This is what I was going on: http://www.desmoin
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 02/14/2016 4:24:36 PM
This is what I was going on:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/p.../80350458/
So someone pointed out to him that Kennedy was confirmed in '88. Oh we can't have THAT as a precedent. Wasn't he nominated in '87?
Ok, change it to mention that.
Now, please tell me what the import is of a nomination toward the end of one year and confirmation in the following year VS both happening in the same year?
It's all a 'lame duck' period in actuality if not technically.
You don't like 'contention'? Tough sh*t. There WILL be a nomination, and the Republican partisan hacks can make whatever arguments they can against the nominee.
Prediction, their arguments will be so rabidly partisan and legally weak that even some conservatives will call them out. And they will be more about the 'timing' than the actual record and qualifications of the nominee.
I read that Obama may nominate a guy who was confirmed 97-0 for a Federal bench seat by the Senate. What, now the guy is for sh*t?
I have zero problem with the contentiousness, as it will only motivate a bigger Dem turnout than might have materialized.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/p.../80350458/
Quote:
He originally said standard practice has been that nominees are not confirmed during a presidential election year. His statement was corrected to include the nomination of candidates.
So someone pointed out to him that Kennedy was confirmed in '88. Oh we can't have THAT as a precedent. Wasn't he nominated in '87?
Ok, change it to mention that.
Now, please tell me what the import is of a nomination toward the end of one year and confirmation in the following year VS both happening in the same year?
It's all a 'lame duck' period in actuality if not technically.
You don't like 'contention'? Tough sh*t. There WILL be a nomination, and the Republican partisan hacks can make whatever arguments they can against the nominee.
Prediction, their arguments will be so rabidly partisan and legally weak that even some conservatives will call them out. And they will be more about the 'timing' than the actual record and qualifications of the nominee.
I read that Obama may nominate a guy who was confirmed 97-0 for a Federal bench seat by the Senate. What, now the guy is for sh*t?
I have zero problem with the contentiousness, as it will only motivate a bigger Dem turnout than might have materialized.
(1)
(1)Scroll down for more posts ▼