1787234 wrote:While attempting to sell the "moderate" tag, this justice is on record as being against the Heller decision. Not much is more far left than the idea of undoing settled law with respect to one of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
That happens, Obama would be forced to either withdraw his name, put forth another one, try and rush someone or, could just simply agree with the R's and accept that one will not be confirmed before he leaves.
But, again, the next person put forth could be more liberal and younger.