A Justice has been nominated.
In Garland, Barack advocated
A moderate judge.
McConnell might budge.
His protest seems so fabricated.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470643431/-i-ve-made-my-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee-president-obama-says?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_medium=social
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
LEGO Americana Roadshow: Building Across America I just checked out this traveling exhibition from LEGO and was quite impressed. The scale ... -
Merry Christmas, everyone!
-
When we let politics trump science, people are needlessly put in harm's way. http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/self-censoring-fears...
Won't get a hearing.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Justice. Clinton will nominate an ultra liberal.
Joseph Milan what makes you think that? Clinton is a conservative.
ReplyDeleteAndreas Geisler Just stahp. Clinton's record is very directly middle-of-the-pack in the Democratic party. If you want to call Democrats "conservative," that's fine, but qualify your labels.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats
ReplyDeleteNot full-on blue dogs, but definitely conservatives.
Not cray-cray conservatives like Gopsters, but definitely conservatives.
I would say she's more liberal than the middle of the pack.
ReplyDeleteBecause her voting record accurately proves that.
But poor Garland is probably being floated o make an important point. If I were Clinton in the White House I would not nominate him.
Joseph Milan She's definitely not more liberal than the middle, that's a completely preposterous claim. She's not getting praise from Cheney for nothing.
ReplyDeleteAndreas Geisler Her legislative record clearly shows she's a centrist Democrat: https://plus.google.com/+CraigFroehle/posts/G4gigduPknK
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle so Clinton is not a "Clinton Democrat"?
ReplyDeleteAndreas Geisler Clinton II is not Clinton I. Even Clinton I isn't who he used to be.
ReplyDeleteSteve S That should probably be good news, but somehow it's pretty terrifying.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, what is a conservative to me might not be what is a conservative to most people.
What with Eisenhower and all that.
Andreas Geisler This isn't subjective. There are two non-overlapping groups and Clinton is squarely in the left-wing one. Now, you can argue that Clinton's group should represent the right-most one and the current right-wing group should disappear. If you did, I would agree with you, but it's still not how things are today.
ReplyDeleteSteve S The right-most of those groups is entirely insane. The sane end of the spectrum is wholly contained in the "left-wing group".
ReplyDeleteI disregard the insane wing completely. The "left-wing" group is the entire spectrum, as far as I am concerned.
But I see you know what I mean.
Andreas Geisler I would be content if we started with the left-wing group, expanded it a little bit in both directions, split it down the middle, and made it the whole of the political spectrum.
ReplyDeleteNot only would this exclude the bigoted lunatics of the right, but it would fill the gap between the two parties so that there's room for cooperation.
And it would put Eisenhower back on the right wing ;)
ReplyDeleteAndreas Geisler Yes, moderate right.
ReplyDeleteAndreas Geisler As much as I would like to disregard the reich right wing entirely, I cannot, as they are an influential element in US politics. And, as much as I would like to have a third, left-leaning party in the mix to sap power away from the Republicans, I fear that, in reality, it would only split the left-leaning bloc and make neither the Democrats nor the new party able to get candidates elected. Until the GOP destroys itself (as it's close to doing right now) and the Baby Boomers are largely dead (or at least no longer able to vote), we won't have an opportunity to get much momentum to the left here. This is a multi-generational effort, akin to moving tectonic plates, not something that happens in an election or two.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle I half-agree. Years ago, the GOP made a point of excluding the far right from its big tent. For example, CPAC explicitly rejected the John Birch Society.
ReplyDeleteThese extremists could still still join the RNC and vote for RNC candidates, but they were firmly outside the Overton Window and not treated with any undue respect.
Things changed. They should change back.
You know what? I hope he's a new Sandra Day O'Connor. I miss the Russian Roulette Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle Your problem is FPTP elections. That strongly favors fewer parties, and in conjunction with a few other settings (such as not being able to caucus for seats) massively favors a two-party system.
ReplyDeleteThat shit needs to go, as it would also split off the nearly sane republicans into the near right Steve S wanted.