TexasCHLforum.com

They are starting to cave on the first day, and I'd lay odds that McConnell isn't far off. GOP is doomed.

Keep in mind, meeting with him does not mean having a confirmation hearing or Senate vote. Also, I bet some want to explain to him it's nothing personal they aren't going to consider him.

I on the other hand, would let the nomination languish but that may not be the best strategy. I wouldn't care if they voted on him as long as it was assured he wouldn't be approved. That would be risky though.

mojo84 wrote:Keep in mind, meeting with him does not mean having a confirmation hearing or Senate vote. Also, I bet some want to explain to him it's nothing personal they aren't going to consider him.

I on the other hand, would let the nomination languish but that may not be the best strategy. I wouldn't care if they voted on him as long as it was assured he wouldn't be approved. That would be risky though.

You mean they should Bork him?

Redneck_Buddha wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Keep in mind, meeting with him does not mean having a confirmation hearing or Senate vote. Also, I bet some want to explain to him it's nothing personal they aren't going to consider him.

I on the other hand, would let the nomination languish but that may not be the best strategy. I wouldn't care if they voted on him as long as it was assured he wouldn't be approved. That would be risky though.

You mean they should Bork him?

Your comment prompted me to do a quick Google search. Found some interesting reading. Also note some of the players back then are still around. Regenerates my desire and enthusiasm for term limits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_ ... nomination

mojo84 wrote:

Redneck_Buddha wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Keep in mind, meeting with him does not mean having a confirmation hearing or Senate vote. Also, I bet some want to explain to him it's nothing personal they aren't going to consider him.

I on the other hand, would let the nomination languish but that may not be the best strategy. I wouldn't care if they voted on him as long as it was assured he wouldn't be approved. That would be risky though.

You mean they should Bork him?

Your comment prompted me to do a quick Google search. Found some interesting reading. Also note some of the players back then are still around. Regenerates my desire and enthusiasm for term limits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_ ... nomination

Amen... and thank God many of them are gone, too...only to have been replaced by bigger, more corrupt idiots.

NRA blasts Garland... http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/m ... uns-220892

This is probably my favorite tweet of the day. Obama in 2006, supporting the very thing that today he railed against.

https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/710225603543216128

Hoist the Dems on their own petard.

AndyC wrote:

atx2a wrote:Looks like McConnell made it pretty clear again today that they will not even allow a hearing. Hope that's true.

I saw this: Mitch McConnell Cites ‘Constitutional Right' to Deny Obama on Supreme Court Nominee:

D.C. District Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s journey to becoming the next Supreme Court Justice quickly hit a brick wall in the form of Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“It is a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent,” McConnell said on the Senate floor, minutes after President Obama officially announced Garland's nomination.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitch-mc ... d=37692915

I agree in part with McConnell but I strongly disagree with his interpretation of the right to not consent. I believe that the senate should hold a confirmation hearing on the nominee. It is their job to do so, IMO. They have the full authority to say no to this, or any, nominee but they should hold a confirmation hearing. The nominee deserves the up or down vote instead of just hanging around without any word.

After all, by refusing to hear anyone, they are saying the President could nominate an effective clone of Scalia and they would not care. That is political obstructionism. Having a hearing and finding the applicant unacceptable is perfectly within their duties and the law.

I thought asking this question in this thread was appropriate: Heller was in 2008. We already had CHL and right to purchase/keep arms. Even if Garland somehow helps reverse Heller, how does that change what we had before 2008?

oohrah wrote:I thought asking this question in this thread was appropriate: Heller was in 2008. We already had CHL and right to purchase/keep arms. Even if Garland somehow helps reverse Heller, how does that change what we had before 2008?

Not all states or jurisdictions recognized the right to keep and bear arms. Heller reaffirmed that for those jurisdictions that did not recognize the right. It is always good for the supreme court to support our rights whether or not they are being infringed upon. The fact this guy has been against our rights in the past indicates he may decide a case in the future that negatively impacts our rights.

We can't always just look at what effects us individually at the moment. We need to consider a nominee's or candidate's principles and use that as a basis to predict future actions and decisions. Considering only the individual here and now effects is what has gotten us in the mess we are in as a country.

Bottom line, he could make a ruling down the road that could jeopardize our rights to keep and bear arms based upon his views and past positions.

srothstein wrote:

AndyC wrote:

atx2a wrote:Looks like McConnell made it pretty clear again today that they will not even allow a hearing. Hope that's true.

I saw this: Mitch McConnell Cites ‘Constitutional Right' to Deny Obama on Supreme Court Nominee:

D.C. District Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s journey to becoming the next Supreme Court Justice quickly hit a brick wall in the form of Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“It is a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent,” McConnell said on the Senate floor, minutes after President Obama officially announced Garland's nomination.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitch-mc ... d=37692915

I agree in part with McConnell but I strongly disagree with his interpretation of the right to not consent. I believe that the senate should hold a confirmation hearing on the nominee. It is their job to do so, IMO. They have the full authority to say no to this, or any, nominee but they should hold a confirmation hearing. The nominee deserves the up or down vote instead of just hanging around without any word.

After all, by refusing to hear anyone, they are saying the President could nominate an effective clone of Scalia and they would not care. That is political obstructionism. Having a hearing and finding the applicant unacceptable is perfectly within their duties and the law.

NO nominee under this tyrant, period. Meeting with him is a Trojan horse to grease the skids to move forward. Everytime the left get an inch they take a foot and then some.
So, you're darn right we need to stand firm on this.
Call it political obstructionism or whatever, I'll call it survival.

As I see it, Garland is a centrist on many issues, the Republican party is imploding and the likelihood of the Party winning the general election is fading every week with all the fighting and hate. They are playing Russian Roulette here. If Clinton wins, and it looks possible, she can nominate someone to the left who is even less acceptable to Republicans and they will be confirmed. Right now, failure to even discuss the matter is fueling the public's view that the Senate is a useless, do nothing appendage.

gdanaher wrote:As I see it, Garland is a centrist on many issues, the Republican party is imploding and the likelihood of the Party winning the general election is fading every week with all the fighting and hate. They are playing Russian Roulette here. If Clinton wins, and it looks possible, she can nominate someone to the left who is even less acceptable to Republicans and they will be confirmed. Right now, failure to even discuss the matter is fueling the public's view that the Senate is a useless, do nothing appendage.

I agree completely.

I have heard there has been discussion of Garland's confirmation in the lame duck session held in December if Clinton is elected.