Latest Breaking News

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)

34. Major mistake in even thinking of this Guy.

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 02:27 PM

Feb 2016

Sandoval is so beholding to Corporate Interests,and we just seen our Solar Power gutted by this Guy. Our State is bonded to hell and back as a result of his Tea Party Friends and Supporters. What you read about his caring for the average Nevadian is pure poppy-cock. Yes we did get a watered down ACA,and that was so Adelson and Wynn did not have to supply benefits for their workers. Harry Reid was the main reason we have ACA through his jaw boning key Legislature People.

Sandoval is a empty suit and owes his butt to NV Energy and the Gaming Commission that is controlled by Sheldon Adelson.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Brian Sandoval, Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted for Supreme Court vacancy [View all] brooklynite Feb 2016 OP

Just for comparison in terms of moving the dial 6chars Feb 2016 #1

Bush 1 had control of the Senate at the time... brooklynite Feb 2016 #4

Bush I Never Had a Republican Senate OrwellwasRight Feb 2016 #46

I am, as of this moment, putting a serious curse on Turtle man. dixiegrrrrl Feb 2016 #2

I'll stick some pins in his voodoo doll, myself wordpix Feb 2016 #55

I don't blame you. And please include this laundromat vulture in your thoughts: forest444 Feb 2016 #61

Sandoval is not seen as labor-friendly tk2kewl Feb 2016 #3

there is a big difference... getagrip_already Feb 2016 #31

i don't disagree... tk2kewl Feb 2016 #32

Major mistake in even thinking of this Guy. Wellstone ruled Feb 2016 #34

thank you tk2kewl Feb 2016 #38

Despite what most think of Wellstone ruled Feb 2016 #42

thanks for your vetting, I hope Pres O listens wordpix Feb 2016 #56

As a life long Democrat, Wellstone ruled Feb 2016 #58

even if Sandoval is a "good" repug, he's still repug wordpix Feb 2016 #67

Living in Nevada one knows the real King Makers. Wellstone ruled Feb 2016 #69

That's the point. OrwellwasRight Feb 2016 #47

Ridiculous DarthDem Feb 2016 #5

It looks like a carefully considered way to put the Republicans in a bigger bind... Human101948 Feb 2016 #6

A futile mission vinny9698 Feb 2016 #7

Well Said n/t DarthDem Feb 2016 #9

Right about who they will appoint. If we have President tRump, AllyCat Feb 2016 #23

i think... getagrip_already Feb 2016 #33

You might want to look at Marbury v. Madison The Second Stone Feb 2016 #35

It makes Democrats look reasonable NobodyHere Feb 2016 #25

Yep, looks like a calculated leak (n/t) William Seger Feb 2016 #36

Only If They Obstruct RobinA Feb 2016 #51

It makes Obama look like he doesn't care about the voters who voted bkkyosemite Feb 2016 #53

Although the notion of appointing a Republican makes me want to puke, Vinca Feb 2016 #8

I agree bluestateguy Feb 2016 #11

Good point. And David Souter who went way off the rails for the righties. Vinca Feb 2016 #19

I guess that's good. TheCowsCameHome Feb 2016 #10

It's a ploy to make the GOP look silly lets all take a deep breath. iandhr Feb 2016 #12

I'd prefer Obama nominate someone like Kagan and Sotomayor Eric J in MN Feb 2016 #13

What if the President knows something we don't? Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #65

Seems like Obama can never find Dems he likes for positions Doctor_J Feb 2016 #14

Because no one candidate will agree with every single issue. He may be with us on a set of important Liberal_Stalwart71 Feb 2016 #22

I'm not for supporting any righty, centrist or not ... aggiesal Feb 2016 #15

No one qualified to a SCOTUS Justice would allow themselves to be unconstitutionally seated. onenote Feb 2016 #21

SCOTUS recess appointments are far from unheard of and are not illegal. Kip Humphrey Feb 2016 #29

And if there was a recess then the President could fill the position (for a limited time) onenote Feb 2016 #30

now that is interesting. getagrip_already Feb 2016 #39

Given that the Court upheld the pro forma approach 9-0 onenote Feb 2016 #45

SC said 9-0 that it is constitutional in NLRB v Canning, decided 2014 Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #60

Be careful of that "advise and consent" verbiage in the Constitution AllyCat Feb 2016 #24

That means that the Senate has to consent for an SC justice to be appointed. Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #64

Sandoval is not a wing-nutty tea-party republican Quiet_Dem_Mom Feb 2016 #16

This is Why I Support Bernie elljay Feb 2016 #17

Forgot a link elljay Feb 2016 #18

We seem real good at caving in to the Republican temper tantrum royalty. AllyCat Feb 2016 #26

not we... getagrip_already Feb 2016 #40

Tell me how Bernie is going to get a liberal judge past a Republican senate. NobodyHere Feb 2016 #27

That's what we need, a Republican Gov. that has the support of the Republicans ladjf Feb 2016 #20

So elections DON'T have consequences... haikugal Feb 2016 #28

Michelle Alexander for Supreme Court Dems to Win Feb 2016 #37

There is no upside to this nominee, very bad strategy houston16revival Feb 2016 #41

bottom line, we need to take back the Senate wordpix Feb 2016 #68

No way. A losing move. JackRiddler Feb 2016 #43

Political Lesson Time for DUers on this thread Yavin4 Feb 2016 #44

And the nomination removes a Republican governor before the election. Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #52

Not only that but a potential future nominee for President Yavin4 Feb 2016 #57

All part of the plan.... FighttheFuture Feb 2016 #48

You know, if I were you, I wouldn't vote for him again... brooklynite Feb 2016 #49

As usual, voting for Obama was a vote for the lesser of the two evils... . FighttheFuture Feb 2016 #66

I truly believe your one sentence...re: the TPP. bkkyosemite Feb 2016 #54

That is clever - he was put forward by Reid and nominated by Bush, confirmed 89-0 Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #50

And Hillary would be Obama's third term? left-of-center2012 Feb 2016 #59

AHEM..... alcibiades_mystery Feb 2016 #62

Well, he meets two of my "wants" in a SC justice Retrograde Feb 2016 #63