2016 Postmortem

Empowerer

(3,900 posts)

102. And you think the Republicans hadn't figured that out until Bernie said it tonight?

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:23 AM

Mar 2016

It took Bernie saying he would ask Obama to withdraw the nomination so he could nominate his own selection for the Republicans to understand that if they don't confirm Garland before the election and Bernie or Hillary wins, they'll appoint a more liberal justice?

Well, then, it's a good thing he schooled them, isn't it?

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