The Dead Thread

[Diff-chan]

The question isn't whether or not the Senate can obstruct, but whether or not it's a good idea. It's a huge risk. I doubt Obama is going to nominate someone like Ginsburg or Sotomayor, but Hillary Clinton certainly would if she wins the election.

It doesn't matter what happened in 1987. Obstruction is obstruction. Obama is still the President and a year is a long time. If it was December or even September, I get waiting, but a year is a long time. This thing will play out.

The GOP debate was pathetic. It's funny how your first year doesn't count if you're a Republican and, oh, planes fly into giant towers on your watch. But if you're a Democrat and need to make an important appointment, your last year doesn't count either.

[Yoshi]

The question isn't whether or not the Senate can obstruct, but whether or not it's a good idea. It's a huge risk. I doubt Obama is going to nominate someone like Ginsburg or Sotomayor, but Hillary Clinton certainly would if she wins the election.

I get the "devil you know" argument, but let's see who he tries to appoint before making it too strongly.

[A Robot Bit Me]

let's see who he tries to appoint

Says the guy who just said he hopes his Senator will block any appointment.

[Yoshi]

Correct. It'll be interesting to see if it would be worse than who we think Hillary would appoint. There is zero doubt that I won't want whomever it is casting a tie breaking vote ever.

[A Robot Bit Me]

Win elections, bro.

[Yoshi]

That's what enabled the nominee to be blocked until the next one.

[Andrew]

How is Hillary going to properly vet a SC nominee from prison?

[Joust Williams]

I can guarantee you if the Rs stall for a year, they will lose control of the Congress and the next choice will be much more liberal. Rs only chance here is to hope Obama brings out someone close to center/center-left

[YellerDog]

How is Hillary going to properly vet a SC nominee from prison?

For the emails thing? LOL probably not.

[Andrew]

For the emails thing? LOL probably not.

So she effectively does the same thing as Snowden. Except Snowden's motives were altruistic, whereas hers were to avoid any kind of oversight. I wonder why the administration treats one like a criminal and not the other.

I wish someone would explain this to me. There must be a very, very good reason why Obama's DOJ hasn't indicted Clinton, but has no problem dropping the hammer on Snowden. There has to be a puzzle piece I'm missing. Otherwise, I might be tempted to think it's politically motivated. And if that were the case, it would make those crying about politically motivated obstruction in the Senate seem a bit hypocritical.