So, do Republicans really want to see Hillary appoint the next SCOTUS justice?

[CTyankee]

So they don't want an Obama appointment but their argument is problematic. There is a good chance that HRC might win the 2016 election (I say this as a Bernie supporter...I still hope for him). So repubs either think their choice of candidate in 2016 is someone they can all rally behind and love or they'd rather trust Hillary to do it.

Which is it, republicans?

[valerief]

1. Maybe they have all their gerrymandered county flippy voting machines all ready

for a GOP "landslide."

[Hortensis]

5. Something like that hope is my guess.

For SCOTUS they can have a guaranteed fail with Obama or a second chance with the election, however it goes off.

[peacebird]

2. They know Hillary would appoint one sure to protect the 1% so they are ok with thst

[CTyankee]

6. but she won't appoint a justice that pushes back on Roe v. Wade and other social issues where

there are stark differences between Dems and repubs. AND, lots of repubs vote on the social issues more than the issues of the 1%...

[Hortensis]

7. I feel that reveals a lack of understanding

of the situation, Bird. Since you're interested in the topic, why not read about it?

[peacebird]

11. Sorry, Hillary lies and panders and spouts whatever is polling well. I do not trust her at all.

I do not believe she will act in the best interest of average Americans. i believe she will help corporations and the 1% instead.

Hillary is pro fracking, pro GMO, pro clusterbombs, pro H1B visas, pro outsourcing.

She is pro WallStreet, the crash was the fault of consumers not the poor misunderstood bankers after all.

She is not satan, she is just a corporatist warhawk.

[Hortensis]

17. As I suggested, why not read about the topic?

Not right wing propaganda, but pieces or books by reputable authors. There are many available right on line of various lengths, some quite short. Good information is literally a minute away.

[peacebird]

20. Because Hillary is a liar?

[Hortensis]

22. Yes, actually. Since it is such a major part of your

decision-making process, you should know what she has really lied about, and what she has not, and be able to understand both in context and proportion.

People read propaganda to feed their own desire for lies. Honest people read truth because lies won't do.

[peacebird]

24. I appreciate your tenacity, but my disgust with Hillary is rooted in decades of her own behaviour

I am voting for Bernie in the primary, and in the GE.

[Hortensis]

25. I feel most ardent disgust with Hillary so much

more than disgust with others is rooted at least as much in decades of those people's own behavior. I suspect their behavior is assisted by the providential added benefit of seemingly being proven more virtuous than all those Democrats who obviously have no problem with corruption and crime. How could it be otherwise? Isn't it appropriate to despise people like that, after all?

I mention this because I don't do anything of the sort. We don't. We are neither immoral or amoral, as a group anyway. As a group, actually, we're probably the best informed, responsible and caring major voting block in America and more honest with ourselves on average than most.

So, if many millions of liberal Democrats are not terminally disgusted with her, and even find much to admire in her, shouldn't you as an honest person be wondering why? Since you do feel so strongly about this topic, isn't there a big empty spot in your bag of knowledge asking to be filled?

Again, why not go read some neutral evaluations by analysts well regarded in their profession? Do that for, say, 5 candidates, then evaluate them all against each other. I've done that. Many here have. It's not about converting anyone to Hillary:s camp. I have never thought that is either necessary or in your case likely to be possible. You have your candidate. It is about being informed about issues of importance to us.

[peacebird]

27. I have looked at her. It is somewhat insulting that you assume otherwise.

She is for H1B visas and expanding outsourcing. Both of which are extremely destructive to people in my industry. An American cannot live on the same salary as a person in India.

She is against a ban on clusterbombs. Perhaps you remember Princess Diana took banning this horrific bomb as her key cause. Children suffer disproportionately because they think the unexploded bomblets are toys.

Her vote for the IWR shows she is lacking in judgement.

She is against reinstating GlassSteagal. She has said the crash was caused by irresponsible consumers, not by out of control banks.

She is for GMO's and Monsanto, against labels.

She is in favor of a very muscular military posture in the world (war war war)

And she has a serious problem with telling the truth. How stupid is she? She lies about sniper fire when she KNOWS the greeting ceremony was taped!?!

Dead broke when they left the White House?

[world wide wally]

10. But also someone who will protect womens reproductive rights and minority's civil rights

[peacebird]

12. Bernie has advocated for minority civil rights since the 60's, and is a strrong supporter of women

Always has been.

He is also more electable in the GE than Hillary.

[world wide wally]

16. Nobody said he didn't

You are the one that tried to turn it into another anti-Hillary thread.
Last I heard , she was still a Democrat

[elleng]

3. No way to know, yank, but you may be right.

After all, they keep calling eachother 'LIAR!'

[CTyankee]

8. Yep. But have they thought this thing through?

[elleng]

9. Certainly NOT!

'THINK???'

[Jester Messiah]

4. Probably. A corporatist is a corporatist.

The only difference would be how much God-Sauce you get on your shit sandwich.

[olddots]

13. its hard to think how people who don't think

think .

[LonePirate]

14. 0% chance a conservative will be appointed under Obama. Repubs have >0% chance of winning in Nov.

They are hoping for a Hail Mary plain and simple.

[CTyankee]

15. how effin delusional is that? Only with more gerymandering and even that won't save them...

[Blasphemer]

23. Bingo!

They are thoroughly screwed on this and have no way out. This is nothing but desperation. The reality is that after decades of conservatism, it was inevitable that a leftward shift would occur. Clinton and Obama did great jobs with their judicial nominees. The next SC justice nominated by a Democrat (whether Obama, Clinton and Sanders) will mark the end of the conservative era in the U.S. federal judiciary.

[TexasProgresive]

18. My best guess is

They want that seat open so they can use it to GOT(puke)V. It would become a major taking point during the runup to the general election and to maintain control of the House and Senate.

Edit to add: And if President Obama manages to get his candidate on the bench they will use the same scare tactic that the next president may replace Justice Ginsberg.

The problem for us is that many aren't concerned about the court enough to vote. The pukes may be stupid but they don't have a lock on it.

[bowens43]

19. not something they will have to worry about, hill won't be appointing anyone.

there is NO chance that hillary would win the GE, hell she probably won't win the nomination

[CTyankee]

21. Ain't gonna get any better for repubs chances under a Sanders presidency...

they are really being stupid here. They have no lock on the White House.

As I said, "delusional."

[CBGLuthier]

26. They would indeed probably prefer her choice to Obama's. She is a centrist after all.

Likely to appoint whomever the banks tell her to.

[randome]

28. This is proof there is no 'strategy' and no one in charge of the GOP.

They have nothing to gain by obstructing a nomination because they surely know by now that a Democrat will likely be the next President.

Therefore, they are just flailing away without a coherent plan.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]