RIP Antonin Scalia

[Norah]

and even by contemporary standards this is aggressive

Vocally, yes. but that could just be part of the election cycle. It could also be a move to strong arm the Obama administration into making sure they nominate someone more moderate. Frankly, it would be irresponsible to act like they aren't going to fight it and then allow a lame duck president in the last 6 months of his term to nominate an extreme liberal justice.

Basically, by being as vocal as they are, it's creating a win win situation as far as PR goes. When Obama nominates a somewhat moderate justice (which he probably would have anyways), he gets his "first" choice, and the republicans get to crow about the fact their threats to delay forced him into a middle of the road candidate.

To be fair, Obama isn't a lame duck until after the election.

[@SkitchP]

and even by contemporary standards this is aggressive

Vocally, yes. but that could just be part of the election cycle. It could also be a move to strong arm the Obama administration into making sure they nominate someone more moderate. Frankly, it would be irresponsible to act like they aren't going to fight it and then allow a lame duck president in the last 6 months of his term to nominate an extreme liberal justice.

Basically, by being as vocal as they are, it's creating a win win situation as far as PR goes. When Obama nominates a somewhat moderate justice (which he probably would have anyways), he gets his "first" choice, and the republicans get to crow about the fact their threats to delay forced him into a middle of the road candidate.

To be fair, Obama isn't a lame duck until after the election.

PedantNClarke

[Norah]

and even by contemporary standards this is aggressive

Vocally, yes. but that could just be part of the election cycle. It could also be a move to strong arm the Obama administration into making sure they nominate someone more moderate. Frankly, it would be irresponsible to act like they aren't going to fight it and then allow a lame duck president in the last 6 months of his term to nominate an extreme liberal justice.

Basically, by being as vocal as they are, it's creating a win win situation as far as PR goes. When Obama nominates a somewhat moderate justice (which he probably would have anyways), he gets his "first" choice, and the republicans get to crow about the fact their threats to delay forced him into a middle of the road candidate.

To be fair, Obama isn't a lame duck until after the election.

PedantNClarke

Words mean things.

[@SkitchP]

Yes. And many words can imply different things even if it isn't the implicit meaning of the word.

[Norah]

I love you, Skitch Patterson.

[@SkitchP]

I love you, Skitch Patterson.

u 2

[Green Habit]

What I just want to hear is a lot less of "Allowing/not allowing Obama to replace Scalia is a disgrace to the American system", and more of "Allowing/not allowing Obama to replace Scalia is in the best interest of what I believe is best for America".

[stip]

If Bush had rolled out single-payer healthcare, the Dems would have gotten behind it because it's a good idea.

That's not true and you know it.

No Child Left Behind

[@SkitchP]

Short Answer: Political Posturing.

[Chris_H_2]

What I just want to hear is a lot less of "Allowing/not allowing Obama to replace Scalia is a disgrace to the American system", and more of "Allowing/not allowing Obama to replace Scalia is in the best interest of what I believe is best for America".

that's a mouthful nick

[Simple Torture]

Yes. And many words can imply different things even if it isn't the implicit meaning of the word.

If Scalia had died on February 12th instead of February 13th, would Obama still be enough of a "lame duck" that there shouldn't be a new SC judge appointed under his watch? What about February 11th? February 10th? February 9th? January 30th? January 15th? Late 2015? July 20th, 2015? January 2015? January 2013? The idea that he's a lame duck now( even if you want to stretch the term out to mean more than its literal meaning)--when there's still a chance that someone from his own party could be in the White House a year from--is sort of ludicrous; obviously, politicians are trying to use that word to sway people who only had one ear open during civics class.

Spoiler: show

[Norah]

Yes. And many words can imply different things even if it isn't the implicit meaning of the word.

If Scalia had died on February 12th instead of February 13th, would Obama still be enough of a "lame duck" that there shouldn't be a new SC judge appointed under his watch? What about February 11th? February 10th? February 9th? January 30th? January 15th? Late 2015? July 20th, 2015? January 2015? January 2013? The idea that he's a lame duck now( even if you want to stretch the term out to mean more than its literal meaning)--when there's still a chance that someone from his own party could be in the White House a year from--is sort of ludicrous; obviously, politicians are trying to use that word to sway people who only had one ear open during civics class.

Spoiler: show

I knew you'd come through for me.

[@SkitchP]

Yes. And many words can imply different things even if it isn't the implicit meaning of the word.

If Scalia had died on February 12th instead of February 13th, would Obama still be enough of a "lame duck" that there shouldn't be a new SC judge appointed under his watch? What about February 11th? February 10th? February 9th? January 30th? January 15th? Late 2015? July 20th, 2015? January 2015? January 2013? The idea that he's a lame duck now( even if you want to stretch the term out to mean more than its literal meaning)--when there's still a chance that someone from his own party could be in the White House a year from--is sort of ludicrous; obviously, politicians are trying to use that word to sway people who only had one ear open during civics class.

Spoiler: show

Im not agreeing with it! just saying that's how it's being viewed in many circles.

[Simple Torture]

Yes. And many words can imply different things even if it isn't the implicit meaning of the word.

If Scalia had died on February 12th instead of February 13th, would Obama still be enough of a "lame duck" that there shouldn't be a new SC judge appointed under his watch? What about February 11th? February 10th? February 9th? January 30th? January 15th? Late 2015? July 20th, 2015? January 2015? January 2013? The idea that he's a lame duck now( even if you want to stretch the term out to mean more than its literal meaning)--when there's still a chance that someone from his own party could be in the White House a year from--is sort of ludicrous; obviously, politicians are trying to use that word to sway people who only had one ear open during civics class.

Spoiler: show

I knew you'd come through for me.

Spoiler: show

http://turnto10.com/news/local/juvenile ... e-with-car

[@SkitchP]

BREAKING: Internet commenters focus on literal meaning of words ignoring common usage.


Related: Random

[Simple Torture]

Yes. And many words can imply different things even if it isn't the implicit meaning of the word.

If Scalia had died on February 12th instead of February 13th, would Obama still be enough of a "lame duck" that there shouldn't be a new SC judge appointed under his watch? What about February 11th? February 10th? February 9th? January 30th? January 15th? Late 2015? July 20th, 2015? January 2015? January 2013? The idea that he's a lame duck now( even if you want to stretch the term out to mean more than its literal meaning)--when there's still a chance that someone from his own party could be in the White House a year from--is sort of ludicrous; obviously, politicians are trying to use that word to sway people who only had one ear open during civics class.

Spoiler: show

Im not agreeing with it! just saying that's how it's being viewed in many circles.

Fair, fair. It reminds of the line Rubio has used in a few of the debates (which he's stopped doing since the whole "robot Rubio" thing started going around), where he would point at the camera and say, "Hilary Clinton can't even run for president; she's disqualified from running for president." If you say it enough, people will believe it--Politics 101.

[@SkitchP]

I would think classical linguists like yourself would be more apt to use "lede."

[Simple Torture]

You don't wanna get mixed up with a guy like me.

[digster]

What I just want to hear is a lot less of "Allowing/not allowing Obama to replace Scalia is a disgrace to the American system", and more of "Allowing/not allowing Obama to replace Scalia is in the best interest of what I believe is best for America".

The only problem is that though the motivations of Obama and the Democrats may be political, the fact is they're in the right. Obama's supposed to submit a nomination and the Senate votes to confirm or deny. I've actually been fairly stunned by how open conservatives on talk shows have been about their reasoning being that they don't agree with Obama, so they don't want him to name the replacement. To their credit (I guess?) many of them are not hiding their motivations.

[@SkitchP]

You don't wanna get mixed up with a guy like me.

Oh most definitely not. You're one of my favorite boarders people that post on this internet message board!