Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Maybe with the vetting of Sandoval for SCOTUS is not the things many liberals to see,.... [View all]
but it is a very smart move by the POTUS. The republican guard will lose no matter how this turns out! If they don't having any hearing, they will look bad. If they do have the hearings and confirm the nominee, they will be going against their party's wishes and the POTUS will do what the constitution gives him the power to do. No, we may not agree with who is appointed, but remember there is chance for more liberal judges to get appointed by Hillary or Bernie. So, don't hesitate, VOTE!
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
43 replies, 2132 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Maybe with the vetting of Sandoval for SCOTUS is not the things many liberals to see,.... [View all]
imanamerican63
Feb 2016
OP
Triangulating with the GOP is what the public is sick of! They've already HAD IT with the TPP!
cascadiance
Feb 2016
#2
Yeah. Let's nominate someone even more extreme than Scalia, then we will have the Republicans
GoneFishin
Feb 2016
#28
Jesus Christ, it's been almost 8 years. Can we drop this '3 dimensional chess' bullshit, please?
Marr
Feb 2016
#23
Cool. Now explain how we unring the bell that a Democratic President should nominate a Republican to
merrily
Feb 2016
#31
Even at that point, the President can withdraw his nomination at any point before confirmation.
Chan790
Feb 2016
#21
We don't need this fscking game of a Democrat considering nominating ANY Republican to the SCOTUS.
merrily
Feb 2016
#32
No, I didn't. But the word "if" connotes that at least a possiblity of something exists
merrily
Feb 2016
#43
It was a brilliant move, but sadly too many here just want to bash the president without using
Liberal_Stalwart71
Feb 2016
#26