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

Latest Breaking News

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)

7. Posted by request ...

Reply to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:44 PM

Mar 2016

I'm thinking its a brilliant move. Vulnerable Senators are thinking ... If we hold to our promise to not give the moderate, consensus confirmed nominee, who was good enough for the Court of Appeals for a hearing, we piss off a majority of the electorate.

If we give him a hearing; but, don't confirm the moderate, consensus confirmed nominee who was good enough for the Court of Appeals, we have to provide an explanation that can overcome our widely publicized, partisan resistance to doing our job ... and we risk pissing off a majority of the electorate.

If we give him a hearing and can't come up with a compelling reason that overcomes our widely publicized, partisan resistance, they get a Justice that will, at a minimum, swing the SCOTUS to the Left.

Trap laid and they walked right into it!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Labor Leaders Applaud Supreme Court Nomination, Demand Senators #DoYourJob [View all] Omaha Steve Mar 2016 OP

Someone posted a negative link from Ring of Fire about Judge Garland. So is there reason for still_one Mar 2016 #1

I think it is smoke and mirrors to mess with the R Senators Omaha Steve Mar 2016 #3

I hope so. This is not the choice America needs. mpcamb Mar 2016 #4

One big punk? How cool would that be! babylonsister Mar 2016 #5

appreciate the assessment Steve. I agree with the smoke and mirrors because most likely the R's still_one Mar 2016 #6

Ring of Fire is right. Obama should have chosen a true liberal and made the same kind of deal. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #9

I hear you, but I also agree with Omaha Steve, they republicans aren't even going to allow a hearing still_one Mar 2016 #21

Corporate defense attorney, Garland? Farron Cousins isn't pleased. I'm guessing I shouldn't be Ed Suspicious Mar 2016 #2

Posted by request ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #7

And no wonder what some progressives think, pnwmom Mar 2016 #8

It's a shame when the gop recognizes what the left cannot ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #11

I think that argument is too complicated. Way over the heads of most American voters. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #10

Why? So the strong liberal could be flatly rejected and Obama could accomplish nothing? pnwmom Mar 2016 #12

This is yet another instance of the left being critical of President Obama playing chess... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #14

I'm thinking of electoral politics. If Obama nominated someone that the left likes, it would help JDPriestly Mar 2016 #16

See, that's the problem ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #13

No. I don't think that a strong liberal would have been accepted. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #15

I see the Democrats winning back the senate and maybe the house PatrynXX Mar 2016 #18

You msy be a good chess player; but, you are not showing it ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #19

It isn't early in the game. This is Obama's last year in office. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #20

Okay ... Do you play chess on-line? eom. 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #22

Arnold & Porter TBF Mar 2016 #23

Just because he works for a corporate defense firm does not mean that he is a conservative. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #24

There is no way Obama would do that - TBF Mar 2016 #25

Which sadly means that his legacy will be unremarkable. JDPriestly Mar 2016 #27

Agree on all points. nt TBF Mar 2016 #28

speaking of Do Your Job PatrynXX Mar 2016 #17

What makes anyone think a Republican Senate in 2017 will approve Garland Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #26