• 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!

Well, it is official, Obama's nominee is judge Merrick Garland. What now?

What should happen now that Garland was nominated

  • The republicans should refuse to go further with the nomination out of hand

    Votes: 7 10.0%

  • The republicans should put him through to the judicial committee

    Votes: 28 40.0%

  • The republicans should vote him down in the senate

    Votes: 4 5.7%

  • The senate should confirm him for the supreme court

    Votes: 15 21.4%

  • The republicans should fillibuster

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The democrats should vote against him

    Votes: 3 4.3%

  • The new president should decide who gets nominated

    Votes: 2 2.9%

  • Who cares, I no longer care about this whole proces

    Votes: 3 4.3%

  • Other, ….......... (please explain)

    Votes: 8 11.4%
  • Total voters
    70
Juanita said:
Did they have a nominee to block?
Click to expand...

There were two Justices confirmed by the Senate during Bush's term. But that is irrelevant, just the threat to block is enough. But may I ask...has the current Senate blocked any Obama nominates.
 
I think the when the democrats take over the Senate this November, they should have planned parenthood approve any nominee just like the republicans are having the NRA approve nominees.
 
antiquity said:
I guess the real question should be....'Should any previous AG be put in jail' You know like F&F, for example, and lying under oath. Some of those guns are still showing up in Mexico.
Click to expand...

No, we call that 'deflection.'
 
antiquity said:
If that was the case then every president since Washington and every member of Congress should/have been in jail.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but I was just considering the Immigration Laws, and the top Law Enforcement Officials.
 
Peter King said:
Obama has gone against the wishes of the liberal side of his party and nominated a moderate judge to replace Judge Scalia. Garland is a moderate that has in the past received republican support and of which Orrin Hatch even last week said that Obama is not going to ever nominate a moderate (because he did not believe Obama would ever nominate a moderate even though that is what Obama had said to him) he added to those comments:



So Obama pulled a gotcha for Orrin Hatch and did indeed nominate a moderate. And not only did he name a moderate but he named the exact person who Orrin named as a good candidate for the post. So how now for the republican senators (especially the ones in hotly contested seats).

Are they going to not even meet with him? Hold meetings in the judicial committee? Or hold and up and down vote to affirm or deny him the seat on the supreme court?

What do you think should happen now?
Click to expand...
due to current events, this thread is fascinating.
 
antiquity said:
I think most American can now see the Garland was a poor choice for the SC considering how inept he is as AG.
Click to expand...


Garland was a sacrificial lamb. Had Clinton won he would not have been her nominee. There would have been a rush to confirm him in the lame duck before she could choose someone more radical, though. Obama was informed his would not get a vote until after the election. He did not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom