highly qualified people have been blocked before, many times....and why are you hell bent on making this an issue about race?
Will the 5th circuit covering Texas be able to keep up with its new caseload brought to them by conservatives?
Is the ex-GOP governor of Virginia about to go to jail a sacrificial lamb?
Will this Constitutional Crisis invented by McDipTurd flip the Senate?
Do GOPs in CO even have a candidate for Senate ?
Fewer than a third of Colorado voters believe U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet deserves re-election next year, a new set of survey results shows.
With the election a year away, the Quinnipiac University poll asked 1,262 Colorado voters whether the Colorado Democrat deserves another term.
All kinds of things can happen. As it stands today, Obama can nominate and McConnell won't move on it. I don't know if that will change or not. It'll be interesting to watch. I don't think the public will get nearly as worked up over this as some seem to think. I am also wrong as often as I am right - which, I might add, would make me better at foreign policy than Obama.
No doubt your analysis is spot on. However, I still favor Sri2 as I think he would make it on the Court and that is what this is suppose to be about.
I also wonder if this is just being floated so if a Sri2 nomination does come down, there will be a sigh of relief and a feeling among the GOP that they dodged a bullet.
SCOTUS Analyst: Loretta Lynch '''Most Likely Candidate''' to Replace Scalia - NBC News
Mr. Goldstein noted that tapping Lynch poses a couple of political problems for the Republicans if they wish to continue to stand by their obstructionist plan. For starters, Lynch's history as a prosecutor makes the notion of claiming that she is excessively liberal to be a difficult argument. Furthermore, Lynch would be the first African American Female nominated for the high court and the White House (as well as the DNC) would probably appreciate the amount of support that they would gain from women and minorities due to a public perception of an unfair treatment for such a person as Lynch.
However, I think that something else is going on here. Lynch provides the perfect "punching bag" for an initial candidate. As Mr. Goldstein notes, the historical precedent of nominating the first Black female and the subsequent attacks, that could be labled as racist or sexist, could prove beneficial in 2016. Additionally, Ms. Lynch already has experience being the punching bag after her exposure to the nomination process in 2015. Thus, even if the Republicans decide to expend a great deal of political capital denouncing an individual that many of them already approved, President Obama's chances of getting a subsequent nominee approved would increase significantly.
Not just about race,about race and gender.If this the GOP tries to block this Black woman they'll live to regret that.
Wait and see.
The American people had a voice in Obama's choice of a nominee when they sent Obama to the White House.
"Better days are coming." ~But not for today's out of touch,running out of time, GOP.
I tend to agree with you, but I also believe that Obama would be ruining Mr. Srinivasan's chances if he nominated him first. Obama recognizes that Republicans benefit from being able to save some sort of face by tearing apart the first nominee made by Obama. So, he will nominate someone that provides the Republicans with the sound bites for their base, but will alienate the moderates. Meanwhile the Democrats will get to sell the Republicans as obstructionists and if it helps to push certain demographic groups specifically (hopefully ones living in swing states), all the better. Hell, even a mere hypothetical nominee in Loretta Lynch is already enough to push the debate today in favor of the Democrats.
And sending obama to the WH was a huge mistake for America, by bozos who were duped by a phony ********er. Were you?
There is nothing so pressing, that it can't be put on the back burner by the SC for a year or two. Nothing!
The only rush to fill the vacancy is by liberal assholes who want another anti-gun, pro choice, obamacare crap, lacky, put in the chair.
Scalia will be missed, he was a staunch ally of Conservatism...the backbone of America!
liberal justices, are the limp dicks of America!
And sending obama to the WH was a huge mistake for America, by bozos who were duped by a phony ********er. Were you?
There is nothing so pressing, that it can't be put on the back burner by the SC for a year or two. Nothing!
The only rush to fill the vacancy is by liberal assholes who want another anti-gun, pro choice, obamacare crap, lacky, put in the chair.
Scalia will be missed, he was a staunch ally of Conservatism...the backbone of America!
liberal justices, are the limp dicks of America!
I completely disagree with about 98% of what you posted here, but I can respect the effort and level of thought you put into this post.
The Progressive-Fascists Racism and failure is actually a bit more subtle than that.
If a person were to state, "Hamdil has got to be a wizard at higher mathematics, because he is Hindi and from India.", that would be a very racist statement.
( It is actually TRUE, that India has produced a large number of mathematical geniuses, but that is party due to their large population, a culture which admires and encourages higher education, and the poverty that much of the country suffers from forcing many of their brightest students into disciplines such as mathematics, which can be pursued and developed without allot of expensive equipment. India Culture and Society does not produce allot of wizards at experimental high altitude aircraft, because prototypes are very expensive! )
It is assuming a positive value, skill and talent at Mathematics, rather than the usually racist Negatives, assumptions of stupidity, low-wealth, or lack of morals...
But it is still an Assumption about an individual, based on a racial stereotype, and surface knowledge of the person, who might actually be one of the most obtuse people on the subject of mathematics anywhere on the planet.
Not all Racism needs to be a racial assumption of a Negative attribute.
The far-lefties on this thread are assuming that Lynch would be a good candidate for the supreme court, of all the lawyers out there in government service, simply because she is a Black Woman, and therefore able to play the race card, making her Supreme-Court-Political-Agenda automatically aligned with the far-left, and also impossible to question, or refute.
Assuming Lynch would be a good Justice candidate simply because the far-left's agenda could use the RACE-CARD as Political Armor is the most VILE type of RACISM.
It is most VILE, because it assumes Political-Racial-Extortion as its foundation and justification. It assumes the most abusive and corrosive abuse of RACE from the onset! It is also vile, because it assumes that the position of Justice will be used to advance a political Agenda, rather than serve the neutral legal function of interpreting the LAW, as passed by the Legislature.
The fact is, the only candidates we should be even considering, are those lawyers with suitable training and experience, who do NOT have a Supreme-Court-Political-Agenda !
Lady Liberty wears a symbolic blindfold for a REASON!
-
Sri2? Who is that?
Remember how long the GOP held up the nomination of Lynch for AG last year ?
I disagree. Nominating Lynch will be a great tactic and that's why I believe that Obama will do it.
How will the GOP look opposing a highly qualified Black female? Think about it.
If the GOP tries to block her they'll live to regret that.
Who is doing that?
He might. But the Court's already overflowing with white doods.
Refused to confirm? Gonzo was never nominated.
You really should quote and consider the entire post:
And if you're going to state that you disagree, to win a debate, you must show some evidence of where and support it with why, and or references.
-
Looking back for good reason, remember how she forgot what the 1st amendment was when threatening the American public if they said mean things about muslims?
Oh come on, I already linked you an article where she clarified the comment that you so desperately want to use to imply that she somehow already violated the first amendment.
If he nominates her it just shows that Obama continues to play the Washington game, the very game that in 2008 where he said that he wanted to "change the way Washington works". Obama has turned himself into one of the best game players there has ever been in Washington. She would have NO CHANCE of being confirmed and he knows it. The appointment would be for political advantage only. Since neither side knows what the election future is, it is to both of their advantages to confirm a moderate choice. A moderate would shift the power of the court somewhat from a far right justice to a moderate one, far better than if the Republicans win the next election and appoint several far right conservatives to the court. On the other side, a moderate confirmed now would be preferable to the Democrats winning the White House (and possibly the Senate) and appointing several liberal justices. Both sides would be stupid to put all their eggs in one basket, thinking they are going to win the election. Whichever side winds up being wrong would pay a HUGE price for the gamble.
My mistake - you're absolutely correct - he was ambushed before any such nomination could be made.
A SCOTUS nominee should not even be in that ball park where she would have said something so anti-constitutional that she had to walk that **** back.
I already replied to your post on this.
She never said or did anything unconstitutional. Even in her original quote, she said that we are worried when the language incites violence. That is still a legitimate (and constitutionally allowed) concern.
I am curious what you think about my theory that if Obama started with a moderate judge, like Srinivasta, the Republicans would still shoot him down regardless of the fact that they confirmed him 97-0 just a few years ago to the D.C. court. The Republicans have just drawn the line so starkly in the sand that they simply must block whomever Obama nominates first.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?