Trump

[Play Angry]

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn the latest flavor of the week in the veepstakes.

Lifelong democrat, former Director of Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama from 2012-14. Fierce critic of the administration following his departure and current Trump advisor.

This would make for an interesting convention.

[Kung Wu]

Yep. I'm sure that wasn't a list he simply rubber stamped and definitely believe he will not backtrack like he has on so many other policies and proposals.

This one must be different because it's what we want to hear, right?

It's one thing to spout off an off-the-cuff opinion during an interview or in the middle of a debate, and then flip flop. It's a completely different thing to actually have one of the most respected conservative think tanks in America help you compile a well thought out list of candidates and put those forward.

Regardless, at the very least, you want your nominee at MINIMUM consistently SAYING he will appoint conservative judges. That's FAR better than KNOWING the opposition won't. I mean, even if he appointed an irritating middle of the road centrist it will be better than what the opposition cooks up. Irritating as hell and political suicide, but still BETTER.

[Play Angry]

Sure, it is preferable that he is at least feigning support for conservative appointments versus outright advocating for liberal appointments, regardless of the likelihood of following through on that lip service. That very reflection is such a depressing indictment of the state of the party this cycle - talk about gripping at straws.

[Play Angry]

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn the latest flavor of the week in the veepstakes.

Lifelong democrat, former Director of Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama from 2012-14. Fierce critic of the administration following his departure and current Trump advisor.

This would make for an interesting convention.

Potential VP nominee Flynn came out strongly in favor of abortion rights this morning on ABC.

[Kung Wu]

Potential VP nominee Flynn came out strongly in favor of abortion rights this morning on ABC.

Ugh.

[SB Shock]

I wonder how Romney or McCain would have did on supreme court nominees? Romney was pro-choice before he was against it. McCain been a little wishy-washy saying he would not provide a litmus test and lately has said the Republicans should leave the Abortion issue alone. Of course McCain has had his affair and other ethical issues. I guess the perfect candidate might not exists.

[Play Angry]

I wonder how Romney or McCain would have did on supreme court nominees? Romney was pro-choice before he was against it. McCain been a little wishy-washy saying he would not provide a litmus test and lately has said the Republicans should leave the Abortion issue alone. Of course McCain has had his affair and other ethical issues. I guess the perfect candidate might not exists.

Considering we held the White House for 28 out of 40 years beginning with Nixon and ending with the expiration of W's second term, I think it's fair to say we have a shitty track record of appointing good judges.

Some mistakes were forgivable (Stevens), other were inexcusable (Souter), but either way our Republican presidents have not capitalized on their power to favorably mold the long-term direction of the country.

[ShockRef]

Ginsburg has always been very opposed to retirement. I think she'll either pass away or her health will have to take a very serious turn before she'll leave. If you have a source where she said she'd be open to retirement, I'd love to see it. Kennedy won't retire if Clinton wins. I'll give you that both could die in the next four years, but it's incredibly unlikely. If Trump wins, it's possible Kennedy retires, but I'd think he'd be worried about Trump's pro-choice history. To get to the likely three, Scalia would have to not be replaced, and both Ginsburg and Kennedy would have to die. It's far from "likely," but it is possible, I suppose.

Five isn't happening, though. Thomas isn't going to retire. He has not spoken about it, he's still young, and his wife rejected the thought. Breyer won't retire if Trump wins. If his health is bad, he may retire during a Clinton presidency. The Justices have the best health care in the world, and I'm sure it can keep Breyer alive for four years if Trump wins. I'll bet any amount of money that the next president doesn't get five replacements.

As I asked earlier, do you really think Obama won't be able to get one through despite trying for a year, but Trump or Clinton could get five?

I agree 5 is very unlikely, but possible.

By the way, your good friend Ginsburg may not only be retiring but giving up her citizenship.
She announced today that if The Trumpster is elected, she may move to New Zealand!

I, being the ultimate team player, would offer to help her pack.

That is all.

[jdshock]

I agree 5 is very unlikely, but possible.

By the way, your good friend Ginsburg may not only be retiring but giving up her citizenship.
She announced today that if The Trumpster is elected, she may move to New Zealand!

I, being the ultimate team player, would offer to help her pack.

That is all.

That's very funny.

She also railed on Congress for not voting on Garland. Republicans are in a no lose situation, though. If Trump wins, they won't confirm Garland. If Hillary wins, they'll just confirm him since he's more of a moderate/concession nomination than someone that would get nominated in year 1 by Hillary. Until the voting population quits letting the presidential election completely overshadow congressional elections, the Republicans have absolutely zero incentive to vote on Garland right now.

The refusal to vote on Garland is not merely immature behavior by Republicans. It's not merely political strategizing. It's a complete mockery of the separation of powers. And it's even more obvious because Garland is the type of judge Republicans would have been delighted to have nominated a couple years ago.

[shocka khan]

That's very funny.

She also railed on Congress for not voting on Garland. Republicans are in a no lose situation, though. If Trump wins, they won't confirm Garland. If Hillary wins, they'll just confirm him since he's more of a moderate/concession nomination than someone that would get nominated in year 1 by Hillary. Until the voting population quits letting the presidential election completely overshadow congressional elections, the Republicans have absolutely zero incentive to vote on Garland right now.

The refusal to vote on Garland is not merely immature behavior by Republicans. It's not merely political strategizing. It's a complete mockery of the separation of powers. And it's even more obvious because Garland is the type of judge Republicans would have been delighted to have nominated a couple years ago.

I seriously doubt that Garland will ever get a vote. Why? Because the president can withdraw the nomination at any point and use the convenient excuse that the new president (probably Hillary) should be able to nominate whomever they choose.

Note that my comments are not an endorsement of Hillary, as I will most likely vote against her, but rather a reflection of reality and the current state of the Republican Party.

[jdshock]

I seriously doubt that Garland will ever get a vote. Why? Because the president can withdraw the nomination at any point and use the convenient excuse that the new president (probably Hillary) should be able to nominate whomever they choose.

Note that my comments are not an endorsement of Hillary, as I will most likely vote against her, but rather a reflection of reality and the current state of the Republican Party.

That's a possibility, and I've seen people even recommend that Obama publicly state that he will do that, so Republicans have greater pressure to confirm him now. I just don't think it's likely. It's certainly possible, though. I think if Hillary wins and Obama withdraws the nomination, it politicizes it even more. If they just keep the nomination, it lets the Democrats have the high ground.

[im4wsu]

I seriously doubt that Garland will ever get a vote. Why? Because the president can withdraw the nomination at any point and use the convenient excuse that the new president (probably Hillary) should be able to nominate whomever they choose.

Note that my comments are not an endorsement of Hillary, as I will most likely vote against her, but rather a reflection of reality and the current state of the Republican Party.

Would it be possible if Hillary wins the election that the Senate votes on Garland early the next morning before Obama withdraws the name?

[shocka khan]

Would it be possible if Hillary wins the election that the Senate votes on Garland early the next morning before Obama withdraws the name?

That's certainly a possibility, but my bet would be that the dems would then slow the process down so as to allow Obama the opportunity to withdraw the nominee. That's the way politics work in Washington, on both sides, and it's a shame.

[SB Shock]

Is there a compelling reason to believe Trump will nominate reliably right-leaning SCOTUS candidates? I despise Hillary, but I just have no confidence Trump isn't, at his core, a carbon-copy of her in many ways.

The real difference is with trump at least the conservatives have a seat at the table and will have some influence. Otherwise they will be spectators and have no influence with the Hilary nominations.

[Play Angry]

Republican platform set to reflect Dick Gephardt's 1988 union-advised policies on trade, tariffs and currency pegs.


Trump's apologists among conservatives who believe they can control him may eventually realize he is the one manipulating the direction of their party's policies.