Scalia found dead at West Texas Ranch

[derspiess]

Trump's take on this on Colbert was the most honest one I have seen to date - basically he said that if he were in Obama's position, he would nominate his candidate and try to push him through the Senate, and if he were in the Senate's position, he would oppose. No precedent or unwritten rules about it.

Yeah, that's pretty much what he said during the most recent debate.  The GOP is not going to talk Obama out of nominating someone and should stop pretending to try.

[derspiess]

GOP confirms - no vote, and no hearings, on any Obama USSC nominee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661

They'll cave.

Maybe if Hillary wins.

There are already a couple defections.

[Martinus]

Trump's take on this on Colbert was the most honest one I have seen to date - basically he said that if he were in Obama's position, he would nominate his candidate and try to push him through the Senate, and if he were in the Senate's position, he would oppose. No precedent or unwritten rules about it.

Yeah, that's pretty much what he said during the most recent debate.  The GOP is not going to talk Obama out of nominating someone and should stop pretending to try.

Yeah just googled that. What's funny is that it seems like a number of leftist sites commenting on that response called it "ambiguous", "convoluted" and "unclear". Wtf. I really hate how both sides commenting on politics are always lying and spinning facts. Trump's response may be cynical, but it is hardly anything but straightforward.

[Valmy]

Please. That criminal will never win the general election.

Yet that vile murderer of the USFL keeps winning Primaries

But I think you are right.

[Razgovory]

Please. That criminal will never win the general election.

You still haven't owned up to the fib you told earlier in this thread, so let's try to keep it at one untruth at a time.

[Jacob]

Yeah just googled that. What's funny is that it seems like a number of leftist sites commenting on that response called it "ambiguous", "convoluted" and "unclear". Wtf. I really hate how both sides commenting on politics are always lying and spinning facts. Trump's response may be cynical, but it is hardly anything but straightforward.

Yeah. I'm not a Trump fan but that seems like a pretty straightforward, honestly stated position - I can see how that attitude is appealing.

[OttoVonBismarck]

So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

1. He's Hispanic, so the GOP looks bad with an important constituency in 2016 if they block him.
2. He's a Republican, so the GOP look even worse in terms of obstinancy if they block him.
3. He is supremely qualified, he's a former AG of Nevada and a former federal judge. When the Senate confirmed his nomination to the bench under George W. Bush, he was confirmed unanimously 89-0, with 11 Senators not present.
4. Game theory wise, it's brilliant. If they don't confirm him he's basically the best pick to make the Republicans look bad in the 2016 elections. If they do confirm him, he's a moderate Republican who will be akin to a second Kennedy on the court. That's a huge net gain to replace Scalia for the left. It also puts the Senate Republicans in a tight game theory box. They know if they lose control of the Senate and Clinton is President, the judge to replace Scalia ain't gonna be a moderate Republicans--it'll be a much more liberal judge, so now the Senate GOP has to consider they have a realistic chance of putting a Republican on the bench, not a theoretical chance of doing so in January if a Republican wins the White House.

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

[derspiess]

Yeah. I'm not a Trump fan but that seems like a pretty straightforward, honestly stated position - I can see how that attitude is appealing.

To add, his supporters (and their reasons for supporting him) are more unsettling than the man himself.

[Grey Fox]

Sandoval is young, if he gets confirmed He'll be judge for a good 25 years.

[Malthus]

Yeah just googled that. What's funny is that it seems like a number of leftist sites commenting on that response called it "ambiguous", "convoluted" and "unclear". Wtf. I really hate how both sides commenting on politics are always lying and spinning facts. Trump's response may be cynical, but it is hardly anything but straightforward.

Yeah. I'm not a Trump fan but that seems like a pretty straightforward, honestly stated position - I can see how that attitude is appealing.

It is a sad commentary that openly stated unabashed opportunism looks like refreshing honesty these days. 

[Malthus]

So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

1. He's Hispanic, so the GOP looks bad with an important constituency in 2016 if they block him.
2. He's a Republican, so the GOP look even worse in terms of obstinancy if they block him.
3. He is supremely qualified, he's a former AG of Nevada and a former federal judge. When the Senate confirmed his nomination to the bench under George W. Bush, he was confirmed unanimously 89-0, with 11 Senators not present.
4. Game theory wise, it's brilliant. If they don't confirm him he's basically the best pick to make the Republicans look bad in the 2016 elections. If they do confirm him, he's a moderate Republican who will be akin to a second Kennedy on the court. That's a huge net gain to replace Scalia for the left. It also puts the Senate Republicans in a tight game theory box. They know if they lose control of the Senate and Clinton is President, the judge to replace Scalia ain't gonna be a moderate Republicans--it'll be a much more liberal judge, so now the Senate GOP has to consider they have a realistic chance of putting a Republican on the bench, not a theoretical chance of doing so in January if a Republican wins the White House.

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

I agree - looks like a very clever move.

[Berkut]

Trump's take on this on Colbert was the most honest one I have seen to date - basically he said that if he were in Obama's position, he would nominate his candidate and try to push him through the Senate, and if he were in the Senate's position, he would oppose. No precedent or unwritten rules about it.

If the Republicans just said that, I would have a hell of a lot more respect for them.

It isn't about some general rule, it is about the current political make up of the system.

There is no rule that says that Obama cannot nominate in the last year, and there is no rule that says they must confirm.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Paul Ryan essentially said that in his press conference today, they asked him about the SCOTUS nomination. He prefaced it by saying that as House members they have no real part in the process, but that he viewed the President's appointment power and the Senate's confirmation power as equivalent, that they are two equal branches of government and the Senate has the constitutional authority to decide on what they will hear and what they will discuss.

[Razgovory]

The game the Republicans are playing is not with the President, but with their own constituents.  They must appear to be opposing the President at all times.  They painted themselves into this corner.

[jimmy olsen]

So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

Tactical genius