One thing we all must remember about the GOP and Obama nominations, in the entire history of our country, only a grand total of 68 individual nominees have been blocked prior to Obama taking office.
Since 2009, at total of 79 individual nominees for the courts (this may be more than 79 as I could only find figures dating back to October) have been blocked during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.
So can we cut the shit about this being an election year issue?
latest news: White House vetting Nevada Republican governor.
this is freaking stupid of Obama.
he's giving in to the Repubards holding the country hostage!
he should do the opposite and nominate Bill Clinton!
the country was greatness during his time at the helm
Nominate as SCOTUS justice a man who was forced to give up his law license to avoid prosecution for perjury and suborning perjury? Yeah, I'm sure Obama will jump right on that stupid train with you.latest news: White House vetting Nevada Republican governor.
this is freaking stupid of Obama.
he's giving in to the Repubards holding the country hostage!
he should do the opposite and nominate Bill Clinton!
the country was greatness during his time at the helm
Nominate as SCOTUS justice a man who was forced to give up his law license to avoid prosecution for perjury and suborning perjury? Yeah, I'm sure Obama will jump right on that stupid train with you.
A quick search reveals nothing about that. Please elaborate.
Here you go. Although technically the reason was that he lied under oath, not perjury. It's a semantic difference but important since they're of whether what was lied about was material to the case at hand. His "relationship" with Monica Lewinski wasn't really material to a case ostensibly about Whitewater.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/text-bill-clintons-statement-suspension-law-license
Is Sandoval going to be acceptable to liberals? It sounds like he is a Democratic version of Sandra Day O'connor.
I thought that at first too.
I can't speak for "the liberals" but of what I've seen so far I'd find him acceptable. Reps control the senate, Obama would never get another RBG confirmed through that. Anyone he picks is going to be a compromise. Despite all the noise to the contrary that really has been how he typically operates.
One thing we all must remember about the GOP and Obama nominations, in the entire history of our country, only a grand total of 68 individual nominees have been blocked prior to Obama taking office.
Since 2009, at total of 79 individual nominees for the courts (this may be more than 79 as I could only find figures dating back to October) have been blocked during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.
That stat says nothing about the quality of the nominees.All that stat tells us is that the quality of candidates nominated for the court positions has dropped dramatically over the last 7 years. () Thank goodness we have congress there to help protect us
All that stat tells us is that the quality of candidates nominated for the court positions has dropped dramatically over the last 7 years. () Thank goodness we have congress there to help protect us
That stat says nothing about the quality of the nominees.
"Things a partisan hack says for 200, Alex!"
Maybe. Personally I think it's more likely that Obama nominates some minority selected to make Republicans alienate a particular state or constituency if they oppose her, but it's certainly possible that he'll nominate a moderate. Especially if it looks more likely that the Pubbies pick up the White House and hold the Senate; he REALLY doesn't want the ACA overturned and a conservative ideologue justice is about the only way that happens. But no matter whom he nominates, he'll be sure to leak that he's vetting lots of moderate candidates acceptable to everyone, just to make the GOP look bad. It's a win-win for him and the Democrats politically, whereas actually nominating a Republican moderate would have some political downside.I thought that at first too.
I can't speak for "the liberals" but of what I've seen so far I'd find him acceptable. Reps control the senate, Obama would never get another RBG confirmed through that. Anyone he picks is going to be a compromise. Despite all the noise to the contrary that really has been how he typically operates.
How do you know?That stat says nothing about the quality of the nominees.
Maybe. Personally I think it's more likely that Obama nominates some minority selected to make Republicans alienate a particular state or constituency if they oppose her, but it's certainly possible that he'll nominate a moderate. Especially if it looks more likely that the Pubbies pick up the White House and hold the Senate; he REALLY doesn't want the ACA overturned and a conservative ideologue justice is about the only way that happens. But no matter whom he nominates, he'll be sure to leak that he's vetting lots of moderate candidates acceptable to everyone, just to make the GOP look bad. It's a win-win for him and the Democrats politically, whereas actually nominating a Republican moderate would have some political downside.
Actually I half expect him to nominate an older white man because that's the only constituency the GOP isn't fully alienating on their own already.
In my mind they are all wearing garter belts and stockings under those robes. That is why I drink.older white transexual ok? Its hard to tell under those robes what they are really wearing anyway.
Is Sandoval going to be acceptable to liberals? It sounds like he is a Democratic version of Sandra Day O'connor.
In my mind they are all wearing garter belts and stockings under those robes.
Oh. That was quick.
so Gov. Sandoval turns it down.
wonder if it's more pressure from his repub overlords than personal preference?