Will Garland get a Hearing and Vote?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There probably wont be a GOP Senate, if Clinton wins because there are 5 blue state freshmen GOPers. If they were not freshmen, Toomey, Portman & Johnson, more likely to survive. Senate Class II Dems had the same problrm in 2014.

[°Leprechaun]

Why on earth would the Senate give a hearing to Judy Garland?

Why not? They're living in fantasy land.

[Penelope]

They'll confirm him after they lose in November.

[Badger]

No and no.

[Ogre Mage]

It's not out of the question he might get a hearing but he will never be confirmed.  I think Garland is basically being asked to take one for the team.

[SillyAmerican]

Unfortunately, not before November, if at all. 

I have a proposal.  How about we just forget about governing?  Let's just campaign.  We'll hold a two-year election cycle, sort of like a national game.  Someone will win, and then we'll start the cycle again.  In the meantime, the courts, legislature and executive can be dissolved.  No harm will come from this proposal at all...no one will notice the difference.

Yeah. I don't understand why Republicans are opening themselves up to the obstructionist charge. Take the next 100 days to consider the nomination, then confirm or deny. The idea that nothing can get done because it's an election year is dumb.

Of course, the stupidity is not limited to those in the GOP:

"The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever, until after the political campaign season is over."

Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

One idea I have seen floated by some Republicans is to hold hearings but no vote until the lame duck session after the election. That way if Hillary wins, they can confirm him before she can put someone more liberal and younger on, and if the GOP nominee wins, they can reject him. 

Not sure Hillary or Obama would agree to go along with this. I assume if Hillary wins she might be able to convince Obama to withdraw the nomination, especially if the Dems win the Senate.

Just what we need: a more politicized process. The gamesmanship just gets more and more intricate. Doesn't the Constitution say that the President nominates, and the Senate confirms or rejects? How about we try doing that for a change?

[Slander and/or Libel]

One idea I have seen floated by some Republicans is to hold hearings but no vote until the lame duck session after the election. That way if Hillary wins, they can confirm him before she can put someone more liberal and younger on, and if the GOP nominee wins, they can reject him. 

Not sure Hillary or Obama would agree to go along with this. I assume if Hillary wins she might be able to convince Obama to withdraw the nomination, especially if the Dems win the Senate.

This undercuts their rationale entirely. They've been saying "Let the people decide," meaning let the next president decide. It's a stupid, made-up rationale, but that's what they've settled on. If they then say, "Oh, the next president isn't someone we like, let's not let the people decide anymore," which is exactly what this lame duck plan is, then they've given up the game entirely.

[RightBehind]

David Vitter says no Obama nominee should get a hearing.

That's rich, David. You lost the governorship to a Democrat in an overwhelmingly red state. Find a pair of diapers you like to put on and go take a seat.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

David Vitter says no Obama nominee should get a hearing.

That's rich, David. You lost the governorship to a Democrat in an overwhelmingly red state. Find a pair of diapers you like to put on and go take a seat.

Vitter is retiring, he has no reason to pretend to be moderate.

[DINGO Joe]

I doubt Garland gets a hearing because he'd look and sound reasonable, and the Rs wouldn't.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I still think they should just West Wing it, convince Ginsburg to retire, and let each side pick 1 replacement.

[ag]

Yes. In late November.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Don't worry, guys. President Trump will know how to fill the void left by Antonin Scalia:

[Sir Mohamed]

No, the GOP will continue top obstruct. The only way out of this, is vote them out. All the time.

[PeteB]

I voted yes/yes. Irrespective of what I think of President Obama, I do not buy the McConell arguments and think that Garland should get a hearing. If the Senate wants to vote him down that is their prerogative. However they should consider this carefully..they may not get a Garland next time!

[Virginiá]

Of course, the stupidity is not limited to those in the GOP:

"The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever, until after the political campaign season is over."

Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

Yes, so many politicians have said stupid things like this. The thing is, usually they are just talking. It's one thing to say stupid/unfair things like that, but another to do it.

Here we have a case of the majority party actually doing it instead of just rambling on about it.