Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a matter for constitutional lawyers.

However, even if it is legal under the constitution, just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Do the protections of the US Constitution even apply to non citizens that arent even in country?

 whembly wrote:
I've been reading 538 a bit and playing with their primary voting tools...

It really does seem to me that Trump is going to win the GOP nomination.

Sweet Jesus... just go ahead and accept that Clinton will be the next President.

Here's why...

It's essentially a 3-man race now between Trump/Cruz/Rubio.

Trump is really kicking arse in the polls hovering around the 30's (that's now has meaning) and that Cruz/Rubio are consistently stuck in the 20's.

I've argued that it is *Rubio* who'll have a better chance in taking on Clinton because he really contrast really well against her. However, even he is losing steam....

The only way for Rubio to win, is if Cruz either gives up for the good of the party to rally the anti-Trump, or that he spectacularly crashes. None of these really has a chance.

So, at this point, my only hope is that Trump/Cruz/Rubio stays in until the Convention with no-one recieving the necessary votes to be the nominee in the 1st round. Thus, a broker'ed convention begins where the GOP powers-to-be get to pick. I can't see them taking Trump as the top of the ticket (and he'll likely won't accept a VP slot)... then it would be down to Cruz vs Rubio.

If they pick Rubio... we'd have a "close game".

If they pick Cruz, I feel that the Clinton Machine™ can take him on...

Trump is the wild card. I mean seriously... if a non-Trump-politician said the things he has said in the last 6 months, they'd never be on anyone's ballot in the first place.

My head hurts...

 whembly wrote:

You're talking about 'incorporation doctrine'?

If so, that innit it.

 Easy E wrote:
...and get Cruz to drop and put his delegates to Rubio

 jasper76 wrote:
Anyone watching the town hall tonight?

 jasper76 wrote:
Yep. Trump's looking inevitable. So is Clinton. I doubt Trump can beat the Clinton machine, especially if Bernie ends up hopping on, but we'll see. I though Jeb! would win the primary, so what do I know?

Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee

Spoiler:

Washington (CNN)In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks.

The historic move outraged Democrats and injected Supreme Court politics into the center of an already tense battle for the White House.

"I don't know how many times we need to keep saying this: The Judiciary Committee has unanimously recommended to me that there be no hearing. I've said repeatedly and I'm now confident that my conference agrees that this decision ought to be made by the next president, whoever is elected," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday.

He then added he would not likely meet with any nominee, a custom that high court nominees typically do before hearings. "I don't know the purpose of such a visit I would not be inclined to take it myself."

The decision to not hold hearings is a historic move from the Senate, which has regularly held confirmation hearings for nominees since hearings became routine practice in 1955, the Senate historian's office said Tuesday.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn said he also would not meet with a nominee.

"I don't see the point in going through the motions, if we know what the outcome is going to be. I don't see the point in going through the motions and creating a misleading impression."

Cornyn, a Texas Republican, told reporters at an afternoon press conference that the Republicans on the Judiciary committee submitted a letter to the Republican leaders unanimously opposing any hearing for a nominee to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said that's the "consensus" view among Republicans on the committee and Cornyn said the same.

Republicans weigh denying Supreme Court nominee a hearing

"We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame-duck president," Cornyn said Tuesday as he left a meeting of top Republicans discussing how to handle the White House's promised nominee.

Graham told CNN separately he would not even meet with any nominee, should he or she make courtesy calls on the Hill. As did Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican.

But Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, said he would meet with any nominee who came knocking. "I wouldn't have a problem with that. The President's going to do his job and I'll do mine."

A Fox News poll released earlier this month found that registered voters want Obama and Senate leaders to "take action to fill the vacancy now" by a margin of 62% to 34%. A Pew Research Center poll released Monday found a majority of Americans (56%) say the Senate should hold hearings and vote on Obama's choice to fill the vacancy, with 38% saying they should not hold hearings until the next president takes office.

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court.

"Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," McConnell said. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it."

Democrats outraged

The announcement prompted sharp criticism from Democrats, who contended that the GOP-led Senate was failing to do its job and would be risking its tenuous hold on the majority in the fall elections.

Obama jabbed at Senate Republicans, tweeting Tuesday evening for Americans to tell the majority party in the Senate to "#DoYourJob."

"Refusing to even consider the President's Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented," he tweeted.


Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said McConnell was taking his marching orders from Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, who had called on the Senate to delay consideration of any nominee.

"That's exactly what the Republican leader is doing: Delay, delay, delay," Reid said. He angrily added that "333 days isn't enough to do the work that we do ordinarily do in 67 days."

But Democrats are uncertain over whether to bottle-up the Senate in retaliation for the GOP's hardball move.

Sen. Chris [see forum posting rules], a Delaware Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Democrats should not hold up important measures like spending bills in retaliation.

"It is my hope that we will not simply escalate" the fight, [see forum posting rules] said. "It is my hope that the Republican majority will heed the advice of Sen. Kirk of Illinois and back down from an absolutist obstructionist position and allow a hearing to proceed. There is a variety of steps the Senate minority, the Democratic minority could take. I really would hope we could avoid it."

But other Democrats declined to rule out blocking legislation if Republicans block a nominee. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, said that there "will be a major battle" if Republicans block the nomination but he "won't predict now what form that will take."

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Democrats don't want to make the same mistake Republicans did by laying their cards on the table too soon.

"At the moment, we don't even have a proposed nominee, so I don't want to get ahead of my skis," Whitehouse said. "I think the Republicans have made a mistake saying they want to oppose a nominee before they even know who the nominee is. I think for us to say what we're going to do before we're at the point of decision would not be sensible."

Biden comments in spotlight

Earlier in the day, Vice President Joe Biden took center stage as Senate Republican leaders grew increasingly confident they can unite their party behind a hard-ball strategy to block any consideration of an Obama nominee.

Republicans are seizing on old Democratic talking points -- focused namely on Biden -- to make their case against confirmation proceedings.

The latest revelation: A June 1992 interview Biden gave to The Washington Post, arguing against confirmation hearings of a prospective nominee by President George H.W. Bush to the nation's highest court.

"If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the President not name someone, not send a name up," Biden, then the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, told the newspaper, noting how close it was to the November elections.

"If (Bush) did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee," Biden had said.

The comments from the nearly 24-year-old interview came after Republicans seized on a clip Monday of Biden making similar comments on the Senate floor. In response, Biden pushed back and said the GOP was taking his comments out of context.

"In the same statement critics are pointing to today, I urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the court functions as the Founding Fathers intended," Biden said in a Monday statement. "That remains my position today."

Nevertheless, the comments gave new ammunition to the hardening GOP lines against anyone the President sends to Capitol Hill.


Republicans are worried that giving the new nominee an opportunity to present his or her case before a national audience will only give the White House momentum in confirming a nominee to replace Scalia, tipping the balance of the court. But it could present bad optics, especially if the nominee is viewed as highly qualified and Republicans refuse to meet with him or her.

Some vulnerable Republicans were prepared to side with their party's leadership as well, a heartening development for the Senate GOP.

"I think we should not confirm someone this year, I think we should let the people weigh in," said Sen. Rob Portman, a vulnerable Republican up for reelection from the battleground state of Ohio. "The credibility of the court will be enhanced by that, too."

GOP senator backs Supreme Court hearings

But at the same time, two moderate Republicans -- Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Susan Collins of Maine -- support holding hearings, giving Democrats confidence divisions are bound to grow in the GOP ranks once a nominee is proposed.

"We should take this process one step at a time as we always do under the regular order," Collins told CNN. "I would expect that there would be a hearing on a nominee when it's sent to us for our consideration ... The hearing would help me make a better decision."

 Easy E wrote:
You know if any other candidate had steamrolled the primaries the way Trump has would be considered the nominee by the media. Why aren't they anointing him yet?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
You know if any other candidate had steamrolled the primaries the way Trump has would be considered the nominee by the media. Why aren't they anointing him yet?

Because they don't want him to be the candidate.

 Easy E wrote:
You know if any other candidate had steamrolled the primaries the way Trump has would be considered the nominee by the media. Why aren't they anointing him yet?

 d-usa wrote:
Oh, I agree. I don't see why the state is in charge of administering, and paying for, private intraparty elections.

Oklahoma gives parties the options of making their primaries public, and surprisingly enough the Democratic Party actually opened up their primary to Independents this year. My personal preference has been: Give parties a choice. If both parties close their primaries, bill them for the cost of administering the election. Parties who open their primaries to everyone don't get a bill.

 Easy E wrote:
You know if any other candidate had steamrolled the primaries the way Trump has would be considered the nominee by the media. Why aren't they anointing him yet?

 Easy E wrote:

However, I think the R's will do some horse trading of their own and get Cruz to drop and put his delegates to Rubio and therefore beat barely Trump in the Convention.

 dogma wrote:
That's not really how it works in the GOP. If you want to push pledged delegates, who essentially become Democrat-style superdelegates after a candidate they are pledged to support drops out of the race, you need to influence them directly. As one can imagine this gets very pricey, and leads to lots of easy attacks during the General.

 jasper76 wrote:
I do believe Sanders is one of dem dirty atheists. Cuomo asked if he believed in a higher power and to describe his spirituality, and there was plenty of do unto others, but no higher power.

 Ouze wrote:
Uh, if you guys haven't seen this, you need to.

(I can't embed gifv)

 Ouze wrote:
Kinda surprised on one posted this yet. You're slipping, Dakka.

Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee

Spoiler:

Washington (CNN)In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks.

The historic move outraged Democrats and injected Supreme Court politics into the center of an already tense battle for the White House.

"I don't know how many times we need to keep saying this: The Judiciary Committee has unanimously recommended to me that there be no hearing. I've said repeatedly and I'm now confident that my conference agrees that this decision ought to be made by the next president, whoever is elected," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday.

He then added he would not likely meet with any nominee, a custom that high court nominees typically do before hearings. "I don't know the purpose of such a visit I would not be inclined to take it myself."

The decision to not hold hearings is a historic move from the Senate, which has regularly held confirmation hearings for nominees since hearings became routine practice in 1955, the Senate historian's office said Tuesday.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn said he also would not meet with a nominee.

"I don't see the point in going through the motions, if we know what the outcome is going to be. I don't see the point in going through the motions and creating a misleading impression."

Cornyn, a Texas Republican, told reporters at an afternoon press conference that the Republicans on the Judiciary committee submitted a letter to the Republican leaders unanimously opposing any hearing for a nominee to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said that's the "consensus" view among Republicans on the committee and Cornyn said the same.

Republicans weigh denying Supreme Court nominee a hearing

"We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame-duck president," Cornyn said Tuesday as he left a meeting of top Republicans discussing how to handle the White House's promised nominee.

Graham told CNN separately he would not even meet with any nominee, should he or she make courtesy calls on the Hill. As did Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican.

But Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, said he would meet with any nominee who came knocking. "I wouldn't have a problem with that. The President's going to do his job and I'll do mine."

A Fox News poll released earlier this month found that registered voters want Obama and Senate leaders to "take action to fill the vacancy now" by a margin of 62% to 34%. A Pew Research Center poll released Monday found a majority of Americans (56%) say the Senate should hold hearings and vote on Obama's choice to fill the vacancy, with 38% saying they should not hold hearings until the next president takes office.

In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court.

"Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," McConnell said. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it."

Democrats outraged

The announcement prompted sharp criticism from Democrats, who contended that the GOP-led Senate was failing to do its job and would be risking its tenuous hold on the majority in the fall elections.

Obama jabbed at Senate Republicans, tweeting Tuesday evening for Americans to tell the majority party in the Senate to "#DoYourJob."

"Refusing to even consider the President's Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented," he tweeted.


Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said McConnell was taking his marching orders from Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, who had called on the Senate to delay consideration of any nominee.

"That's exactly what the Republican leader is doing: Delay, delay, delay," Reid said. He angrily added that "333 days isn't enough to do the work that we do ordinarily do in 67 days."

But Democrats are uncertain over whether to bottle-up the Senate in retaliation for the GOP's hardball move.

Sen. Chris [see forum posting rules], a Delaware Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Democrats should not hold up important measures like spending bills in retaliation.

"It is my hope that we will not simply escalate" the fight, [see forum posting rules] said. "It is my hope that the Republican majority will heed the advice of Sen. Kirk of Illinois and back down from an absolutist obstructionist position and allow a hearing to proceed. There is a variety of steps the Senate minority, the Democratic minority could take. I really would hope we could avoid it."

But other Democrats declined to rule out blocking legislation if Republicans block a nominee. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, said that there "will be a major battle" if Republicans block the nomination but he "won't predict now what form that will take."

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Democrats don't want to make the same mistake Republicans did by laying their cards on the table too soon.

"At the moment, we don't even have a proposed nominee, so I don't want to get ahead of my skis," Whitehouse said. "I think the Republicans have made a mistake saying they want to oppose a nominee before they even know who the nominee is. I think for us to say what we're going to do before we're at the point of decision would not be sensible."

Biden comments in spotlight

Earlier in the day, Vice President Joe Biden took center stage as Senate Republican leaders grew increasingly confident they can unite their party behind a hard-ball strategy to block any consideration of an Obama nominee.

Republicans are seizing on old Democratic talking points -- focused namely on Biden -- to make their case against confirmation proceedings.

The latest revelation: A June 1992 interview Biden gave to The Washington Post, arguing against confirmation hearings of a prospective nominee by President George H.W. Bush to the nation's highest court.

"If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the President not name someone, not send a name up," Biden, then the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, told the newspaper, noting how close it was to the November elections.

"If (Bush) did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee," Biden had said.

The comments from the nearly 24-year-old interview came after Republicans seized on a clip Monday of Biden making similar comments on the Senate floor. In response, Biden pushed back and said the GOP was taking his comments out of context.

"In the same statement critics are pointing to today, I urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the court functions as the Founding Fathers intended," Biden said in a Monday statement. "That remains my position today."

Nevertheless, the comments gave new ammunition to the hardening GOP lines against anyone the President sends to Capitol Hill.


Republicans are worried that giving the new nominee an opportunity to present his or her case before a national audience will only give the White House momentum in confirming a nominee to replace Scalia, tipping the balance of the court. But it could present bad optics, especially if the nominee is viewed as highly qualified and Republicans refuse to meet with him or her.

Some vulnerable Republicans were prepared to side with their party's leadership as well, a heartening development for the Senate GOP.

"I think we should not confirm someone this year, I think we should let the people weigh in," said Sen. Rob Portman, a vulnerable Republican up for reelection from the battleground state of Ohio. "The credibility of the court will be enhanced by that, too."

GOP senator backs Supreme Court hearings

But at the same time, two moderate Republicans -- Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Susan Collins of Maine -- support holding hearings, giving Democrats confidence divisions are bound to grow in the GOP ranks once a nominee is proposed.

"We should take this process one step at a time as we always do under the regular order," Collins told CNN. "I would expect that there would be a hearing on a nominee when it's sent to us for our consideration ... The hearing would help me make a better decision."

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Do you guy's think Kasich has a chance at all? For someone who was basically unknown at the start he's done rather well, and he's probably the most electable out of the bunch, IMO.