A change in the U.S. Supreme Court

[Duke87 1,070]

2 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

You act like this is anything new, Chuck Schumer knows the game, He tried to do it during Bush's last term, Yet now he calls on the senate to do it's job, Funny how it is when the tables turn isn't it?

Oh look... hypocrisy in Washington.

Your typical politician is always going to support whatever benefits him today, even if they opposed the exact same thing previously when it didn't benefit them.

[krbe 193]

6 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

You act like this is anything new, Chuck Schumer knows the game, He tried to do it during Bush's last term, Yet now he calls on the senate to do it's job, Funny how it is when the tables turn isn't it?

Indeed the hypocrisy is strong with Mr Schumer. I wonder if the Senate majority leader was with Mr Schumer back then demanding the American people have a say in new Supreme Court justices?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There are enough rings in the current circus.  The clowns (RNC) need to get in there and clean up the acts (in the carny sense). 

There seem to be more dropouts as the cost of buffoonery escalates.  This could leave The Donald as the last (wealthy) man standing on the Republican side.

What seems to be needed in both camps is a little "trust busting" in the legal sense.

[Larks2242 251]

12 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

There are enough rings in the current circus.  The clowns (RNC) need to get in there and clean up the acts (in the carny sense). 

There seem to be more dropouts as the cost of buffoonery escalates.  This could leave The Donald as the last (wealthy) man standing on the Republican side.

What seems to be needed in both camps is a little "trust busting" in the legal sense.

Still a long way to go, 6 Remain but the 3 Person race of Trump, Cruz and Rubio is far from over,  Nevada will be the next test and it is not Trump's base.

[Larks2242 251]

How quick America forgets, Joe Biden in 1992 saying not to nominate until after the election.

I have an excuse since I was not born yet but the internet never forgets.

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, Larks2242 said:

How quick America forgets, Joe Biden in 1992 saying not to nominate until after the election.

I have an excuse since I was not born yet but the internet never forgets.

A politician, in equal measures as dumb as his colleague, the Senate Majority leader. Luckily for Mr Biden, he didn't regress.

[Jasoncw 11,949]

This wouldn't happen but... just the thought of republicans delaying it until the next president, and then a president Clinton and a small democratic senate majority makes Barrack Obama the newest supreme court justice...   

[Sabretooth78 808]

9 hours ago, Jasoncw said:

This wouldn't happen but... just the thought of republicans delaying it until the next president, and then a president Clinton and a small democratic senate majority makes Barrack Obama the newest supreme court justice...   

I don't see BWO being nominated for SCOTUS, but this is perhaps the greatest failing I see in the republican "strategery."  Maybe I'll end up eating my shoe (suppose I could always use more fiber in my diet), but I really can't see them taking the general election with the clowns they're dangerously close to nominating - I think it's going to be a repeat of 2008 and 2012 where there's a lot of noise and bluster and while it may give the appearance of being competitive, in the end it won't really be that close.  They, apparently, have other ideas.  If it were me, I would say let's take our chances now while we know we still have any control over the process.

As @Duke87 had alluded, my bet is for some "big story" to come up and this whole issue will quietly pass into the night.  Edward Snowden's request to return to the US in exchange for a guarantee to a fair trial (ha, look at Chelsea/Bradley Manning if you want to have any idea how that might go down) might be one worth developing.  Either that or it'll be some trivial pop culture thing, maybe Justin Bieber will puke on stage again or one of the Cardassians might get in a car accident or something.  There really is no shortage of potential distractions.

[Linoa06 1,374]

On 2/23/2016 at 0:37 PM, Sabretooth78 said:

I don't see BWO being nominated for SCOTUS, but this is perhaps the greatest failing I see in the republican "strategery."  Maybe I'll end up eating my shoe (suppose I could always use more fiber in my diet), but I really can't see them taking the general election with the clowns they're dangerously close to nominating - I think it's going to be a repeat of 2008 and 2012 where there's a lot of noise and bluster and while it may give the appearance of being competitive, in the end it won't really be that close.  They, apparently, have other ideas.  If it were me, I would say let's take our chances now while we know we still have any control over the process.

As @Duke87 had alluded, my bet is for some "big story" to come up and this whole issue will quietly pass into the night.  Edward Snowden's request to return to the US in exchange for a guarantee to a fair trial (ha, look at Chelsea/Bradley Manning if you want to have any idea how that might go down) might be one worth developing.  Either that or it'll be some trivial pop culture thing, maybe Justin Bieber will puke on stage again or one of the Cardassians might do/say something stupid or get in a car accident or something.  There really is no shortage of potential distractions.

Haven't heard much about Chelsea Manning, but Snowden will definitely cause some headlines. Or the Kardashians, yeah, because people are idiots.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If Edward Snowden puts a foot on any American soil, he will go up like a moth flying into a candle.  He may think he's a patriot, but others have a vastly different view.  I think some agency or other will find an oubliette for him and he will just disappear.  He really is a man without a country.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Just now, A Nonny Moose said:

If Edward Snowden puts a foot on any American soil, he will go up like a moth flying into a candle.  He may think he's a patriot, but others have a vastly different view.  I think some agency or other will find an oubliette for him and he will just disappear.  He really is a man without a country.

Oh right, the NSA will just 'disappear' one of the most famous whistle blowers in world history. Because 'disappearing' the guy who showed the world the extend of US surveillance of innocent citizens is not going to totally blow up in their face. It would make a martyr out of him. If the US really wants this to go away quietly, they offer him a plea bargain that keeps him out of jail or gives them a very light prison sentence and make him sign a bunch of NDA's ensuring he can never talk about any of this ever again. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ An NDA only has power if the signatories believe in it.  It is like paper currency, held up only by faith.  If Mr. Snowden suddenly just wasn't around, would anyone notice?  And who said anything about the NSA, who don't really have that kind of clout?  On the other hand Homeland Security, etc. ...

[LexusInfernus 908]

27 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

^ An NDA only has power if the signatories believe in it.  It is like paper currency, held up only by faith.  If Mr. Snowden suddenly just wasn't around, would anyone notice?  And who said anything about the NSA, who don't really have that kind of clout?  On the other hand Homeland Security, etc. ...

Of course it would get noticed. Snowden isn't alone, he got plenty of people who work with him and who would be aware if he suddenly 'disappeared'. Besides, only the dumbest idiot in the American government will think its a smart idea to 'disappear' a civil rights activist that questions the role and power of the American security apparatus. If you want to draw attention to yourself, turn the guy into a martyr and prove everything he claimed up until that point, thats the way to go.

And the nice thing about an NDA is that if one party breaks it, that party can face prosecution once more. The real question is whether Snowden wants to sign a plea bargain like that. I think he is more interested in a trial where he can make a public spectacle and has an audience. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Back on topic: Prejudice, anyone?

Guess who should lose his seat in the Senate?

[Duke87 1,070]

Quote

"The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter after the American people finish making in November the decision they've already started making today," he added, in a reference to the 8 November presidential elections.

So basically we'll have a new supreme court justice shortly after election day, once it can't have an impact on said elections. Typical.

Controversial political moves, if they don't happen under cover of a distracting story, happen in mid-November in even numbered years.

[Sabretooth78 808]

You have to understand where he's coming from; he's too busy handing the house over to the Cock brothers et al to be bothered with such trivial nonsense as an even-numbered judiciary.

So the court will be short a conservative for a year, and then Hillary will successfully nominate somebody probably more liberal than GWO would so they'll have more fodder for whining for years to come.  Yeah, sounds like the republicans are continuing to stay true to their supposed ideals.  It's as if they only exist to complain now.

I still don't think it's going to drag out that long, though.  To paraphrase Yogi Berra, the whole thing is 90% half bluster and theatrics.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It isn't over 'til the fat lady sings.  Where is Kate Smith when we need her?