2016 Postmortem

TexasTowelie

(121,935 posts)

5. I know things look dire,

Sat Dec 3, 2016, 04:21 PM

Dec 2016

but as long as none of the liberal justices die within the first three years of a Trump administration then we got things covered. The Republicans set the precedent of not confirming President Obama's pick during the fourth year of his second term so the Democrats will be justified in saying that any selection should wait until after the election. Quite frankly, the Democrats should only give two years for President Trump's nominees considering the likelihood that he will select someone that has no qualifications whatsoever.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why didn't the liberal justices retire from the Supreme Court during Obama's 2 terms? [View all] liquid diamond Dec 2016 OP

Or first. Hubris. La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #1

That thought crossed my mind liquid diamond Dec 2016 #9

Souter retired in 2009... Cooley Hurd Dec 2016 #2

Thank you for the correction. liquid diamond Dec 2016 #10

David Souter retired MFM008 Dec 2016 #3

Yeah, wouldn't that have been sweet. Now we have a catastrophe PearliePoo2 Dec 2016 #4

I know things look dire, TexasTowelie Dec 2016 #5

I'm sorry TT, didn't you read the fine print on that precedent... CincyDem Dec 2016 #33

Actually the fine print says TexasTowelie Dec 2016 #34

because we would have 3 empty seats on the SC now. because they would never get confirmed so long putitinD Dec 2016 #6

Just how far can congress keep liquid diamond Dec 2016 #11

no, the Democrats would fold like an acordian and give the fuhrer anyone he chooses. putitinD Dec 2016 #14

Would he have been able to replace them? ucrdem Dec 2016 #7

Why did some self-identified progressives refuse to vote for Hillary? still_one Dec 2016 #8

Same answer: hubris and callousness towards others La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #12

Hubris? Really? EffieBlack Dec 2016 #17

To answer your question.. yup. pangaia Dec 2016 #18

I am at least this judgemental about liberals La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #22

Exactly Me. Dec 2016 #27

I believe they were waiting for Hillary brush Dec 2016 #21

Because liquid diamond Dec 2016 #13

They wanted to wait for a Democratic Senate FBaggins Dec 2016 #15

Why didn't the progressives who insisted that they were the "new revolution" that would help Bernie EffieBlack Dec 2016 #16

there is no revolution. single payer lost by a huge amount in colorado JI7 Dec 2016 #23

You can't do single payer on a state by state basis. Bernie learned that when his beloved Vermont's politicaljunkie41910 Dec 2016 #35

Yes so where is that revolution we heard so much about since they spoke loudly on Nov. 8 politicaljunkie41910 Dec 2016 #36

Hillary was suppposed to win, and the senate flip. TheCowsCameHome Dec 2016 #19

Did it work out any better for you than for us? La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #32

Hindsight is a marvelous thing, no doubt. Paladin Dec 2016 #20

If it were hubris at all Uponthegears Dec 2016 #24

Really? Me. Dec 2016 #25

Given the GOP record of eight years of obstruction, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #26

Ok. liquid diamond Dec 2016 #28

That depends on how the Senate sets up its rules at the beginning of the next session guillaumeb Dec 2016 #29

That's confusing. Igel Dec 2016 #30

But the GOP leaders had already decided, in 2009 as we know, to obstruct Obama. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #31

Kagan got appointed in 2010 Txbluedog Dec 2016 #38

Maybe they were like the rest of us paigeatemyshoes Dec 2016 #37

It IS a "lifetime appointment"... BlueProgressive Dec 2016 #39

Well scalia died and that didn't help. Cha Dec 2016 #40