Bass Pro Shops   Daveys Locker Sportfishing  Newport Landing Sportfishing   The Fishing Syndicate  Carver Covers  Tight Lines Guide Service  Bob Sands Fishing Tackle 
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Should the Republicans confirm Obama's choice for the Supreme Court?

  1. #1

    Default Should the Republicans confirm Obama's choice for the Supreme Court?

    Let me get this going by saying Obama is a very clever politician!! (contrary to what many believe on this board) His pick of Judge Garland is a well qualified decent guy. He's already chief justice of the second highest court in the land. He has already been confirmed by many Republicans in the Senate for his current job. He's not too young (63) like Clarence Thomas was when he was appointed. (We are probably going to have Long John silver around twice as long as most Justices serve) To make matters even more perplexing for the Republicans in the Senate, "he's a moderate." So all in all, "he's not that bad of a choice."

    So why don't the Republicans confirm him???? Because they are gambling they can win the White House in 2016 and then appoint a Conservative person to the Supreme Court. So my question to my fellow FNN board members is that a smart strategy to have for the Republicans????

    I'll give you my opinion, but I'll welcome yours!!!!!!

    I think they SHOULD!!!!!!!! Let me give you several reasons why I think the Republicans should confirm Garland.

    1. All the polls show Trump is likely to get the nomination as the Republican candidate for President. The polls also show, a Hillary vs Trump show down for the Presidency is a Big victory for Hillary. So the chances of the Republicans winning the White House is slim to none. Some might argue why surrender now to the Demorats, when we still have a long shot chance at beating them in the election. My response to that logic is, "Garland is sort of a compromise type person." He's well qualified but he's not a flaming hard core liberal!!!! (Obama rejected him twice before) If Hillary wins the Presidency, "she's under no obligation to nominate Obama's choice." Fundamental rule number 91 say's in negotiations, "if you offer someone a compromise position in this case a person" (Garland) and the other people refuses your offer and then loses. "YOU STICK IT TO THEM!!!!!!" Hillary should then offer up a real young FLAMELING LIBERAL!!!! Someone in their early 40's who is as a hard core liberal as you get!!! That's what the winning side does after the losing side REJECTES their compromise person.

    2. The Republicans can win some political points by saying, "We are the party of the Constitution." The Constitution say's the President nominates a person to the SCOTUS and the senate confirms them. We just did that and we are going to take the moral high ground on Constitutional matters.

    3. Stick it to Joe Biden!!!!!!! The Republicans in the Senate are quoting Joe Biden when he opposed confirming a nominee to the Supreme court late in another Presidents term.

    4. This would help the Republicans Brand in general by showing everyone they can actually take the lead in something. Other wise their just confirming they are the party of NO!!!!!!!!! Proving once again, all's they can do is truly be obstructionist!!!!!!

    The Republicans now control both houses of Congress and are going to have Donald Trump as their candidate for President. If they don't start doing something soon, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of them!!!! That's just my opinion I welcome yours!!!!!
    Last edited by etucker1959; 03-18-2016 at 05:15 PM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Obama could resurrect the corpse of Ronald Reagan, and the Republicans would still not confirm.

    Because you know, Obama.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkShadow View Post
    Obama could resurrect the corpse of Ronald Reagan, and the Republicans would still not confirm.

    Because you know, Obama.
    It's funny you mentioned Ronald Reagan. When you asked you know who, who's he voting for President. If I was him, I would have said, "I'm voting for a write in candidate." Since he's not going to win any way, but I do want to stick to my principles. Ronald Regan therefore would be my choice for President!!!!!! lol
    Last edited by etucker1959; 03-19-2016 at 03:02 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etucker1959 View Post
    When you asked you know who, who's he voting for President. If I was him, I would have said, "I'm voting for a write in candidate." Since he's not going to win any way, but I want to stick to my principles. Ronald Regan is my choice for President!!!!!! lol
    Yeah, apparently I found his Kryptonite. Asking him whether he would vote for either Trump or Hillary must have short circuited his brain.

  5. #5

    Default

    Yes, I think they should, after a proper hearing. Getting a hearing is going to be the hard part.

    He's certainly well qualified and pretty non-controversial. But the blind hatred will probably overcome common sense once again in our Senate.

    And the excuse of saying "this or that" happened in past Senate nominations is just that, a lame excuse. Real adults are not bound by what happened in the past, they sound more like Muslim radicals. Being "tit for tat" is not adult behavior. My high school students exhibit far more maturity. I'm not holding my breath.

    John
    Last edited by John Harper; 03-18-2016 at 04:17 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Murrieta
    Posts
    3,789

    Default

    He's a no go. He's is a moderate at best and is NOT pro second amendment. Possibly a sleeper liberal on many issues. Thanks but no thanks.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Yo' couch!
    Posts
    2,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Harper View Post
    Yes, I think they should, after a proper hearing. Getting a hearing is going to be the hard part.

    He's certainly well qualified and pretty non-controversial. But the blind hatred will probably overcome common sense once again in our Senate.

    And the excuse of saying "this or that" happened in past Senate nominations is just that, a lame excuse. Real adults are not bound by what happened in the past, they sound more like Muslim radicals. Being "tit for tat" is not adult behavior. My high school students exhibit far more maturity. I'm not holding my breath.

    John
    Well put.

    Mitch McConnell's political posturing about past nomination obstructions is a thinly veiled attempt to hide the conservative-right's morbid fear that anyone besides a Scalia-clone will be nominated. Like it or not, an Obama appointee will be confirmed (thought it may not necessarily be Garland who makes it to the bench). In fact, it is the actions of McConnell et al. which reinforce the notion that the GOP wants nothing more than to further their partisan agenda by skewing the Court to the right.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HawgZWylde View Post
    He's a no go. He's is a moderate at best and is NOT pro second amendment. Possibly a sleeper liberal on many issues. Thanks but no thanks.
    I wonder if he showed up toting a cross over one shoulder and an AR-15 over the other if they'd be alright with him then?
    But, then again it could be a Jedi mind trick or something.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •