SCOTUS Appointment

[xxlt]

(02-13-2016, 09:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What they ought to do is convince RBG to retire as part of a deal to appoint both a conservative and a liberal justice. People often but Roberts as a conservative, but he is truly a swing, which is best for the court. 4-4-1.

That is insane. In 1986 and 1988 the senate unanimously confirmed Reagan Supreme Court nominees (nobody voted no on either one).

This isn't supposed to be a political game, and just because McConnell thinks it is, there is no game that says, "As long as we are winning, the other side can't take a turn, the game just has to stop until it is our turn again." If Obama nominates a bigger clown than McConnell (is that even possible?) with a JD behind his or her name, they should get a hearing, and if such a clown by all means they should be rejected. But if he nominates someone  qualified he or she should get approved, case closed.

The assumption Obama will even nominate a liberal is itself absurd. He is more conservative than Reagan was! If Obama were an old white man and nothing else about his presidency changed, this (the stonewalling) would likely not be happening. Although it might, since Mitch McConnell is evil incarnate and has know sense of patriotism or duty.