Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Obama, Merrick Garland, Republicans, Supreme Court

by James Denison / March 16, 2016 8:33 AM PDT

Obama has both given the Republicans a gift, while knowing they won't accept it, and thereby setting a trap for them at the same time. It's a wise play on Obama's part.

What are the risks of rejecting Merrick Garland?

The risks are separate from both he and Obama at this point, all the risk is on the Republicans. If they refuse Garland, they face one of these 4 later making a selection.

Hilliary a feminist interested in a strong abortion supporting judge.

Ted Cruz who would pick someone even more repugnant to Democrats than Bork was, and also Republicans in the Senate who don't care to appoint a Cruz appointee, especially after Cruz called Mitch McConnell in the Senate, a Liar.

Bernie Sanders who will look as left as he can, especially one that is strong on "civil rights" which includes "economic welfare type policies".

Finally, Trump, someone maybe even more repugnant to the Republican elite, who might even offer Merrick Garland again, just to rub it in the noses of the elite Republicans who if they approve him, will then face the "why" of doing it then and not when nominated by Obama. They would really have to weasel around to explain that one.

It would then give Trump a stronger power over them by exposing hypocrisy or forcing them to reject Garland and looking even more like obstructionist even to their own party's President.

It's a slick move by Obama. The best path for Republicans are to quickly approve this nomination within the next month and put it and all the risk they'd assume otherwise behind them.

The next president will have a chance to approve at least one nominee if he's in there for 8 years and maybe more.

SCOTUS judges;

Kennedy is 80,
Ginsburg 83,
Breyer 77.
Only Kagan is under 60 years old.

Obama has handed the Republicans a gift, and they should accept it, rather than reject it and look entirely ungrateful during this election season.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Obama, Merrick Garland, Republicans, Supreme Court
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Obama, Merrick Garland, Republicans, Supreme Court
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Well, as expected
by James Denison / March 16, 2016 9:22 AM PDT

Obama set a trap and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell immediately fell right into it. Already some of his Republicans are deserting Mitch however. Maine Senator Angus King is already calling for other Republicans to ignore Mitch and start the process.

Collapse -
Big Smile here
by JP Bill / March 16, 2016 11:09 AM PDT
In reply to: Well, as expected

In less than 1 hour it went from a 'gift" to a 'trap".....

AND it took Trump out of the action for a few hours on the day that he was all primed to do a victory lap.

Collapse -
Imagine if Trump came out today...
by James Denison / March 16, 2016 11:45 AM PDT
In reply to: Big Smile here

...and recommended the Republicans go ahead and consider this nominee. He'd gain in several ways, because for one, Cruz would have a knee jerk reacton concerning it, but Trump would look like the "unifier" he claims he can be, and still get a moderate conservative on the Supreme Court and NOT have that standing in his way immediately on taking office as President. It also takes away any hits Hillary could put on him if the nominee isn't even considered by the Senate.

Yes, it's a gift, but with a trap beside it, waiting to see if the gift is taken, or the Republicans jump into the trap, and if they listen to Mitch, they will all jump into it, other than a few.

Collapse -
RE:Trump would look like the "unifier" he claims he can be,
by JP Bill / March 16, 2016 12:15 PM PDT

What has to happen to get him in "unifier mode"?

Everyone has to toe HIS line?

Watching a newscast from United Kingdom...Talking about Trump and him saying IF there is a problem with him winning the nomination, when they have the convention...there could be riots....

He's already tossing his prognostications around.

Some unifier.

Collapse -
I disagree, James
by TONI H / March 16, 2016 1:33 PM PDT

Republicans should stand firm and for once McConnell is right...pocket the issue.

My reasoning........First, he's in DC already as judge in a community that is pretty liberal is most of their decisions (look carefully at his voting record there since it's not always 'moderate' but is more left leaning than many think). Second, he was in favor of gun restrictions in DC. Third, he interned under Brenna, a very liberal justice....."As the seventh longest-serving justice in Supreme Court history, he was known for being a leader of the Court's liberal wing.".....do you think he wasn't influenced by that even a little bit?

I have to give me a 'thumbs down'.......

Collapse -
The Democrats will beat.....
by James Denison / March 16, 2016 1:41 PM PDT
In reply to: I disagree, James

...the Republican nominee for President over the head with this and drone on and on about "obstructionist" Republicans and it's always worked to their advantage to do so, to play that "do nothing Congress" move when it's Republicans. I think it will prove a distraction during this presidential election year and I'd rather have it out of the way. Whoever gets in there and if they can stay for 8 years may get to put 3 new judges on the bench and it's almost a foregone conclusion at least one, and the most likely, based on ages, is 2. We need a Republican president, and nothing that will lose Republican seats in House or Senate, and that's more than one SCOTUS appointee, because it's 1-3 of them eventually. The alternative is too horrible to consider.

Collapse -
Yep. Get it out of the way ASAP
by Steven Haninger / March 16, 2016 2:29 PM PDT

At least present the man for further scrutiny so the public will know him sooner rather than later. We can't start another 8 years of stalemate chess when there's a fresh opportunity for congress to show a bit of compromise before the next person moves into the WH. More gridlock, I'd suspect, would just about guarantee a one term president unless he/she could work magic.

Collapse -
And this
by TONI H / March 16, 2016 3:16 PM PDT

" I think it will prove a distraction during this presidential election year and I'd rather have it out of the way." is exactly why we are in the position we are with Trump leading the way to get rid of the establishment politicians, James. What you just stated is exactly word for word what Boehner said about the Omnibus budget bill he passed the day before he left the Speaker spot and handed that hot potato baton to his 'friend' Ryan. That kind of thinking has convinced the voters that they can't trust anybody they vote for anymore....Republicans promised changes in 2010 and took back the House....they did it again in 2012 and got the Senate..........and have done nothing but cave time after time.

Collapse -
they caved when they shouldn't have
by James Denison / March 16, 2016 3:57 PM PDT
In reply to: And this

And now when it would best benefit them they want to burn all bridges and stand in the breach?! Remove this as an issue before the conventions end and the real race begins and a lot of what Hillary or Bernie are hoping to use will be gone, leave them scrambling for a new approach. Yes, they can do hearings, that will keep the Democrats expecting them to stonewall SCOTUS nominee, and then at the Democratic convention, just before it happens or on the first day of it, approve him and totally throw the Democrats off balance. In any war there are times for strategic feints, retreats, and reforming along a different line more favorable to your side.

Collapse -
If Republicans held a vote
by TONI H / March 17, 2016 2:50 AM PDT

or even a hearing after already taking a stand not to, every Republican left in Congress would be history at this point in time..........

Collapse -
This morning, more Republican senators
by James Denison / March 17, 2016 8:35 AM PDT

....mentioned my idea made sense, because if they didn't confirm this guy and Hilliary was elected, they'd face an even worse choice. Suggestion is to see who is elected in November and if HilLiarY was elected, quickly approve Obama's offering.

Collapse -
Maybe this Pig at the Public Trough should be history
by James Denison / March 17, 2016 1:01 PM PDT
https://ballotpedia.org/Mitch_McConnell#PGI:_Change_in_net_worth

McConnell's net worth as of 2012 was estimated between $9,230,051 and $36,452,001. That averages to $22,841,026, which is higher than the average net worth of Republican senators in 2012 of $6,956,438.47. McConnell ranked as the 10th most wealthy senator in 2012.[108] Between 2004 and 2012, McConnell's calculated net worth[109] increased by an average of 64 percent per year. Between 2004 and 2012, the average annual percentage increase for a member of Congress was 15.4 percent.

Hmm, a man whose salary is under $200,000 dollars, but during the entire Obama administration his total worth goes from less than 4 million to over 22 million dollars. If he'd not spent his salary at all, he'd still not have more than 2 million more dollars even if invested in dividends paying 5% on average, and especially not on deposits of cash earning interest of 2% maximum (Fed driving interest rates down).

18 Million Dollars increase in personal wealth on an paycheck of under $200 thousands per annum. This man has never worked anything other than a government job in his entire life!

What an amazing investor he must be, or maybe he's privy to insider information before we are (that's a crime), or maybe he's got an influence selling business on the side (also illegal), or maybe he's become an stock market investing genius during Obama's administration (which I seriously doubt).

Maybe this Mitch McConnell should be giving Trump financial advice considering he increased his personal worth by 1000% in just 8 years. If he invested the original 2 million he was worth 8 years previous, he'd need a yearly compounded return rate of 35% to be worth 22 million dollars just 8 years later. Although not impossible, if done honestly, it's highly unusual, even better than almost any stock investment plan I've ever heard of.

This guy makes the Clintons look like bumbling financial idiots. They should take some lessons from him on "investing".

I smell a Pig.
Collapse -
Nearly all of the Congress
by TONI H / March 17, 2016 1:58 PM PDT

has increased their personal wealth for the very reason they ARE privy to information before anyone else has it, and they ALL invest in the inflated Wall Street because of the Treasury program of dumping billions into it. I have never liked McConnell because he's so 'swishy' with the Dems, no matter how he talks publicly. He's like the Marshmallow Man from Ghost Busters.....he's able to squeeze into tight places and still stay intact. Astounding......I really hoped he would lose his last election.

Collapse -
RE:I have to give me a 'thumbs down'...
by JP Bill / March 16, 2016 1:45 PM PDT
In reply to: I disagree, James

FINALLY something we agree on.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?