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.

=d>

🤔
Didn't Obama & Biden say no to a lame duck appointment a few years back..?? 😕

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.

agree w/OP

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 see the issue as the presidents trying to stack the deck in their favor... which both dems and reps do.

- Garland clerked for Justice William J. Brennan Jr., the court’s liberal icon.

IMO, choosing a justice that is likely to side with you on any legal matters is upsetting the checks and balances. Choices should be made based on merit and integrity for the SCOTUS, not politics. This is a political choice. Period.

Yes, as I said, I know they both do it... but like your mom used to say "Two wrongs don't make a right".

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.

I get a kick out of the let the people decide in the next election mantra. While I didn't vote for him the people sort of decided this President.

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

anything can happen.. if a Dem gets the presidency they will still need approval from the Senate on their nominee... Unless of course the Repubs loose the Senate too.. then all hell will break loose and I'll have to move to Costa Rica... 😞

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

I was going to post about this and then I stopped.

It's starting to remind me of the prisoner's dilemma. Obama is offering them a pretty reasonable candidate, if they accept.

If they decide to refuse (and btw, wtf are these politicians doing when they keep refusing to do stuff?... do they just not work ever?)... then they're taking a risk with a payoff (Trump or Cruz winning) or a worse failure (Clinton winning... because you know she will choose a much more left leaning justice nominee)... additionally, there is a significant risk that they will have lost a large number of seats due to the insanity in the republican party, making confirmation easier.

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

If Clinton wins and they don't approve Obama's nominee, she could nominate Obama. Biden did have a good idea when he told Obama he should nominate Cruz and then have 8 more openings in the Supreme Court.

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

seeing that a large swath of the media is controlled by the libs im sure that the public will be brainwashed to believe it is "unprecedented" for the repubs not to act

that old clip of biden's speech for congress to refuse any supreme court justice appointee in the final portion of the president's term doesnt seem to get much airplay on most stations

i did chuckle when obamma immediately politicized the issue yesterday during his speech and then chastised congress for potentially doing the same

politics as usual

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.

IDK, gummy. I'm pretty sure that the 'public' isn't going to need the liberal media on this one. The GOP 'leaders' can all keep on screaming "this is NOT hypocritical" until the cows come home. When Hatch and others state that they'd consider holding confirmation hearings "after the election".... not "after inauguration", the calls for letting next president nominate ring pretty hollow. If they'd just come out and say "we're going to continue to maneuver for the best opportunity for conservative court appointment" and not some bullchit about letting the people or next president decide, we'd all be better off.

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.

im not saying whats right or wrong

just that its funny when one side accuses the other of playing politics

i actually liked when the repub statement was that no one will get a trial or a vote - that the people will choose in the next election

now that can be a double edge sword but such is life