Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/35823234?u...ntent=link

 

<p style="font-size:16px;color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">"The Supreme Court vacancy follows the death of Antonin Scalia last month.

<p style="font-size:16px;color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="font-size:16px;color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Judge Garland, 63, is viewed as a moderate and has won praise from senior Republican figures.

<p style="font-size:16px;color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="font-size:16px;color:rgb(64,64,64);font-family:Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">The appointment has to be ratified by the Senate, but its Republican majority earlier vowed to block a vote on any Supreme Court nominee from <a class="" href='http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/5e519ba4-2594-4118-a641-cdf75cd8ce46/barack-obama'>Mr Obama</a>."

Typical Obama. Trying to steal Trump's front page momentum.

Interesting choice. I expect the pubs to reject.

Quote:Typical Obama. Trying to steal Trump's front page momentum.

 

Typical Trumpette. Trying to make it all about Trump.

Quote:Typical Trumpette. Trying to make it all about Trump.

 

Just a coincidence, right?

Quote:Typical Trumpette. Trying to make it all about Trump.

 

Very true.

I admit that I don't know much about this guy, but from the little that I've seen I would vote NO with respect to The Second Amendment.

 

The question is, will the republicans refuse to even hold a vote?

Quote:I admit that I don't know much about this guy, but from the little that I've seen I would vote NO with respect to The Second Amendment.

 

The question is, will the republicans refuse to even hold a vote?

He's surprisingly moderate, even slightly right-leaning if you consider his background. Obama's not going to nominate a candidate who wears his six-shooter to work. Considering that this could have been Loretta Lynch, I'm ok with it.

Quote:He's surprisingly moderate, even slightly right-leaning if you consider his background. Obama's not going to nominate a candidate who wears his six-shooter to work. Considering that this could have been Loretta Lynch, I'm ok with it.

 

Loretta Lynch would not even have a prayer of being confirmed, and I'm sure that President Obama knows that.  He's trying to play the "gotcha" politics game during an election cycle.  If Mitch McConnell refuses to even bring it up for a vote, it's a big black mark on the republican party.  By the same token, if it's brought up for a vote and confirmation is denied along party lines, again it's a black mark on the republican party.  Either way it's a "win" for President Obama and the democrat party.

Donald Trump is right this president loses to every country he deals with except when it comes to his own vs GOP, then the GOP folds every time...

hopefully they hold their ground this time..

Republicans are in for a rude awakening if they think they'll get a more palatable nominee from President Hillary Clinton.   If I were they, I would ratify this guy and leave it at that.  

Quote:Typical Obama. Trying to steal Trump's front page momentum.

So I guess we shouldn't have any non-Donald news while the dear leader is running?

 

 

Back on subject, apparently this guy helped put away the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski as well as helping deliver Timothy McVeigh to his maker.  He's also a Harvard educated older white dude, something the critics of the Leader of the Free World didn't think they'd see from him.

 

Ball in your court, McConnell.

Quote:Republicans are in for a rude awakening if they think they'll get a more palatable nominee from President Hillary Clinton.   If I were they, I would ratify this guy and leave it at that.  

 

I wouldn't worry about that.

Quote:Republicans are in for a rude awakening if they think they'll get a more palatable nominee from President Hillary Clinton.   If I were they, I would ratify this guy and leave it at that.  

 

A Republican congress will not approve a far-left candidate if Hillary Clinton wins the WH. The only way she could get a far-left SCJ in is if congress flips Democrat. I could see the Republican congress capitulating though and eventually confirming a guy like Garland if Hillary Clinton wins. Maybe not though, and if the Republican congressmen have guts, we might not see a replacement SCJ for years (assuming Hillary Clinton wins the WH). I don't believe there could be enough outrage generated by not confirming the SCJ that could cost a Republican congressman their seat since there is a lot of public support from Republicans and Independents in blocking a left or center-left candidate.

 

What happens if Clinton wins and the Republican congress chooses not to nominate any of her picks? That could be a huge battle.

Quote:I admit that I don't know much about this guy, but from the little that I've seen I would vote NO with respect to The Second Amendment.

 

The question is, will the republicans refuse to even hold a vote?

I agree.  And because of his 2A track record, the senate shouldn't even consider a vote. 

Quote:I admit that I don't know much about this guy, but from the little that I've seen I would vote NO with respect to The Second Amendment.

 

The question is, will the republicans refuse to even hold a vote?

 

You don't know anything about Mr. Garland? Is that a result of ignorance or just a failed education system?

Quote:You don't know anything about Mr. Garland? Is that a result of ignorance or just a failed education system?

Did I miss something? All that all that matters is the NO.

Quote:Did I miss something? All that all that matters is the NO.

 

jagibelieve being an egotistical elitist, but otherwise no, you haven't. And I agree, NO!

Quote:I admit that I don't know much about this guy, but from the little that I've seen I would vote NO with respect to The Second Amendment.

 

The question is, will the republicans refuse to even hold a vote?

 

He's only had 2 gun cases: 

 

NRA vs. Reno, which involves the amount of time the FBI takes to destroy gun transfer records after clearing NICS under the Brady bill.  Garland agreed with the FBI that 6 months was enough time.  The NRA wanted wanted them destroyed instantly, and his decision put him on their enemies list.

 

Parker vs. D.C. (which later became Heller vs. D.C.), in which he requested a re-hearing.  He wasn't requesting an overturn, just a re-hearing.

 

Slate article

 

Maybe he's a second amendment fan, maybe he isn't but you can't tell by his record.

Quote:Did I miss something? All that all that matters is the NO.

 

Nothing more than those who don't know the history or location of the Northern Mariana Islands being either ignorant or products of a failed education system.