• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

JoeTrumps

JoeTrumps

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,346
Location
Memphis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee | TheHill

no sh*t! wow. never saw that coming. What a convenient time to come to that realization!

Because he knows his stonewalling of Bush nominees puts him on the losing end of this issue.

He only regrets that the precedent HE SET is now inconvenient to him.

trust me, if he had it to do over again he would do the EXACT SAME THING.
 
Last edited:
JoeTrumps said:
Page Not Found | 404 | TheHill

no sh*t! wow. never saw that coming. I wonder why he's having this realization now.

Because he knows it puts him on the losing end of this issue.

He only regrets that the precedent HE SET is now inconvenient to him.
Click to expand...

What precedent did he set?

And yeah, it's weird that all of a sudden, he'd like that one back.
 
Last edited:
Kobie said:
What precedent did he set?
Click to expand...

you're right. what he did was old hat. and he was NOT called an obstructionist. so that pretty much lets the GOP cruise(without any criticism) till the election without voting on a nomination.

that was easy.(checks win box)
 
JoeTrumps said:
you're right. what he did was old hat. and he was NOT called an obstructionist. so that pretty much lets the GOP cruise(without any criticism) till the election without voting on a nomination.

that was easy.(checks win box)
Click to expand...

Did Obama hold up a SCOTUS nominee for nearly a year?

Again, what precedent? Be specific. Let's see if you have any idea what you're talking about.
 
Yea I posted a thread on his 2006 attempt to Fillibuster Alito

I believe the response from the Libs was " Well Alito was confirmed so SO WHAT ? "

I bet he " regrets " it.
 
Kobie said:
Did Obama hold up a SCOTUS nominee for nearly a year?

Again, what precedent? Be specific. Let's see if you have any idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


who care? we're going with THE NUCLEAR OPTION II

hmm, or maybe that should be reserved for the impeachment
 
Fenton said:
Yea I posted a thread on his 2006 attempt to Fillibuster Alito

I believe the response from the Libs was " Well Alito was confirmed so SO WHAT ? "

I bet he " regrets " it.
Click to expand...

If Republicans hold up a nomination for a year, and Obama didn't.... there's a difference right there?
 
Deuce said:
If Republicans hold up a nomination for a year, and Obama didn't.... there's a difference right there?
Click to expand...

Republicans were more competent?
 
cpwill said:
Well we will see. How long did Democrats hold Estrada up?
Click to expand...

Estrada was held up because he was not an acceptable nominee.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A NOMINEE and there's already the threat of a year-long holdup. I do not understand why the GOP cheerleaders here can't (or won't) acknowledge the difference.
 
Kobie said:
Estrada was held up because he was not an acceptable nominee.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A NOMINEE and there's already the threat of a year-long holdup. I do not understand why the GOP cheerleaders here can't (or won't) acknowledge the difference.
Click to expand...

I am with you. Let's hear who the nominee is and then we can discuss if he gets the go ahead or not.

Hate to call all crazy here, but this is the result of our 2 party system. We need more parties.
 
Kobie said:
Estrada was held up because he was not an acceptable nominee.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A NOMINEE and there's already the threat of a year-long holdup. I do not understand why the GOP cheerleaders here can't (or won't) acknowledge the difference.
Click to expand...
Estrada was held up for the same reason that Obama filibustered one SCOTUS judge, and voted against another, and the same reasons that Schumer said he would oppose any SCOTUS nomination: despite being fully qualified, he was a Bush appointee.
 
Kobie said:
Estrada was held up because he was not an acceptable nominee.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A NOMINEE and there's already the threat of a year-long holdup. I do not understand why the GOP cheerleaders here can't (or won't) acknowledge the difference.
Click to expand...

To who?
 
Two sides of a coin.

Unless uninvited by the family, not attending a SCOTUS funeral might be in bad taste.
Attending might distract from honoring Justice Scalia.
 
Lovebug said:
Two sides of a coin.

Unless uninvited by the family, not attending a SCOTUS funeral might be in bad taste.
Attending might distract from honoring Justice Scalia.
Click to expand...

Valid point, but on the wrong thread.
 
Lovebug said:
Two sides of a coin.

Unless uninvited by the family, not attending a SCOTUS funeral might be in bad taste.
Attending might distract from honoring Justice Scalia.
Click to expand...

That choice lies squarely in Obama's lap. He can turn the funeral into a political rally, or treat it as it should be. Paying respects to a national political celebrity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom