Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cloudythescribbler

(2,598 posts)
22. The Repugs are SURE to dig in their heels and not approve Garland or ANYONE left of Kennedy
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 02:51 PM
Mar 2016

The notion of "Obama's bluff" is silly. Obama reasonably takes into consideration the "legitimate" degree of veto power that a Republican senate has, and is proposing the very justice that RWer Orrin Hatch recently hinted he might be willing to support but Obama would never have the sense to nominate.

Why would he do that? Well, given the scorched earth policy from which I know of NOT A SINGLE GOP dissenter in the senate to date, they are digging in their heels about even vetting or holding hearings for the nominee, let alone making the "concession" of actually voting him down. There is nothing to stop the GOP from digging in their heels and holding up the nomination until after the election. But Garland has the maximum chance of prying away some defectors, unlikely as the possibility of getting enough defectors may be. As for the Repugs "saving their skins", they were never punished for threatening the credit of the US, or any of their other obstructionism since Obama has taken office (or their obstructionism in the 93-4 period). The problem is that the Democrats for decades or longer have been bringing a nerf ball to a gunfight (when they conflict w/their right) as opposed to playing tough (as they have no trouble doing towards those on the Left, overtly &/or discreetly). The GOP has been counting on this.

One relatively recent example -- the Democrats secured more votes (by more than a million nationally I believe, but the number was substantial) in elections for the House in 2012, but due to Repug gerrymandering, they retained control of the House. This should have been in the face day after day for main street America (a "gerrymandority&quot and a major effort launched in State politics in states like Virginia and PA and others carried by Obama where the GOP padded their representation. Like "death panels" and 'Benghazi" the Democrats should have made this concern a household word. But they let the right win all the time, and now the GOP are extracting the price. When runaway global warming hits, we will see the full dimensions of the price the world has to pay not only for Bergen-and-McCarthy power but cowardice and indulgence of the RightWing from quarters themselves at least ostensibly not themselves RW. But given the facts on the ground as they are today, Garland may very well be the best bet

Recommendations

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

I wish we had a post here showing where this guy stands on everything. Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #1
... ScreamingMeemie Mar 2016 #6
He is also 63. KamaAina Mar 2016 #2
Well that's the question. Do you believe they will confirm him or not? PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #3
I "think," if A D Pres is elected with a D Senate, RBG would retire. ScreamingMeemie Mar 2016 #7
The smart thing for Senate Republicans to do . . . gratuitous Mar 2016 #4
really.. If either of the Two Dems running win, their picks are annabanana Mar 2016 #20
If Hillary wins, her pick will be to his right LastLiberal in PalmSprings Mar 2016 #27
If Hillary wins I think that she will pick someone like StevieM Mar 2016 #30
What if Zambero Mar 2016 #5
You funny person... skepticscott Mar 2016 #9
I would indeed prefer a 6-3 progressive majority, or better Zambero Mar 2016 #12
That's just crazy talk! B2G Mar 2016 #10
A Given n/t Zambero Mar 2016 #13
Wrong! But that's very Democratic of you! WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2016 #14
Was just asking a hypothetical question Zambero Mar 2016 #33
Good for the country, but not for the politically-obsessed. n/t Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #18
The NRA will oppose him ymetca Mar 2016 #8
Pro-police dbackjon Mar 2016 #11
From Garland's wiki page, nothing about 'conservative to moderate' pampango Mar 2016 #15
See my post above dbackjon Mar 2016 #16
Loves the death penalty, is career is based on seeking out capital cases with assured kills at the Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #23
Christ, that makes him sound like a sociopath. Odin2005 Mar 2016 #31
"Brilliant" RobinA Mar 2016 #28
Senate Republicans are in trouble. The very act of doing their job is considered a liberal thing Johonny Mar 2016 #17
You have nailed it. annabanana Mar 2016 #21
If they call his bluff, we end up with a left of center justice. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2016 #19
Not to mention making them look weak skepticscott Mar 2016 #24
The Repugs are SURE to dig in their heels and not approve Garland or ANYONE left of Kennedy cloudythescribbler Mar 2016 #22
Gun nuts are already freaking out Matrosov Mar 2016 #25
Slow walk the nomination exboyfil Mar 2016 #26
Did Obama promise a Progressive SC nominee? HereSince1628 Mar 2016 #29
He is a "tough on crime" moderate who is stuck in the 90s in terms of criminal justice. Odin2005 Mar 2016 #32
They won't vote to confirm. Blue_In_AK Mar 2016 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I think President Obama s...»Reply #22