America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I think that the GOP are **** up royally.

This current nominee...while not perfect has already passed through the gauntlet...they would be fools to not hold an up/down vote.

I stand by what he had to say also as a President its the job of the office to appoint a successor when it happens. There's NOTHING in the Constitution about lame duck sessions and not allowing the process to move forward. That's for the morons and hacks that want to keep this political. Let those morons yip and yap their asses out of a job and off some sweet committee chairs.

Yes they did.

And when NOT specified in the Constitution they usually go by precedent. And others have refused what the R's are doing right now.

Is it right? I think that's what should be discussed by the public.

IMHO this is a lose-lose for the Rs. Trump is already dragging the party through the muck, and a refusal to act on the nominee - by most presents, a reasonable nominee - will drag it further if possible. If they think Bernie or Hillary would nominate someone more to their liking, they're even more delusional than they already appear. (And lest anyone think Candidate Kasich would beat either of the Ds, Independent Canidate Trump will spoil that little party..,)

I think he was an intelligently thought out and tactical selection.

After reading up on Garland a little, it appears overall he's a pretty fair judge that tends to sit a little left of center.

If the "Rs" fight it, then it makes them look bad.... and might end up with someone worse.

If they just let the process play out, either he's in, and it's not so bad, if he's not, then it gets put off till the next Presidency... in which case wtf knows what you're going to end up with.

A pretty good play by Obama IMO.

I wouldn't call it a lose/lose, as I do believe this guy will give his opinions holding the constitution in the highest of regards, and from what I've read, it appears his rulings tend to be well thought out and fair.

One thing I don't like about him, is he tends to rule against small business interests.

And I agree with the OP in this situaiton just as I would have with previous Administrations if congress did the wrong thing then.

ironically, the justices don't always end up reflecting the views of the Prez that nominated them.

This is completely different - we are talking about putting a liberal in the suprem court. Which makes it ok....

Victor he's reasonable if you don't consider his rulings about gun rights.

Listening to Obama, I had a problem with this portion of his speech:

"And throughout his jurisprudence runs a common thread -– a dedication to protecting the basic rights of every American; a conviction that in a democracy, powerful voices must not be allowed to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

The point of a judge is not to adjudicate with a bias towards "the little guy" just because he is not a powerful voice. If the law in on the side of the "powerful voice," then the judgement should be in favor of the powerful voice.

Judges should rule based on the letter of the law and not slanted one way or the other based on the "bigness" or "smallness" of the voice.

The Repubs should do what they say they will do and not even bring him up for a hearing. There is 70+ years of this being done in a presidential election year. And as mentioned earlier, the Dems were spouting this tactic when Bush had 1 1/2 years left in a term.

...But then I always have a problem with the drivel this president spews.

This is just self perpetuating petulance.

The republican party isn't being ruined by Donald Trump.
It's being ruined by the childish "leadership".
Of course, there is a mirror image on the left. But we shan't discuss that lest we get labeled as a hater.

This.

If Garland does get the job, I guess you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights goodbye.
That fits the Big "O"s agenda…

So, you're a hater incognito?

Cunning....

They're going to be non-existent as any sort of a viable entity if they DON'T!


Like I mentioned in the OP...they're going to lose the Senate over this...just watch.

You had me at Slate.

I'm a cunning linguist.

You shouldn't talk with your mouth full.

didn't vote, then shut up. ya have no vote in this either.
sorry Ted.

Watch...this is what I predict will happen...

The GOP will stonewall this appointment.

The GOP will lose the Senate.

Clinton will become President (I can't believe I typed that!).

She will nominate the most bat**** crazy liberal judge to come down the pike and there won't be a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Legislation in this nation will be so screwed up and "read" by not just the federal districts but by the highest court in the land.

The GOP will cease to exist as NOBODY will ever trust them to NOT do anything ever again.

So, GOP idiots...run your mouths...collect your fat checks...soak us for the swell Cadillac medical benefits that even our soldiers don't get...collect your fatass retirement for just being elected to NOT do your job or even bother to show up and when you do tag on your pork to a sensible bill and have a nice life.


A Bastille Day is coming and it's going to make a Trump campaign or Black Lives Matter demonstration look like a cartoon. You've managed to piss off America by doing NOTHING.

That's NOT why you were ever elected.

Or the normal ebbs and flows will happen like always which in the moment seems like a tidall wave but through the eyes of time is more like a little flush which is why our founders built in a few safeguards not the least of which is the electoral college.

We need a kardashian at every polling site.

I'd say he wasn't pro gun control to lessen the resistance to him and hopefully get a pro gun control justice in there if that was my bias.

ebb and flow?

If we're talking about tide charts...I'd buy that. Instead we're talking about wars...legislation and shoddy leadership.

That would be clever, if you were writing an article for anti-gun control people. The people that would work on are already not reading slate because of its evil liberal bias. The only thing that evil plan would achieve is make their current audience not want the guy because he isn't anti-gun enough.

So that's what I'm talking about.

Did you even read that article? They're talking about the same two cases I mentioned, but look at what they are saying:
"In 2007, Garland tried to inflict one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country"....
Look up the 2007 case. He wasn't even involved in the case. The case was only ruled on by 3 judges, none of which was him. Can you seriously trust an article that calls that "He supported the D.C. gun ban in 2007"

It's bs.

Let's look at the other case:
This case is simply a record retention case. The instant background checks put in place are supposed to be destroyed. The FBI was holding them for 6mo (no 90days) and then destroying them (I don't know the reason for holding, I think they argued processing time). The ruling on this case is no different than a HIPAA ruling and has nothing to do with right to bear arms.

Maybe he posts how much he hates guns on his facebook. I don't know...
but claiming he's anti-gun based on those two cases is really kind of stupid and I'd be pretty suspicious of anyone who's making those statements based off that thin evidence.

But hey... if you want to be manipulated, that's your choice.