whembly wrote:
From my twittah:

Remember that court case against Gov. Perry?
The Judge throw the case out.

Spoiler:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/white-house-vetting-gop-centrist-gov-brian-sandoval-scotus-n525076

Spoiler:

The White House is considering Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican centrist, as a potential nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, NBC News has confirmed.

Sandoval, a former District Court judge and state attorney general, was the first Latino candidate elected to statewide office in Nevada.

While he is a Republican, Sandoval's record does match President Barack Obama's on many key issues. He has said he supports the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision of last year and backs abortion rights.

However, Sandoval also signed into law last year a measure that exempts school construction projects from having to pay contractors wages considered industry standard in the area. While he hailed the move as a cost cutting measure, labor unions rallied to decry the effort.

The Washington Post first reported that Sandoval is under consideration.

A source close to the process confirmed to NBC News that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid met with Sandoval on Monday and that the White House is considering the Nevada governor for the post.

The White House is considering Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican centrist, as a potential nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, NBC News has confirmed.

Sandoval, a former District Court judge and state attorney general, was the first Latino candidate elected to statewide office in Nevada.

While he is a Republican, Sandoval's record does match President Barack Obama's on many key issues. He has said he supports the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision of last year and backs abortion rights.

Image: Brian Sandoval
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval speaks at a news conference, on Dec. 10, 2015, in Las Vegas. Sandoval announced plans for Faraday Future, a Chinese-backed electric carmaker's $1 billion manufacturing plant to be built in North Las Vegas, Nev. David Becker / AP
However, Sandoval also signed into law last year a measure that exempts school construction projects from having to pay contractors wages considered industry standard in the area. While he hailed the move as a cost cutting measure, labor unions rallied to decry the effort.

Related: President Obama Explains What He Wants in Supreme Court Nominee

The Washington Post first reported that Sandoval is under consideration.

A source close to the process confirmed to NBC News that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid met with Sandoval on Monday and that the White House is considering the Nevada governor for the post.

It's unclear if the formal "vetting" process is underway. However, sources told NBC News that the governor as of right now is not objecting to the process moving forward.

Sandoval has not said he'd definitely accept if offered, but sources suggested he might be willing to hear out the White House if they move in his direction.

The news comes on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's announcement that the Senate would not hold hearings on any nominee in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

The White House is considering Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican centrist, as a potential nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, NBC News has confirmed.

Sandoval, a former District Court judge and state attorney general, was the first Latino candidate elected to statewide office in Nevada.

While he is a Republican, Sandoval's record does match President Barack Obama's on many key issues. He has said he supports the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision of last year and backs abortion rights.

Image: Brian Sandoval
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval speaks at a news conference, on Dec. 10, 2015, in Las Vegas. Sandoval announced plans for Faraday Future, a Chinese-backed electric carmaker's $1 billion manufacturing plant to be built in North Las Vegas, Nev. David Becker / AP
However, Sandoval also signed into law last year a measure that exempts school construction projects from having to pay contractors wages considered industry standard in the area. While he hailed the move as a cost cutting measure, labor unions rallied to decry the effort.

Related: President Obama Explains What He Wants in Supreme Court Nominee

The Washington Post first reported that Sandoval is under consideration.

A source close to the process confirmed to NBC News that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid met with Sandoval on Monday and that the White House is considering the Nevada governor for the post.

Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
Partisan Battle Over Replacing Justice Scalia Is Already in Full Swing 2:14
It's unclear if the formal "vetting" process is underway. However, sources told NBC News that the governor as of right now is not objecting to the process moving forward.

Sandoval has not said he'd definitely accept if offered, but sources suggested he might be willing to hear out the White House if they move in his direction.

The news comes on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's announcement that the Senate would not hold hearings on any nominee in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Related: Mitch McConnell Flatly Rejects Any Obama Pick to Supreme Court

"I can now confidently say the view shared by virtually everyone in my conference is that the nomination should be made by the president who the people elect in the election that is underway right now," McConnell said.

In a post published on the SCOTUSblog website Wednesday, Obama said he is looking for an intellectual, independent thinker with solid credentials.

"First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified," Obama wrote. "He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity. I'm looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions."

During Wednesday's press briefing, White House press secretary Josh Earnest did not confirm the Post account. However, the White House did confirm that the president has spoken with Reid about the court vacancy.

Earlier in the day, President Obama told reporters that he understood the politics surrounding the Supreme Court nomination, but that he has a job to do.

"We are going to go through a process as we have done in past vacancies to find a candidate with impeccable legal credentials," Obama said.

Obama is looking at a Republican?! GASP! What is this world coming to!

 whembly wrote:
Or maybe you can acknowledge that articles like that ThinkProgress is simply Spin, and folks are mad at the GOP for actually doing what Democrats threatened to do.

Joe Biden wrote:Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. Indeed, as I conclude in the same statement critics are pointing to today, urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended. That remains my position today.

 dogma wrote:

 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.

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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or maybe you can acknowledge that articles like that ThinkProgress is simply Spin, and folks are mad at the GOP for actually doing what Democrats threatened to do.

They "spin" it by directly quoting what he said.




And here is what he said on the matter recently:

Joe Biden wrote:Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. Indeed, as I conclude in the same statement critics are pointing to today, urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended. That remains my position today.

I have a feeling that this is yet another thing in a long list of instances where what you believe to true is held in higher regard that what is actually true. Then we'll argue for a couple posts because I'll urge you to take the short excerpt in context and you'll swear that there is no such thing as context and everything has be take at pure face value and then we'll move on.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your answer on whether or not protection of the establishment of religion has been incorporated, because it seems like you think it isn't (it's hard to tell because you used words that aren't English).

 whembly wrote:

I watch that youtube... so, if there's more, throw it up here.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I watch that youtube... so, if there's more, throw it up here.

What "unusual rancor" has followed from either of Obama's SCOTUS appointees? Biden's speech was made in the wake of Clarence Thomas' Anita Hill controversy, to pretend that the circumstances are the same is beyond obtuse.

 d-usa wrote:
Then stop bitching about it 24/7?

China Warns U.S. After Trump Wins Nevada Caucus

Trump has promised to punish Chinese currency manipulation

China warned the United States on Wednesday not to adopt punitive currency policies that could disrupt U.S.-China relations after Donald Trump’s win in the Nevada caucus.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters in Beijing that “we are following with interest the U.S. presidential election.”

Hua was asked about China’s response to a possible Trump presidency and his announced plan to punish China for currency manipulation with a tax on Chinese goods.

“Since it belongs to the domestic affair of the U.S., I am not going to make comments on specific remarks by the relevant candidate,” she said.

“But I want to stress that China and the U.S., as world’s largest developing and developed countries, shoulder major responsibilities in safeguarding world peace, stability and security and driving world development,” the spokeswoman added.

“The sustained, sound and steady growth of China-U.S. relations serves the fundamental and long-term interests of the two countries and benefits the world. We hope and believe that the U.S. government will pursue a positive policy toward China in a responsible manner.”

The comments came as Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister, is holding talks in Washington that include U.S. concerns about a Chinese military buildup on disputed islands in the South China Sea, and cooperation on dealing with North Korea’s nuclear and missile provocations.

Hua said Wang and Secretary of State John Kerry agreed the two sides will enhance cooperation and increase talks and exchanges.

“We stand ready to preserve and advance China-U.S. relations together with the U.S. side,” she said.

Kerry said he spoke to Wang about reducing tensions and finding diplomatic solutions to competing South China Sea claims.

“We want there to be a halt to the expansion and militarization of occupied features,” Kerry said. “Everyone benefits by true demilitarization, non-militarization.”

Kerry also said the United States remains committed to freedom of navigation and overflight, “something which China says it does not stand in the way of; it agrees that there should be peaceful freedom of navigation.”

Reports from Asia say Chinese state-run media have been ordered by the Communist Party to minimize reporting on the U.S. presidential election.

Hong Kong’s Chinese-language news outlet Oriental Daily reported Feb. 5 that the Party’s Propaganda Department, which sets policies for all state-run media, ordered all publications to ban election coverage of U.S. policies toward China and to focus election coverage on negative stories and scandals.

Trump won the Nevada caucus with 45 percent of the vote, increasing his chances of winning the Republican nomination later this year.

Last month, Trump vowed to impose a 45 percent tariff on Chinese good to offset China’s devaluation of the yuan.

“They’re devaluing their currency, and they’re killing our companies,” Trump said. “We are letting them get away with it, and we can’t let them get away with it.”

The Obama administration has adopted conciliatory policies toward China on trade and currency issues.

Trump, on his campaign website, outlined a hardline approach to dealing with China that involves officially declaring China a currency manipulator and negotiating an end to the practice.

Trump also wants to thwart China’s theft of intellectual property and adopt policies aimed at bring jobs back from overseas to the United States.

Bolstering the U.S. military and “deploying it appropriately in the East and South China Seas” are other goals.

“These actions will discourage Chinese adventurism that imperils American interests in Asia and shows our strength as we begin renegotiating our trading relationship with China,” the Trump website states. “A strong military presence will be a clear signal to China and other nations in Asia and around the world that America is back in the global leadership business.”

 d-usa wrote:
Then stop bitching about it 24/7?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
TL;DR- it's entirely the Democrat's fault and the Republicans are blameless.



Glad we got that cleared up.

 whembly wrote:
“Biden Rules”

Judge rules Clinton staff can be questioned about emails

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that top Hillary Clinton staff should be questioned under oath about her use of a private email — another potential setback to the Democratic frontrunner's effort to leave the email controversy behind.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan granted a motion for discovery filed by Judicial Watch, which sued the State Department for Clinton-related documents and is now arguing there is “reasonable suspicion” that Clinton or State staff tried to thwart the Freedom of Information Act. That law requires all work emails to be archived in a government systems for public view.

Discovery in FOIA cases is relatively rare and presents political risk for Clinton: While the group has not yet called for Clinton to answer question personally, it said it may in the future as part of discovery. The process will likely entail attorneys asking questions of her top staff via deposition or written Q&A about why Clinton used a private email server in the first place and how they eventually determined what was an “official” record to be preserved.

The Clinton blasted the ruling as a political stunt from the right.

“This is one of several lawsuits filed by the same right-wing group, which will stop at nothing in pursuing the Clintons, just as they have done since the 1990s,” said Nick Merrill, Clinton campaign spokesman.

“The ruling a major victory in terms of moving forward to finding out the full truth about the Clinton email system,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a phone interview. “Our goal is to make sure in the end that all the records that should have been looked at, should have been reviewed, are disclosed to the public as the law requires.”

The process will take months, at the least, meaning the case could easily extend all the way through Election Day and give Republicans new ammunition to use on the trail.

The ruling comes as the FBI is working alongside State and intelligence community inspectors general to investigate whether laws governing the use of classified information were ever broken or if the server posed a security threat. More than 1,600 documents that passed through Clinton’s server have since been classified by State — and a number of them reached the “top secret” level.

Courts have required the State Department to ask the FBI for copies of any additional emails they discovered on the Clinton account to double-check that all official documents were turned over. Conservative groups and lawmakers have suggested that some records that would have been embarrassing to Clinton were intentionally left out, though Clinton’s campaign has said they were over inclusive in deciding what was work-related.

The Judicial Watch lawsuit originally focused on documents surrounding the dual job status of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Abedin worked for the Clinton Foundation and an outside consulting firm with Clinton ties called Teneo, while still advising Clinton at State — an arrangement that was approved by the department. Congressional Republicans believe those jobs may have equated to a conflict of interest. Abedin’s lawyers have said they did not.

Since news of Clinton’s use of a private email sever broke, however, the lawsuit has increasingly focused on how Clinton and State went about deciding what were public records.

Fitton said the judge mentioned in the hearing he is considering subpoenaing Clinton for all of her emails, not just the ones her staff and lawyer deemed official.
“He said he didn’t know how he could not conclude that there was a ‘reasonable suspicion,’” that aides tiptoed around FOIA, pointing to not only the State IG report but also emails suggesting top State staff knew of the personal email set up.

The ruling comes just hours after a 10 a.m. hearing on the matter in Washington. Judicial Watch lawyers argued that there was “reasonable suspicion” that Clinton and her staff intentionally tried to undermine record-keeping rules. They held up as proof a State inspector general report published in January that blasted the department for inaccurate and incomplete responses to FOIA requests on Clinton email accounts.

So far, the group has not sought to depose Clinton, but says it may still do so.

“Mrs. Clinton’s testimony might not be needed, but eventually it might be,” Fitton said. “To be clear, we’re not asking for Mrs. Clinton [to answer questions now], but it might be required eventually.”

For now the group is expected to propose questioning her top staffers about why she used a homebrew email server as well as the process they used to determine which of her more than 60,000 emails were work related or personal. Clinton’s camp has not gone into detail about that process, but after turning over half of those documents, they deleted the rest.

Fitton said Judicial Watch has until March 15 to propose a discovery plan, including who they want to interview and how. The judge in the hearing specified that the ruling should be “narrowly tailored.” The government will then be able to respond and push back, and ultimately the judge is expected to rule by April 15 on what “discovery” might entail, Fitton said.

The group has previously expressed interest in questioning via deposition or written questions: Clinton’s former State chief of staff Cheryl Mills, Abedin, her current lawyer David Kendall, her top IT staffer Bryan Pagliano and Undersecretary for Management Pat Kennedy.

 whembly wrote:

Unusal rancor?

 whembly wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, civility in politics is fething gone. Just accept it's a bare knuckle bloodsport, and alway has been.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Unusal rancor?

What do any of the links you just posted have to do with granting hearings to an Obama SCOTUS appointee?

 whembly wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, civility in politics is fething gone. Just accept it's a bare knuckle bloodsport, and alway has been.

That's nonsensical. You cannot simultaneously argue that Democrats have recently engaged in "unusual rancor", causing civility to disappear, and that politics is a "bare knuckle bloodsport, and always has been." Either politics has always been a "bare knuckle bloodsport" that never featured civility, or it hasn't been.

 d-usa wrote:
There is a solution to the cycle: you simply stop the cycle.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
There is a solution to the cycle: you simply stop the cycle.

Sure. I feel it starts with the President.

Not going to be easy for any President to do that...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
There is a solution to the cycle: you simply stop the cycle.

Sure. I feel it starts with the President.

Not going to be easy for any President to do that...

OK then, what should Obama do in this instance?

 Ouze wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Who was the other face on that Cruz poster in the gif that Ouze posted?

Kevin from the US version of The Office.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
There is a solution to the cycle: you simply stop the cycle.

Sure. I feel it starts with the President.

Not going to be easy for any President to do that...

OK then, what should Obama do in this instance?

For the Supreme Court nomination?

He's not going to find a Scalia replacement, as he's truly one of a kind.

But, if he finds an established Textualist (note, I didn't say a Conservative), then he should nominate him and kindly ask the Senate to reconsider.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
There is a solution to the cycle: you simply stop the cycle.

Sure. I feel it starts with the President.

Not going to be easy for any President to do that...

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
There is a solution to the cycle: you simply stop the cycle.

Sure. I feel it starts with the President.

Not going to be easy for any President to do that...

Except we both know that isn't really true, at least as long as the President is still elected from one of the two political parties. At the end of the day, it's the parties that are at odds with each other. The President is simply the most high profile member of the party they're from.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Why should it be upon him to nominate a textualist? Why can't he nominate someone who he wants and is qualified (as he is required to do) and why can't the senate offer advice and consent (as they are required to do)? It isn't incumbent upon the president to nominate someone that the senate wants or that upholds the current status of the court's balance. If republicans wanted to be able to have the nominations they would like, they should have beaten Obama in the general election.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Why should it be upon him to nominate a textualist? Why can't he nominate someone who he wants and is qualified (as he is required to do) and why can't the senate offer advice and consent (as they are required to do)? It isn't incumbent upon the president to nominate someone that the senate wants or that upholds the current status of the court's balance. If republicans wanted to be able to have the nominations they would like, they should have beaten Obama in the general election.

Well, because clearly that's how it was written in the constitution

We could also run with, because that's what whembly thinks should happen? (and apparently a number of other people not completely in touch with reality)

 whembly wrote:

How would you "break" this cycle?

Telling one side or the other to "grow up" isn't going to cut it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How would you "break" this cycle?

Telling one side or the other to "grow up" isn't going to cut it.

Personally, I'd have to violate one particular part of the 1st Amendment: I'd shut down ALL 24 hour, cable news networks, at least temporarily. Come to think of it, I'd also pass a law that says there can be no advertising during local news (a subject brought up in a monologue during the Newsroom)... advertising money in the news means that the media can and will tailor the news to what makes them money (ie, a friend of mine who once worked in media tells me a story of when he was just starting out. At the local station he started at, it was near an auto manufacturer, the station was going to run a story against that auto manufacturer, they got wind and tell the station, "if you run that story, we'll pull all of our ads from your time slot")

Once you cut out the media hype/vitriol, you take out one of the key elements, IMO, that drives the partisan BS in congress.