2016 Postmortem

Empowerer

(3,900 posts)

98. Ummm - read your own source again. That's a quote from SANDERS . . .

Reply to merrily (Reply #97)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:13 AM

Mar 2016

As I said, you should have spent more than 5 seconds on this...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

171 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sanders' comments about the Supreme Court nomination left me scratching my head [View all] Empowerer Mar 2016 OP

Good, I am glad he would ask Obama to do that. Vattel Mar 2016 #1

Garland Merrick is eminently qualified, for any President. What, precisely msanthrope Mar 2016 #5

My goodness HerbChestnut Mar 2016 #10

I've not read a single review by a legal professional that is negative. msanthrope Mar 2016 #14

What exactly is Garlands position on abortion or Citizens United? nt riderinthestorm Mar 2016 #20

You tell me what tea leaves you are reading that indicates msanthrope Mar 2016 #25

So why should we (or Bernie Sanders) accept this nomination w/out scrutiny? riderinthestorm Mar 2016 #29

Sanders isn't winning. But beyond that, here's something to ponder.....Merrick is an actual msanthrope Mar 2016 #33

He's a sacrificial lamb. Obama will never get him through riderinthestorm Mar 2016 #40

I have legal acumen and I am not that impressed. Vattel Mar 2016 #22

Um. no. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #23

Well I got you beat.... whistler162 Mar 2016 #158

Yes, but did you have the free Breakfast with those neat Karma13612 Mar 2016 #168

lol, I actually don't even know what "acumen" means Vattel Mar 2016 #170

will this man help or hinder the over turn of citizens united? wendylaroux Mar 2016 #128

I have a problem with his age dsc Mar 2016 #38

He's in his 50s. nt WhiteTara Mar 2016 #155

he is 61 dsc Mar 2016 #156

Nope 63 going on 64 whistler162 Mar 2016 #157

Thanks, I read that as 54 nt WhiteTara Mar 2016 #160

Watch todays DemocracyNow.org show. He isn't progressive enough and he's Cavallo Mar 2016 #91

exactly. I was just thinking of posting that. Fast Walker 52 Mar 2016 #132

So no questioning. tazkcmo Mar 2016 #133

Oh, please - don't put words in my mouth Empowerer Mar 2016 #141

I've never heard Hillary Clinton say this Empowerer Mar 2016 #12

Here are some quotes: Vattel Mar 2016 #34

That's night and day different Empowerer Mar 2016 #52

I didn't say that she would require a promise. Vattel Mar 2016 #124

There's nothing wrong with a judge pledging to preserve precedent is not unethical EffieBlack Mar 2016 #126

He's a radical fringe candidate. He publicly disrespects the President of our Party. Trust Buster Mar 2016 #2

His ideas are not radical TTUBatfan2008 Mar 2016 #84

^^^WORD^^^! Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #122

Yes indeed ... and more people are seeing this fact ... NurseJackie Mar 2016 #123

Then FDR was a fringe candidate YOHABLO Mar 2016 #152

Post removed Post removed Mar 2016 #3

lol! nt ecstatic Mar 2016 #19

Sounds just like typical rwingnut claims Roland99 Mar 2016 #31

Really! kath Mar 2016 #54

She *is* a Goldwater Girl Roland99 Mar 2016 #62

This message was self-deleted by its author fun n serious Mar 2016 #75

You should get a gig on AM radio SHRED Mar 2016 #53

Yep. BeanMusical Mar 2016 #106

The accusation that a candidate would predetermine a court case Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #4

Exactly. No nominee with any ethics or common sense would EVER say that. Empowerer Mar 2016 #13

So I guess no Democrat should have a litmus test on abortion? Armstead Mar 2016 #18

they shouldn't admit to having one dsc Mar 2016 #35

They do though Armstead Mar 2016 #55

She doesn't even pass her own tests. BeanMusical Mar 2016 #108

will overturn Citizens United is shorthand, just as tk2kewl Mar 2016 #37

Big difference Empowerer Mar 2016 #58

exactly. Fast Walker 52 Mar 2016 #131

"I have a bunch of litmus tests" -- H. Clinton Armstead Mar 2016 #69

This message was self-deleted by its author Armstead Mar 2016 #135

I don't see either of those as a problem. Autumn Mar 2016 #6

You don't? Empowerer Mar 2016 #21

He didn't say Obama should bow to him and if Garland is not confirmed Autumn Mar 2016 #42

You must not have heard the interview Empowerer Mar 2016 #78

I imagine that would happen in a private talk, like when he asks him to be a nominee. Autumn Mar 2016 #82

There''s a difference between taking about whether they support certain rights and asking them to Empowerer Mar 2016 #88

Sure. Autumn Mar 2016 #89

That is not an accurate depiction of what Sanders said. femmedem Mar 2016 #129

Exactly! peacebird Mar 2016 #130

Don't see a problem. Not at all. The SC nominee would basically be Karma13612 Mar 2016 #169

Self-centered and ignorant of the process KingFlorez Mar 2016 #7

How is it self serving or ignorant of the process? Seemed like the opposite to me. Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #16

It is most definitely both KingFlorez Mar 2016 #28

+1 MaggieD Mar 2016 #44

Clinton: �I have a bunch of litmus tests� for Supreme Court nominees Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #48

Oh, I will most certainly not vote for him KingFlorez Mar 2016 #60

"I will most certainly not vote for him" BeanMusical Mar 2016 #112

I'm not voting for him in the primary KingFlorez Mar 2016 #116

Why, thank you for answering my question, I feel so honored. BeanMusical Mar 2016 #119

No one can promise something specific about some unknown future case unless they're psychic. thesquanderer Mar 2016 #147

Stating their view of certain principles is fine. But they cannot say they would rule a certain way Empowerer Mar 2016 #65

Nothing wrong with a "litmus test." Empowerer Mar 2016 #114

Hillary did the same thing Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #115

No, she didn't do the same thing, notwithstanding the misleading headline Empowerer Mar 2016 #117

Can you link me to the "Code of Ethics"? Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #118

What's the "Code of Ethics" you keep referring to? Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #150

Here you go Empowerer Mar 2016 #161

That Code of Ethics does not apply to the Supreme Court. Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #163

No, it doesn't. But it does apply to judges on the lower courts Empowerer Mar 2016 #166

Time to drop the mic and walk away like a boss EffieBlack Mar 2016 #167

Clinton disagrees with you regarding litmus tests Armstead Mar 2016 #68

I already addressed that another post on this thread KingFlorez Mar 2016 #72

He said If during lame duck session Gwhittey Mar 2016 #105

Whatever happened to the Senate should do its job? BeyondGeography Mar 2016 #8

Most have some litmus test....for many it's abortion Armstead Mar 2016 #9

Sanders has been a Senator for quite a while. Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #11

Neither one of these has anything to do with Senate's advise and consent role Empowerer Mar 2016 #26

Then the quibbling makes sense. Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #45

Take it up with Clinton while you're at it Armstead Mar 2016 #64

No head scratching here... Raster Mar 2016 #15

No. Empowerer Mar 2016 #43

So now he's supporting McConnell's argument. nt geek tragedy Mar 2016 #17

BS is very flighty he goes in whichever direction is convenient giftedgirl77 Mar 2016 #30

Now THAT'S funny! Ned_Devine Mar 2016 #36

He said something quite different in his statement... cynatnite Mar 2016 #24

And he said in his interview with Rachel that he would fight to see him confirmed. femmedem Mar 2016 #140

Obviously if a Democrat is elected and Garland hasn't been confirmed jfern Mar 2016 #27

That's not what he said Empowerer Mar 2016 #46

I think Obama would have the sense to withdraw him on his own accord jfern Mar 2016 #51

Why would he withdraw the nomination? Empowerer Mar 2016 #67

Because someone better could be nominated next year jfern Mar 2016 #93

If the President feels that way, he doesn't need Bernie to ask him to withdraw the nomination. Empowerer Mar 2016 #99

It was good politics from Bernie jfern Mar 2016 #100

And you think the Republicans hadn't figured that out until Bernie said it tonight? Empowerer Mar 2016 #102

I didn't claim he was the first to make this argument jfern Mar 2016 #103

An established 24 year member of Congress redstateblues Mar 2016 #32

He understands how to use the so-called "nuclear" option with Dems win the Senate in 2016. imagine2015 Mar 2016 #49

Bernie can't even fake respect for Obama any more. Even knowing how it hurts him with black voters CalvinballPro Mar 2016 #39

That's not true Jenny_92808 Mar 2016 #95

I am pretty sure his comment actually helps Obama democrattotheend Mar 2016 #165

Sanders doesn't understand a lot of things MaggieD Mar 2016 #41

Sanders would nominate a liberal rather than a conservative acceptable to Republicans. imagine2015 Mar 2016 #47

It hurts. Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #50

That's fine. If and when he becomes president and there's a vacancy on the Court, he's free to do so Empowerer Mar 2016 #79

Good for Bernie. I trust his judgement. CentralMass Mar 2016 #56

He knows there is a big chance that they will not move on Obama's choice. Simple bkkyosemite Mar 2016 #57

If they don't move on the nomination, there's no need for it to be withdrawn Empowerer Mar 2016 #71

Maybe it's just lice? There is nothing controversial in what Bernie said. jillan Mar 2016 #59

Clinton says she has lots of litmus tests Armstead Mar 2016 #61

Notice how the outraged ones keep ignoring this? ebayfool Mar 2016 #70

This is a tactical move. surrealAmerican Mar 2016 #63

That's not what he said at all Empowerer Mar 2016 #73

He tying to get them to hold those hearings now ... surrealAmerican Mar 2016 #77

I don't think for a minute that's what he's trying to do. Empowerer Mar 2016 #81

I disagree, but I see you will not be convinced. surrealAmerican Mar 2016 #86

Of course you don't agree. tazkcmo Mar 2016 #136

Re 2: Clinton has said the same thing brooklynite Mar 2016 #66

No, she hasn't Empowerer Mar 2016 #74

Hillary Clinton sets Citizens United as Supreme Court litmus test brooklynite Mar 2016 #76

That's not saying that she would require assurance that the nominee would overturn Citizens United Empowerer Mar 2016 #83

It doesn't play into anything and Hillary said the same thing about appointing Justices who merrily Mar 2016 #80

NO SHE HAS NOT SAID THE SAME THING Empowerer Mar 2016 #85

Sorry, but she said she would appoint only Justices who would overturn Citizens. Stop shouting. merrily Mar 2016 #87

No, she did not say that Empowerer Mar 2016 #90

good grief. merrily Mar 2016 #92

Took me all of five seconds to google it. merrily Mar 2016 #94

You should have spent more time looking since this story doesn't prove your claim, but supports mine Empowerer Mar 2016 #96

Uh huh. Hillary said "If elected President, I will have a litmus test." merrily Mar 2016 #97

Ummm - read your own source again. That's a quote from SANDERS . . . Empowerer Mar 2016 #98

Fact is, I heard her say it myself in 2015, but here is WAPO merrily Mar 2016 #101

Again, the Washington Post piece cites an anonymous source Empowerer Mar 2016 #110

And Forbes merrily Mar 2016 #104

This doesn't even earn a "nice try" ... Empowerer Mar 2016 #113

I think you lost the point elias7 Mar 2016 #121

Dear one, I think you are wasting your time EffieBlack Mar 2016 #127

What part of �I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests" don't you understand? Armstead Mar 2016 #134

What I find funny Gwhittey Mar 2016 #107

tis curious, I must say. Hiraeth Mar 2016 #109

I don't know. Why don't you ask the "Hillary Clinton people" who've said the primary is wrapped up? Empowerer Mar 2016 #111

+1000 BeanMusical Mar 2016 #120

I saw the interview and think he spoke without thinking EffieBlack Mar 2016 #125

Bernie said he wanted to nominate someone more progressive. dubyadiprecession Mar 2016 #137

What leaves me scratchingi my head is why the Democras keep saying it is critical that we have pdsimdars Mar 2016 #138

I really hope the electorate is paying attention to these comments. MoonRiver Mar 2016 #139

If he becomes president he should be able to select the nominee. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #142

You're right Empowerer Mar 2016 #143

No, you can't promise a specific ruling on a future case. thesquanderer Mar 2016 #146

"requiring a nominee to promise a specific ruling in a future case is not one of them" Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #151

Why no direct quotes? I don't believe he said "promising, promises, or promise" Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #144

You want direct quotes? Empowerer Mar 2016 #145

No "promise". You must take us for fools. Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #171

One can ask... thesquanderer Mar 2016 #148

We got to get away from litmus tests book_worm Mar 2016 #149

I couldn't believe sanders statement either.... beachbumbob Mar 2016 #153

Geez cart before the horse much Buzz cook Mar 2016 #154

Those seem like pretty minor concerns Onlooker Mar 2016 #159

Your second point is laughable. tabasco Mar 2016 #162

Actually, I think it plays right into Obama's strategy democrattotheend Mar 2016 #164