General Discussion

Algernon Moncrieff

(5,961 posts)

111. You want to nominate anyone that they can't find a good reason to oppose

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 02:46 AM

Feb 2016

Example: Bill Clinton was disbarred over the Monica thing. They'd bring that up as a legitimate reason to oppose.

Joe Biden would be a shrewd choice. He was on the J-com, he'd Veep, and he's well liked. He can also choose to come preside over the Senate (he can't vote except in a tie, but he can make his presence felt). They'd be stupid to oppose him, as he'd likely only be on the court for 5 years or so.

If she'd play along, Sandra Day O'Connor would be another shrewd pick. Yes, she's probably more conservative than we'd like, and she'd take the gig for a year, tops -- but I double dog dare them to say no.

Anita Hill --eminently qualified, and bound to make heads explode. Shrewd because no one over in Republican land will be able to keep their feet out of their mouths.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why I am not surprised that Obama would choose a Republicon for SCOTUS [View all] rhett o rick Feb 2016 OP

I think there is a risk that the President is undercutting his own legacy with this choice. nt thereismore Feb 2016 #1

Yep! n/t RKP5637 Feb 2016 #5

Considering how stridently Sandoval believes that the very notion of national healthcare... Chan790 Feb 2016 #14

I think he'd be a stalwart for them against Single Payer LiberalLovinLug Feb 2016 #78

Do you mean undercutting his legacy or the legacy you want for him? A Simple Game Feb 2016 #29

Specifically the ACA. I think he wants that as a legacy. This guy could rule against it. nt thereismore Feb 2016 #43

Hold up, folks. A leak of a name is NOT a nomination. brush Feb 2016 #31

And if the Republicans call what you imagine to be his clever bluff? merrily Feb 2016 #39

Could be. Stay tuned and watch it unfold. brush Feb 2016 #40

That's going to be difficult since the rationalizations I'm seeing today have me laughing so hard. merrily Feb 2016 #42

One name only has been leaked out of several in consideration brush Feb 2016 #56

Duh. But what does that have to do with my post about funny rationalizations of DUers? merrily Feb 2016 #62

And I guess you "imagine" a strategic leak . . ., brush Feb 2016 #84

How do they "call" the bluff? mythology Feb 2016 #113

Even a rumor that a Democratic President might nominate a Republican to the SCOTUS merrily Feb 2016 #115

Exactly! (n/t) PJMcK Feb 2016 #76

I didn't say it was his choice, I said it wouldn't surprise me if he chose a Republicon. nm rhett o rick Feb 2016 #79

Or maybe someone supported by a Republicon? FrodosPet Feb 2016 #91

Not only his own. He has disintegrated the bottom line rationale for LOTE voting for POTUS. merrily Feb 2016 #36

Great link.. disillusioned73 Feb 2016 #57

Awww, shucks. Thank you. merrily Feb 2016 #61

Are you still pushing this? Why not wait until there is an actual nominee . . . brush Feb 2016 #77

je$u$ H chri$t yortsed snacilbuper Feb 2016 #2

The problem is... droidamus2 Feb 2016 #3

And is a consistent pattern. Compromise does not mean caving in, yet IMO there has been a lot of the RKP5637 Feb 2016 #6

the hallowed 3rd way tk2kewl Feb 2016 #25

. merrily Feb 2016 #44

Does he? Are message board posters really that much more insightful than a Democratic POTUS merrily Feb 2016 #41

It has been a pattern... freebrew Feb 2016 #49

On DU and even JPR, I see all the time how Democrats who are U.S. Senators or POTUS merrily Feb 2016 #51

Some of them certainly look clueless... freebrew Feb 2016 #54

Which Democratic US Senators do you think look clueless? merrily Feb 2016 #63

I totally agree... freebrew Feb 2016 #88

They are not Democratic Senators. Thank you for your kind words. merrily Feb 2016 #92

I'd say BS too stupidicus Feb 2016 #73

As for Harvard: bulloney Feb 2016 #66

And it's been the same way since 2009... Docreed2003 Feb 2016 #107

He is doing many things that did not show up in his campaign speeches bkkyosemite Feb 2016 #4

Yep, all of those great inspiring speeches he gave, seems a lot has been forgotten. n/t RKP5637 Feb 2016 #7

Go along to get along. seabeckind Feb 2016 #8

LOL! Don't let the utterly unthinkable become the enemy of the utterly undesirable. merrily Feb 2016 #46

Please let us know when he does so sharp_stick Feb 2016 #9

Are you arguing that "most" isn't accurate? Do you agree that those I've listed are rhett o rick Feb 2016 #15

Is Justice Sotomayor a full-blown conservative, or just a DLCer? brooklynite Feb 2016 #18

If you have a point to make, please state your point. Trying to insinuate via questions rhett o rick Feb 2016 #22

Most is not accurate, not even close sharp_stick Feb 2016 #21

If you find any progressives in the list, please share them. I've listed rhett o rick Feb 2016 #23

Moving goal posts is fun sharp_stick Feb 2016 #24

I admit I haven't analyized all of his appointments, but using the list I provided rhett o rick Feb 2016 #34

I believe that is how he rolls. Rahm Emanuel was his friggin' Chief Of Staff. He was faking his GoneFishin Feb 2016 #10

All DLCers do. nt Lorien Feb 2016 #12

No, he was always center-right. ananda Feb 2016 #13

mITCH mcCONell beats Obama like a, yortsed snacilbuper Feb 2016 #11

In this particular case, I'm inclined to think he is trolling. truebluegreen Feb 2016 #16

I tend to agree with you on this Sanity Claws Feb 2016 #52

Jeb Bush? brooklynite Feb 2016 #17

That's what I said. nm rhett o rick Feb 2016 #26

"Please Clap" desmiller Feb 2016 #28

Here's what Obama said about Jeb. rhett o rick Feb 2016 #99

IOW President Obama DIDN'T appoint Jeb Buch to a position. brooklynite Feb 2016 #100

He seems to admire Jeb a lot. Show me where he admires progressives as much. rhett o rick Feb 2016 #102

Elena Kagen & Sonia Sotomayor brooklynite Feb 2016 #105

LOL. rhett o rick Feb 2016 #106

Here we go again. Another cave in. nt ladjf Feb 2016 #19

No one has been nominated yet. pintobean Feb 2016 #20

Yes I am aware of that. What's your point? nm rhett o rick Feb 2016 #27

At least he isn't talking about nominating Rahm Emmanual GummyBearz Feb 2016 #30

Dunno why. I'm gobsmacked. merrily Feb 2016 #32

Thanks for the great post merrily. nm rhett o rick Feb 2016 #53

Hopefully, it's a poker face strategy desmiller Feb 2016 #33

If Sandoval does get nominated Shadowflash Feb 2016 #35

He has no choice given the unprecedented declaration no one will even be considered treestar Feb 2016 #37

Ah yes the "he has no choice" or "his hands are tied by the mean Republicons" argument. rhett o rick Feb 2016 #55

He does have to get Senate approval treestar Feb 2016 #89

How about a shocking new approach? LiberalLovinLug Feb 2016 #81

Someone made a good point that treestar Feb 2016 #90

The Democrats do not have a taste for political theatre LiberalLovinLug Feb 2016 #108

Obama is not going to select a Republican for the Supreme Court. See link inside. LonePirate Feb 2016 #38

It's more fun to be outraged pintobean Feb 2016 #47

No kidding ... LannyDeVaney Feb 2016 #58

Republicans said flat-out they would not consider any of his nominees. Arkana Feb 2016 #71

He's been listening too much to Hillary's "don't try for more, just settle" spiel. [nt] Jester Messiah Feb 2016 #45

How many times have I read, right here on DU, JEB Feb 2016 #48

- IDemo Feb 2016 #50

he's still just vetting RussBLib Feb 2016 #59

Maybe wait to trash the nomination until it actually happens? yellowcanine Feb 2016 #60

Yet, you've always been hearing how Obama has had this extreme-left agenda bulloney Feb 2016 #64

Leon Panneta is a Democrat. OnyxCollie Feb 2016 #65

Its' his last year in office. Obama owes no favors to these assholes. Initech Feb 2016 #67

Ah yes, more 3 Dimensional chess Populist_Prole Feb 2016 #68

Must be me SwankyXomb Feb 2016 #82

This would be a valid complaint, except HE HASN'T CHOSEN ANYONE YET. Arkana Feb 2016 #69

This is a tricky situation Tarc Feb 2016 #70

You want to nominate anyone that they can't find a good reason to oppose Algernon Moncrieff Feb 2016 #111

This and TPP... SoLeftIAmRight Feb 2016 #72

Pavlovian conditioning? stupidicus Feb 2016 #74

It would be another black mark SoapBox Feb 2016 #75

Is now a good time to discuss pardoning Bush, Cheney, and the War Crime Gang? nm rhett o rick Feb 2016 #80

Thread Fail Again LOL... Maybe you'll get to 200 replies with the next "name" that "pops" up snooper2 Feb 2016 #83

These types of responses always mystify me. If you don't agree with what I said why don't rhett o rick Feb 2016 #85

Fail is an awesome word...you can type anything in a YouTube search, then put fail at the end snooper2 Feb 2016 #86

Okay. Your posts are a FAIL, just like Obama's attempts to show he's progressive. earthshine Feb 2016 #95

Another fine job. pintobean Feb 2016 #87

These types of threads always amuse me. whistler162 Feb 2016 #93

I am surprised you are still here spewing garbage. Ugh. Pisces Feb 2016 #94

Reminds me of how he began health care negotiations excluding single payer from the start me b zola Feb 2016 #96

My prediction is that they will drag this thing out until after Hillary gets the nomination. earthshine Feb 2016 #97

He didn't do it. He won't do it. Not that the reactions here won't be as if he did. nolabear Feb 2016 #98

Sandoval quit DonCoquixote Feb 2016 #101

He's out, and he wasn't even in! n/t PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #103

The suggestion has also been made that is was a pure trolling move Algernon Moncrieff Feb 2016 #110

Not only that, but he knows the Senate will make asses of themselves fighting against one of their Warpy Feb 2016 #104

The object at this point is to make the selection that the Senate will look most foolish opposing Algernon Moncrieff Feb 2016 #109

yet I am constantly assured Obama did all he COULD to fix the economy Skittles Feb 2016 #112

Doesn't sound like Sandoval is one of the looney ones Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2016 #114