WWTBAM Bored

President Obama will reportedly announce that Merrick Garland is his nominee to succeed late Justice Antonin Scalia, according to multiple news reports Wednesday morning. An official announcement was scheduled for 11 a.m. ET at the White House.

Garland is chief judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals For the DC Circuit.

<crickets>

Hearings will be scheduled to begin on November 16, after it's obvious that the President-Elect will be Hillary or Bernie.

(That's not a prognostication or even a hope. But that's what's going to happen if a Dem get elected President in November.)

SpacemanSpiff wrote:<crickets>

Hearings will be scheduled to begin on November 16, after it's obvious that the President-Elect will be Hillary or Bernie.

(That's not a prognostication or even a hope. But that's what's going to happen if a Dem get elected President in November.)

That of course raises the question of whether Garland would withdraw his name after the election to allow Hillary or Bernie to name a new justice.

I have to wonder how many judges would want to be nominated under these circumstances, knowing they had little chance to actually serve. Of course, Garland is about the best pick that any Republican could hope for from a Democratic President. He's widely considered a moderate (at least as that term used to be understand until the Republicans veered so far to the right that they think Chief Justice Roberts may be too liberal). And the odds just got a lot better that the next President will have a better Senate environment in which to work in 2017.

Obama made a very shrewd choice here.

silverscreenselect wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:<crickets>

Hearings will be scheduled to begin on November 16, after it's obvious that the President-Elect will be Hillary or Bernie.

(That's not a prognostication or even a hope. But that's what's going to happen if a Dem get elected President in November.)

That of course raises the question of whether Garland would withdraw his name after the election to allow Hillary or Bernie to name a new justice.

I have to wonder how many judges would want to be nominated under these circumstances, knowing they had little chance to actually serve. Of course, Garland is about the best pick that any Republican could hope for from a Democratic President. He's widely considered a moderate (at least as that term used to be understand until the Republicans veered so far to the right that they think Chief Justice Roberts may be too liberal). And the odds just got a lot better that the next President will have a better Senate environment in which to work in 2017.

Obama made a very shrewd choice here.

At this point it looks like Hillary is getting the Democratic nomination, so as much as my Bernie Sanders friends want to hold out hope, I think we're reaching a foregone conclusion.

However, I can't see what incentive Garland would have to withdraw his name in the circumstance if she were to win the presidency. Once you're in, you're in for life. He's already in for life on the DC Circuit, so at worst, he goes back there.

I'm predicting now the Senate will give him a hearing (after the "hold the line" senators cry and moan) so they can at least grill him of some of his positions. However, they will hold off on holding a vote until after the election if Hillary wins, or just outright block the vote and let the Republican president (if they win) give their nomination.

In 2012, I voted for the candidate that I wanted appointing Supreme Court Justices. My candidate won and last I checked, he's still in office. As far as I'm concerned, McConnell and the rest of the Republican senators are trying to steal my vote.

I'll be making some campaign contributions in Senate races that I hadn't planned to make. --Bob

ten96lt wrote:
At this point it looks like Hillary is getting the Democratic nomination, so as much as my Bernie Sanders friends want to hold out hope, I think we're reaching a foregone conclusion.

According to RCP, Hillary has gained another 100 pledged delegates so far in the five states that had primaries last night. There are still about 10-20 delegates that haven't been finalized, so that may change up or down a couple. Her overall lead is over 300.

Having said that, the schedule favors Bernie for the next month. It's got a number of caucuses in sparsely populated Western states, plus a caucus in Washington (state), which would seem to be good territory for him as well. There are only two primaries in that stretch, Arizona next week and Wisconsin on April 5. The latter would seem to favor Bernie, but Arizona is more questionable because of the large Hispanic vote. It wouldn't surprise me to see Bernie cut Hillary's lead by 50 or so over that stretch, but then she could gain it all back in New York.

I voted early for Bernie. I don't expect him to be chosen.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: If Trump is chosen he won't carry even one state.

Bob Juch wrote:I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: If Trump is chosen he won't carry even one state.

Somehow, I think he'll carry a few in The Deep South if only because (a) there is no way in hell they're voting for a Democrat, even if it was the resurrected Christ; (b) Mr. Trump has appealed to a certain constituency there that might be prone to vote more than they otherwise might (recall, if you will, that some of those states, like my native Alabama, are pretty much one-party states. With the dominant party's slate in place, November is generally viewed as a coronation rather than an election, so a lot of such folks don't bother to vote, unless it's some local referendum of interest.)

Bob78164 wrote:In 2012, I voted for the candidate that I wanted appointing Supreme Court Justices. My candidate won and last I checked, he's still in office. As far as I'm concerned, McConnell and the rest of the Republican senators are trying to steal my vote.

I'll be making some campaign contributions in Senate races that I hadn't planned to make. --Bob

Well, Boo Hoo.

Isn't it ironic? Since 2008, I have voted for Republicans, sometimes holding my nose, and so did many other people. We did not want Obamacare or anything like it. We took back both the House and Senate. Not one single republican voted for it, but we got it. How? Because Obama, Reid and Pelosi used whatever tricks they could come up with, legal, ethical or not, changed rules in midstream or whatever they had to do to get what they wanted.

The Senate has the Constitutional Power to decide whether or not to approve the nomination. There is no time limit. If they decide that they want to leave it for the next President, that is their right. You. my friend, have no right to complain. But I think it's very funny that you do.

But fret not. McConnell will probably cave in the end. He always does.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate has the Constitutional Power to decide whether or not to approve the nomination. There is no time limit. If they decide that they want to leave it for the next President, that is their right. You. my friend, have no right to complain. But I think it's very funny that you do.

Flock is correct here. But I expect that when the Senate does take up the Supreme Court nomination, there will be a few less Republican senators from states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and New Hampshire to do any advising or consenting.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate has the Constitutional Power to decide whether or not to approve the nomination. There is no time limit. If they decide that they want to leave it for the next President, that is their right. You. my friend, have no right to complain. But I think it's very funny that you do.

Flock is correct here. But I expect that when the Senate does take up the Supreme Court nomination, there will be a few less Republican senators from states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and New Hampshire to do any advising or consenting.

Mark Kirk (R-IL) is not in lockstep with the GOP. He's one of the ones they think might cross over to try and save his seat in November, so I wouldn't count him as a large loss for the GOP.

ten96lt wrote: Mark Kirk (R-IL) is not in lockstep with the GOP. He's one of the ones they think might cross over to try and save his seat in November, so I wouldn't count him as a large loss for the GOP.

That "take-no-prisoner" attitude, which would have drummed Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower out of the Republican party, is a large part of the reason that they are about to nominate Donald Trump as their presidential candidate.

If I were President Obama (and I am most assuredly not -- he's much more mature than I am), and the Democrats win EITHER the presidency OR the Senate majority this fall, I would call a press conference for November 9, announce that after much thought, I agreed with the Senate Republican leadership, and withdraw Garland's nomination. Replace him with someone just as qualified, but much more liberal. Or just defer to the next President.

There is no way such callow action on the part of the Republican Senate leadership should be rewarded.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:In 2012, I voted for the candidate that I wanted appointing Supreme Court Justices. My candidate won and last I checked, he's still in office. As far as I'm concerned, McConnell and the rest of the Republican senators are trying to steal my vote.

I'll be making some campaign contributions in Senate races that I hadn't planned to make. --Bob

Well, Boo Hoo.

Isn't it ironic? Since 2008, I have voted for Republicans, sometimes holding my nose, and so did many other people. We did not want Obamacare or anything like it. We took back both the House and Senate. Not one single republican voted for it, but we got it. How? Because Obama, Reid and Pelosi used whatever tricks they could come up with, legal, ethical or not, changed rules in midstream or whatever they had to do to get what they wanted.

The Senate has the Constitutional Power to decide whether or not to approve the nomination. There is no time limit. If they decide that they want to leave it for the next President, that is their right. You. my friend, have no right to complain. But I think it's very funny that you do.

But fret not. McConnell will probably cave in the end. He always does.

If by tricks you mean getting a majority of both Houses of Congress to approve it, then I agree with you. And then in 2012 we elected a President who we knew would veto any effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

If the Senate wants to vote Garland down and then defend their votes in November, so be it. They don't want to do so because they know a vote against him will be indefensible.

And I have every right to complain about it, and also to back my views with my wallet. Just like the Koch brothers (although my wallet isn't as big). --Bob

Bob Juch wrote:I voted early for Bernie. I don't expect him to be chosen.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: If Trump is chosen he won't carry even one state.

Yes he will. Don't be ridiculous.

silverscreenselect wrote:

ten96lt wrote: Mark Kirk (R-IL) is not in lockstep with the GOP. He's one of the ones they think might cross over to try and save his seat in November, so I wouldn't count him as a large loss for the GOP.

That "take-no-prisoner" attitude, which would have drummed Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower out of the Republican party, is a large part of the reason that they are about to nominate Donald Trump as their presidential candidate.

When Lincoln was President, conservatives were in the Democratic Party.

When Teddy was President, the party was split between conservatives and progressives.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: If Trump is chosen he won't carry even one state.

Somehow, I think he'll carry a few in The Deep South if only because (a) there is no way in hell they're voting for a Democrat, even if it was the resurrected Christ; (b) Mr. Trump has appealed to a certain constituency there that might be prone to vote more than they otherwise might (recall, if you will, that some of those states, like my native Alabama, are pretty much one-party states. With the dominant party's slate in place, November is generally viewed as a coronation rather than an election, so a lot of such folks don't bother to vote, unless it's some local referendum of interest.)

Drumpf would carry Utah, too. You know, because it's Utah.

Pastor Fireball wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: If Trump is chosen he won't carry even one state.

Somehow, I think he'll carry a few in The Deep South if only because (a) there is no way in hell they're voting for a Democrat, even if it was the resurrected Christ; (b) Mr. Trump has appealed to a certain constituency there that might be prone to vote more than they otherwise might (recall, if you will, that some of those states, like my native Alabama, are pretty much one-party states. With the dominant party's slate in place, November is generally viewed as a coronation rather than an election, so a lot of such folks don't bother to vote, unless it's some local referendum of interest.)

Drumpf would carry Utah, too. You know, because it's Utah.

Just as a total non sequitur of the "local referendum," the biggest one that could be held when I was there was a wet-dry election. I grew up in a dry county in northwest Alabama. (In all seriousness, I probably did more drinking in high school than I have the forty years since. When it's illegal for all, it's equally available for all.) Every 18 months, there would be a referendum on the topic, and that would be the election that drew out the most votes, the most campaign ads, and the most vitriol.

As a point of interest, we were just south of the Tennessee border -- Wayne County, the point of entry into the state, was a rural county with the fifth largest dollar sales for alcohol in the state, after Nashville, Memphis, Knoxville, and Chattanooga. As long as Lauderdale County stayed dry, they raked in the tax revenues.

I noticed, though, that over the years, a lot of cities went wet within dry counties. My old stomping grounds went wet in the early 1980s. The last totally county in Alabama, Clay, finally had a city go wet within it this month.

The NRA gave a lot of the Republicans an out if this does go to a vote (He's not as 2A friendly as Scalia): http://www.nrailafrontlines.com/block_g ... nomination

Bob Juch wrote:I voted early for Bernie. I don't expect him to be chosen.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: If Trump is chosen he won't carry even one state.

Someone has to bring it forward....

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:I voted early for Bernie. I don't expect him to be chosen.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: If Trump is chosen he won't carry even one state.

Someone has to bring it forward....

At least he tempered that with this one...

On Wed May 04, 2016 @ 4:07 pm, Bob Juch wrote:I expect that the GOP will lose their majorities in both the Senate and House.

Estonut wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:I voted early for Bernie. I don't expect him to be chosen.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: If Trump is chosen he won't carry even one state.

Someone has to bring it forward....

At least he tempered that with this one...

On Wed May 04, 2016 @ 4:07 pm, Bob Juch wrote:I expect that the GOP will lose their majorities in both the Senate and House.

You'll notice at least that I avoided a diatribe this time about why Clinton would win.

A quick search of other times BJ has uttered the phrase, "I predict":

On Wed Jan 04, 2012 @ 2:03 pm, Bob Juch wrote:I predict Penn and Arsenio will be the last two.

Penn was the 6th runner-up.

[quote="On Thu Aug 25, 2011 @ 10:21 am, in a thread titled, ""Millionaire" Celebrity Episodes," Bob Juch"]I predict this will be the last season for the show.[/quote]No signs of death 5 years later...

[quote="On Fri Oct 02, 2009 @ 4:21 am, in a thread titled, "Top Ten Reasons We Should Feel Sorry For David Letterman," Bob Juch"]

Bob Juch wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:At least he admitted it.

Yeah, but was there sexual harassment? I predict we'll see some claims from some of the women.

[/quote]No such claims were ever filed.

[quote="On Fri Nov 14, 2008 @ 10:27 am, in a thread titled, "Thursday Night Football Jets Pats," Bob Juch"]I predict a Jets/Giants Superbowl.[/quote]On February 1, 2009, Super Bowl XLIII pitted the Pittsburgh Steelers vs. the Arizona Cardinals

A person as smart as he thinks he is would have given up on making predictions by now...

Estonut wrote:A person as smart as he thinks he is would have given up on making predictions by now...

I predict the disastrous predictions will keep coming. You have been warned!