Ohio Chatter DEV

ptown_trojans_1

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.

superman

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.

When are people going to realize that Snopes is no more reliable than most other sites on the Internet.

queencitybuckeye

superman;1782839 wrote:When are people going to realize that Snopes is no more reliable than most other sites on the Internet.

Cite?

FatHobbit

queencitybuckeye;1782840 wrote:Cite?

This web site was chosen randomly from Google

http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html?m=1

FatHobbit

FatHobbit;1782877 wrote:This web site was chosen randomly from Google

http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html?m=1

Here's another web site that disputes the one I just posted.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

QuakerOats

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

And sounds like he spent most of the day going over nominees.
But, still, the POTUS should have been there at the funeral.

Yep, he was on the job and he's got plenty of photos to prove it! (unlike Benghazi).

He had to get that done on Saturday, because he had a tee time Sunday morning.

SportsAndLady

Obama to nominate Merrick Garland to replace Scalia as SCJ.

Moderate liberal, I highly doubt the senate votes him in.

QuakerOats

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

QuakerOats;1787124 wrote:The senate already said they are not going to do their job. But as usual, obama does his job.

fify

like_that

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1787126 wrote:it should read "But as usual Obama does his job when it only benefits him or his party."

QuakerOats

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

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.

So, he shouldn't have even tried to nominate someone at all?
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

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

bigkahuna

I find it funny that people are all up in arms about Obama nominating someone at this point of his presidency.

ptown_trojans_1

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

Politics suck, agree.
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.

jmog

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1787126 wrote:fify

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.

queencitybuckeye

The Senate should give him a fair hearing and vote him down.

ZWICK 4 PREZ

like_that;1787134 wrote:it should read "But as usual Obama does his job when it only benefits him or his party."

Probably. That wasn't the intent of QQ's message though which was omg I cant believe Obama is doing his job!!!

Heretic

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.

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.

Heretic

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!!!

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.

jmog

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.

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.

ptown_trojans_1

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/

queencitybuckeye

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/

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

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.

If he is that far left, then the committee should vote him down.
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.

Archive

SC Justice Antonin Scalia has died