I'll own it, but there is some gray in there. 4 months of confirmation proceedings would be smack dab in the head of an election.

 

The Republicans said in a election year we will let the election decide who nominates the Supreme Court Justice. The election happened and the people decided they wanted the GOP to decide based on results.

The Republicans said in a election year we will let the election decide who nominates the Supreme Court Justice. The election happened and the people decided they wanted the GOP to decide based on results.

 

Another gray subject. :lol2:

Changing the rules to win.Yeah this says so much.

 

So since you never responded I will fill you in the Executive fillibuster has only been around since 2000. The legislative fillbister is the one that has been around for decades. As McConnell stated today Republicans have no intention of eliminating the legislative fillibuster. But taking away the Executive fillibuster does nothing to the history of the Senate.

I never said I agreed with either party doing this.

 

Neither party cares about anything but their own party.

I never said I agreed with either party doing this.

 

Neither party cares about anything but their own party.

 

Are you ignoring my post on purpose ? If they do flip the rule this isn't some long standing rule and it would be a legal change.

Friday is getting close. Go Mitch.

Should Democrats be upset that Obama didn't seize the opportunity and go ahead and appoint Garland? He could have done just that during the recess between Congresses. The appointment would have only been good for 2017.

Should Democrats be upset that Obama didn't seize the opportunity and go ahead and appoint Garland? He could have done just that during the recess between Congresses. The appointment would have only been good for 2017.

 

Please post the article that posed this, I read it. It's debatable if it was legal but we know it would of been political sucide.

Please post the article that posed this, I read it. It's debatable if it was legal but we know it would of been political sucide.

 

It has been a while I can't recall if I heard someone talking about it on TV or radio or read about it. If I recall, it has been done in the past - a Supreme Court appointment between Congresses. Perhaps Brennan?

 

What would be political suicide about doing it?

It has been a while I can't recall if I heard someone talking about it on TV or radio or read about it. If I recall, it has been done in the past - a Supreme Court appointment between Congresses. Perhaps Brennan?

 

What would be political suicide about doing it?

 

Is your last question serious ? If Obama did that Democrats would lose the fly over states for a generation. Obama did the politically smart move and gave Democrats campaign material to go on offense with. After a majority of democrats had been playing defense his entire presidency.

 

There would be nothing politcally smart for democrats on that move.

Is your last question serious ? If Obama did that Democrats would lose the fly over states for a generation. Obama did the politically smart move and gave Democrats campaign material to go on offense with. After a majority of democrats had been playing defense his entire presidency.

 

There would be nothing politcally smart for democrats on that move.

 

I don't think the Dems would be looked at any worse than they are now. It would be looked at as politics, just like everything else that is happening now and happened last year and happened when Reid changed the rules. If the roles were reversed and an outgoing Republican president did it to get his appointee on the bench, what would you think?

I don't think the Dems would be looked at any worse than they are now. It would be looked at as politics, just like everything else that is happening now and happened last year and happened when Reid changed the rules. If the roles were reversed and an outgoing Republican president did it to get his appointee on the bench, what would you think?

 

I would question if you have been paying close attention to trends in the fly over states the last 8 years. I was pointing them out year after year and getting dismissed. Democrats are on their heels in most states. Creating such an almost unprecedented move for them to defend in those states would have been suicide.

 

Plus the democrat party was over confident in their chances on election day and knew such a move would hurt their dream at the house and Senate . They thought the Justice was a done deal after the election.

 

From the outside looking in and someone who criticizes Obama a fair amout to even suggest that move would be good is just silly.

If the roles were reversed and an outgoing Republican president did it to get his appointee on the bench, what would you think?

If the roles were reversed and an outgoing Republican president did it to get his appointee on the bench, what would you think?

 

I would not like it because first I still don't believe it's it legal, second because that would mean we don't control congress and could hurt us gaining seats there.

 

Everyone suggesting this is an idealist and lack political knowledge. Which is what makes up a large segment of todays media.

I would not like it because first I still don't believe it's it legal, second because that would mean we don't control congress and could hurt us gaining seats there.

 

Everyone suggesting this is an idealist and lack political knowledge. Which is what makes up a large segment of todays media.

 

I am being a realist, not an idealist. I don't think anyone would change how they vote if either side did it. Just like no one is going to change their vote when Mitch goes nuclear to get Gorsuch seated. This political maneuvering is a non factor in how someone will vote in two years.