tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30802444.post1449304100294848238..comments2023-06-16T09:13:46.330-05:00Comments on gabbygeezer: Careful What You Wish For, SenatorsDick Kladehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11793395712483278104noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30802444.post-83243787631543783732016-04-09T15:10:56.537-05:002016-04-09T15:10:56.537-05:00I wouldn't lump all Republicans into the same ...I wouldn't lump all Republicans into the same recalcitrant lot. Actually McConnell's great fear is that if he brings the nomination to the floor for a vote, then Garland will get the nod. All Mc is doing falls into the category of "payback" for what was done with Bush appointees and, Clinton appointees and Reagan appointees (remember Bork?). Tiresome isn't it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30802444.post-7573508752151864562016-04-08T23:32:56.269-05:002016-04-08T23:32:56.269-05:00Oh, that's an idea that should incite fear in ...Oh, that's an idea that should incite fear in the Republicans to get on with vetting and accepting the man he's offered them!joaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09999395062839739698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30802444.post-7955557940181054562016-04-08T11:51:50.620-05:002016-04-08T11:51:50.620-05:00Yes, wouldn't that be a hoot! Just desserts. ...Yes, wouldn't that be a hoot! Just desserts. Even if the new nominee isn't Obama, the GOP should be thinking about the likelihood that a new Democratic president could nominate any number of candidates they would have far greater objections to.Jhawk23http://www.morning-fog.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30802444.post-41402182459334310772016-04-08T11:36:36.359-05:002016-04-08T11:36:36.359-05:00I agree that the GOP is taking a huge risk not hol...I agree that the GOP is taking a huge risk not holding hearings on Garland. He's so much more moderate than some of the people a new Democratic president might nominate. Besides, not holding hearings could be costing them votes they need (although I suppose it could be gaining some as well). And where's the harm in holding the hearings -- and promptly voting down Garland's nomination? Seems to me a willingness to "cooperate" and hold the hearings would cast them in a favorable light, even if they reject the nomination. <br /><br />I've heard it suggested that Obama could be nominated for the court. Can't think of anything the GOP would hate more than that. They've despised him as a two-term president. His lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court would put them all in early graves.PiedTypehttp://piedtype.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30802444.post-74910397488318372112016-04-08T09:38:00.938-05:002016-04-08T09:38:00.938-05:00Obama in your Supreme Court offers intriguing poss...Obama in your Supreme Court offers intriguing possibilities!Rummuserhttp://www.rummuser.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30802444.post-85917022484683416362016-04-07T18:19:05.963-05:002016-04-07T18:19:05.963-05:00Excellent suggestion!Excellent suggestion!Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08611148987085476580noreply@blogger.com