Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (974401)	10/22/2016 12:32:02 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 1572073

What would be interesting is if Clinton wins in a landslide and the Dems take back the Senate. In that case it could be the Dems possibly trying to block hearings on Garland. And the Republicans trying to push the guy through because he's the most moderate nominee they could hope for. THAT would interesting AND historic.....

To: bentway who wrote (974401)	10/23/2016 1:47:02 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572073

I think that's been the plan from the outset. I do not believe Obama would be willing to withdraw him, so it only makes sense for the Republicans to move forward with him if she is declared the winner and particularly, if she gets the Senate. Maybe the Rs keep the Senate and can just withhold any confirmations until Clinton is out of office. Four years running a few short would be better than allowing her to appoint nutjobs.

To: bentway who wrote (974401)	10/23/2016 2:05:49 PM
From: zax	1 Recommendation Recommended By loantech Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572073

Obama should withdraw the nomination. The Republicans solidly stated they wanted to let the "American voters - the next president - determine whom the next supreme court nominee should be". Nominating in the lame duck session would establish that McConnell was bald-face lying to the American public. There needs to be real consequences for the GOP's precedent setting dereliction of constitutional duty. I believe that consequence should be a young, progressive supreme court nominee in place of Garland.