General Discussion

Dale Neiburg

(696 posts)

5. They look bad even if they only agree to hold hearings

Thu Feb 25, 2016, 11:41 AM

Feb 2016

At that point they demonstrate that their refusal is entirely partisan, with no principles at all behind it. Then the President can simply nominate someone else (who won't make it) since the point has been made against the Senate Repubs.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maybe with the vetting of Sandoval for SCOTUS is not the things many liberals to see,.... [View all] imanamerican63 Feb 2016 OP

You are very accommodating Trajan Feb 2016 #1

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

Um, you may want to rethink your theory mythology Feb 2016 #36

A leak of a name is not a nomination brush Feb 2016 #4

"The president is no dummy." You and Imanamerican are so right! Hortensis Feb 2016 #7

+1 DetlefK Feb 2016 #17

Jesus Christ, it's been almost 8 years. Can we drop this '3 dimensional chess' bullshit, please? Marr Feb 2016 #23

Almost 8 years and you can drop that crap too. brush Feb 2016 #24

+1. Yes he is a moderate Republican. GoneFishin Feb 2016 #29

Some will never drop it--and that right there IS the 13 dimensional chess win. merrily Feb 2016 #30

How the hell is nominating a Republican to the SCOTUS bench even triangulating? merrily Feb 2016 #6

the triangle has collapsed into a singualrity tk2kewl Feb 2016 #12

We've "progressived" from triangle to pinpoint. merrily Feb 2016 #13

Yeah, That's the ticket! Go with that. merrily Feb 2016 #3

They look bad even if they only agree to hold hearings Dale Neiburg Feb 2016 #5

This was my point that was making! imanamerican63 Feb 2016 #8

Cool. Now explain how we unring the bell that a Democratic President should nominate a Republican to merrily Feb 2016 #31

If the GOP schedules a hearing, Obama should immediately withdraw Sandoval. Chan790 Feb 2016 #9

No need to withdraw him as he won't be nominated in the first place. LonePirate Feb 2016 #10

I am leaning toward the "trial balloon" explanation. femmocrat Feb 2016 #16

Obama nominates, a hearing is scheduled, and B2G Feb 2016 #15

Or he nominates him and they call his bluff madville Feb 2016 #18

Better still. B2G Feb 2016 #19

I hope you Old Codger Feb 2016 #22

Even at that point, the President can withdraw his nomination at any point before confirmation. Chan790 Feb 2016 #21

Too slow!! Chan790 Feb 2016 #20

We don't need this fscking game of a Democrat considering nominating ANY Republican to the SCOTUS. merrily Feb 2016 #32

No, you're right, we don't. Chan790 Feb 2016 #35

Committed? How is he committed? How is he bound? merrily Feb 2016 #38

You clearly missed the word "if" there. Chan790 Feb 2016 #42

No, I didn't. But the word "if" connotes that at least a possiblity of something exists merrily Feb 2016 #43

Very smart -- assuming he wants the Democrats to lose in November nichomachus Feb 2016 #11

And if the Democrats refuse to confirm him B2G Feb 2016 #14

Please note: Obama is not nominating Sandoval Bucky Feb 2016 #25

Thank you! Because I. JUST. CAN'T. Liberal_Stalwart71 Feb 2016 #27

Please note: it stinks, no matter why he did it. merrily Feb 2016 #33

Yes. It's PR. It's giving GOPrs a chance to look stupid Bucky Feb 2016 #39

Poster, please. That is so unimportant compared to the damage it's done. merrily Feb 2016 #40

It was a brilliant move, but sadly too many here just want to bash the president without using Liberal_Stalwart71 Feb 2016 #26

Oh, please. The only lack of criticial thinking skills is on the part of those that knee jerk merrily Feb 2016 #34

I have no problem with Obama CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #37

IMO, you should have a huge problem with just the mention of it. merrily Feb 2016 #41