Red Mosquito

@SkitchP wrote:

stip wrote: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.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

stip wrote: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 wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

stip wrote: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

cutuphalfdead wrote:I love you, Skitch Patterson.

@SkitchP wrote:

B wrote: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.

Green Habit wrote: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".

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

Spoiler: show

Simple Torture wrote:

@SkitchP wrote: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

Simple Torture wrote:

@SkitchP wrote: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

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

@SkitchP wrote: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 wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

@SkitchP wrote: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.

Green Habit wrote: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".

Simple Torture wrote:You don't wanna get mixed up with a guy like me.