• 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!

Grassley Opens The Door To Lame Duck SCOTUS Confirmation Of Garland

Jack Fabulous said:
How could they "not allow it" when he hasn't even been nominated?
Click to expand...

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you didn't keep up with procedure, but Merrick Garland was absolutely officially nominated. You think Obama was going to pass up the opportunity to stick it to the GOP by NOT nominating someone after McConnell said no nominee would receive consideration? Obama ain't stupid.

EDIT:

Jack Fabulous said:
Miscommunication, Dana. I thought he was talking about Hillary nominating Obama for SCOTUS. Probably my bad...
Click to expand...

I see the issue here now. While I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama nominated for a seat at some point, I don't think even Hillary would have the brass ones to nominate him while he's still a sitting president.
 
Obama should counter with "confirm Garland NOW or i put someone more liberal forth once Hillary wins"

Although they seem to forget that no one will be more terrible than Scalia....
 
Last edited:
Question: It is possible to withdraw a nomination. Is it possible to "suspend" a nomination?

As the election gets close, can the President and/or the nominee (Obama and/or Garland, respectively, in this case) suspend the nomination to keep the Senate from voting until after the election?

Or, is outright withdrawal the only viable and legal option?
 
Looks like the deadlocked Supremes won’t let North Carolina use the voting law to suppress the vote. Wonder how Garland woulda voted on that one?:2wave:
 
Donc said:
Looks like the deadlocked Supremes won’t let North Carolina use the voting law to suppress the vote. Wonder how Garland woulda voted on that one?:2wave:
Click to expand...
It's probably pretty safe to say that Scalia would have approved of the law. I don't know enough about Garland, but I agree it would be as certain to predict as Scalia.
 
danarhea said:
That's because, if the Dems take the Senate, Hillary could nominate an extreme leftist to the bench, and the Senate Dems then use the nuclear option to confirm him. How does Justice Obama sound to you?
Click to expand...

Appointing Obama to the SC would have only one impact. It would prove what has been true for some time--that the SC is just another political branch of government whose opinions are more ideological than legal.
 
Fletch said:
Appointing Obama to the SC would have only one impact. It would prove what has been true for some time--that the SC is just another political branch of government whose opinions are more ideological than legal.
Click to expand...

its funny you say that because that is exactly what explains Scaila and Thomas being on the court. Republicans had to go and put an extremist and a dunce on it because they have too many appointees go "librul" on them.
 
Fletch said:
Appointing Obama to the SC would have only one impact. It would prove what has been true for some time--that the SC is just another political branch of government whose opinions are more ideological than legal.
Click to expand...


Umm, I thought everyone already knew this? ;)

Tim-
 
Kobie said:
I see the issue here now. While I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama nominated for a seat at some point, I don't think even Hillary would have the brass ones to nominate him while he's still a sitting president.
Click to expand...

Erm, Hillary can't nominate Obama while he's a sitting president, because if Obama is president that means Hillary is not president and therefore has no such authority.

President-elect has no actual authority over anything.
 
Deuce said:
Erm, Hillary can't nominate Obama while he's a sitting president, because if Obama is president that means Hillary is not president and therefore has no such authority.

President-elect has no actual authority over anything.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding the strategy. She won't nominate anyone until after she takes the oath of office. However, once she does...
 
rocket88 said:
You're misunderstanding the strategy. She won't nominate anyone until after she takes the oath of office. However, once she does...
Click to expand...

I don't think even Hillary would have the brass ones to nominate him while he's still a sitting president.
Click to expand...

Yes clearly I'm misunderstanding something.
 
Chomsky said:
Exactly! :thumbs:

Snakes in the grass ...
Click to expand...

Oh, my God, if you find THAT -- using scheduling strategically -- beyond the pale, what a delicate flower you must be.

You should, for example, check out the procedural chicanery used to get Obamacare passed.
 
Deuce said:
Yes clearly I'm misunderstanding something.
Click to expand...

In the imagined scenario, Clinton wins the election. After taking office, she withdraws the nomination of Garland, and instead nominates one Barack Hussein Obama.

According to thinking behind this thread, the GOP would quickly confirm Garland in a lame duck session to prevent this from happening.
 
rocket88 said:
In the imagined scenario, Clinton wins the election. After taking office, she withdraws the nomination of Garland, and instead nominates one Barack Hussein Obama.

According to thinking behind this thread, the GOP would quickly confirm Garland in a lame duck session to prevent this from happening.
Click to expand...
Sigh.
I don't think even Hillary would have the brass ones to nominate him while he's still a sitting president.
Click to expand...
 
rocket88 said:
After someone else wins the election and takes over, he won't be a sitting President anymore.
Click to expand...

No ****. Do you know what the word "while" means?
 
danarhea said:
That's because, if the Dems take the Senate, Hillary could nominate an extreme leftist to the bench, and the Senate Dems then use the nuclear option to confirm him. How does Justice Obama sound to you?
Click to expand...

If that is the case, these lamed-assed Republicans deserve what the get. ****ing morons.
 
Deuce said:
Erm, Hillary can't nominate Obama while he's a sitting president, because if Obama is president that means Hillary is not president and therefore has no such authority.

President-elect has no actual authority over anything.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a brain fart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom