Considered. And rejected.
NEXT!
Posted on 03/16/2016 5:31:25 AM PDT by Strac6
Wow, that’s depressing. Probably accurate... but depressing.
McConnell will cave by noon tomorrow.
Remember Miguel Estrada
“doing my job” is a typically deceiving shard of a notion for this bunch. easy to say, easy to understand — or in this case, easy to deceive.
the constitution says advise and consent. how the senate chooses to give it’s consent, or express it’s refusal to consent, is up to the senate alone. ignoring it is a perfectly valid means of rejecting a nominee.
Considered. And rejected.
NEXT!
“I’ve made my decision,” Obama said in an email to supporters early Wednesday.
Obama has become totally irrelevant. He's not gonna be able to "Executive Order" his way around Congress this time. And Mitch McConnell has guaranteed that Congress will not act on his nominees until after the election.
Mitch McConnell knows he'd be tarred and feathered if he broke that promise. Coming up next: Obama plays the race card and pretends he understands the Constitution better than the guys who wrote it.
Obama making a responsible decision? Not in the realm of reality.
Unless he made some other statements, the one I heard had him saying congress "should" not consider a nominee in front of an election. Lots of wiggle room there.
I could see "oh this nominee has such broad bipartisan support and is a proven jurist so it wouldn't be fair to deny him a look." Especially the more it looks like Trump could be the guy making the nomination if they wait.
The right answer is to leave it up to the voters of this election cycle who will pick the president and the senators. The election is only 8 months off. Why should the entire nation be changed without the nation deciding?
Senate should delay this one until next POTUS.
I hear that it is going to be Judge Merrick Garland.
Is there anything in what I suggested that says it is? What I'm suggesting is, figuratively, to give him enough rope to hang himself.
One of Garland’s mentors, according to a July 6, 1995 Los Angeles Times article, was then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick.
“Obama was shown to have picked four campaign donors out of the five he nominated.”
I think Garland might have the Harvard goods on Obama. :-)
Parallels between ancient Israel and our present situation. We cannot go on much longer like this.
We get lulled by our "normalcy bias" into thinking things will always sort of be this way, and really we had learned nothing from that shock out of the blue that was 9-11.
We will be visited again by that Black Swan, and it will be much, much worse.
“”One of Garland’s mentors, according to a July 6, 1995 Los Angeles Times article, was then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick.””
UGH! Reason enough right there to not even consider him....
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Does anyone ever remember that both Obama’s AJ SCOTUS nominations are widely known as lesbians.
We don’t want Garland. Good=bye!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.