McConnell said he saw no reason why someone couldn't be seated for the next court term as long as they weren't "controversial."

Given recent history, I take that to mean the GOP won't resist as long as they are ultra conservative and nominated from a list provided to the President by the GOP!

McConnell said he saw no reason why someone couldn't be seated for the next court term as long as they weren't "controversial."

---------------------------------------------

The way the GOP works these days, St. Peter would be deemed "controversial" if nominated by President Obama.

Haha. Ok McConnell, would you consider the progressive version of Alito or Roberts "controversial?" Of course you would. In fact, your side will find ANYONE Obama wants controversial, except some middle of the right road lackey. Never going to happen. We will get our progressive. Elections have consequences.

I'm sure the GOP will end up using their typical mindless obstructionism (filibuster, anyone?) to punish Obama for having the gall to not name a far right extremist to the court...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Anyone who doesn't expect that this nomination will be held up and contested by the Grand Obstructionist Party is delusional.  They would object to our Lord God as a Supreme Judge if nominated by Obama.

For all of the pre-emptive Democrat bloggers-do any of you remember Robert Bork?  He was vilified because of his ideals, despite his obvious credentials.  Now look at David Souter-when President Bush, (41) nominated him, the Democrats stood on their heads trying to find something on him to block his appointment; one going so far as to call him a 'stealth candidate'.  Turned out he truly was; certainly Bush had no idea he was such a liberal.

Rth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer, on the other hand, sailed through Reublican congresses.  Oh, there was plenty of judicial record to show that they were both extremely liberal; however, they were qualified, and therefore confirmed.

Note that none of their family members were subjected to such taunting and name-calling that they were forced to leave the hearing room in tears.

Try not to be ignorant of the facts when you blog.  the truth is out there, if you care to become acquainted with it.

Oh, and Mo, (from another post)-I got my facts about Obama's 'law career' from a Washington Post article.  This was a puff piece on Obama which ran in August of last year.  All you have to do is read it critically-these facts are in there, albeit cloaked in glowing language.  Only the Washington Post could somehow phrase someone's failure to attain tenure as if it were an admirable accomplishment-providing,m of course, that that person was a Democrat.

By the way, accusing someone who disagrees with you of racism demeans YOU, not me.  You might want to be aware of that.

No joe, no bo.  You are so full of it.  Obama was offered on numerus occasions to become tenured.  He wasn't interested, as his teaching gig was only a part-time gig.  He had bigger ambitions in  mind, in case you haven't noticed.  Much to the detriment of the GOP.

no jo, no bo (no brain) - you smugly comment often on this site that others shouldn't be ignorant, yet you need to do more research into SCOTUS nominations (and please, your current republican party is nothing like what it once was, not to mention Bush 41 had no idea of Souter's liberal leanings) - ideals indeed do play a large roll & merely having "credentials" doesn't quite do it - bork denied the constitution guarantees privacy & that is a huge deal - it's the main reason he was blocked, so please let's not pretend that the new party of NO will not be looking for any reason at all to try to block whoever Obama nominates - of course they won't succeed

No doubt the republicans will make noise but I'm not sure they'll fight too hard on this nominee because it won't change the direction of the Court.  Then again, they seem pretty locked in the negative.  Still wondering why republicans constantly chatter about "activist" judges when it is a democratic nominee but not when it's one of their own; activists can be far right or far left.

The "Gross Odd People" (GOP) are going to put up a tough poltical fight over this issue as well. The "Insane McCain Clan" is waiting like vultures in the US Senate, and ready to distract us from the issues. Then they will proceed to tear this President apart politically, and try to make themselves look the wiser. Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! The GOP has got to go!!

If someone doesnt have a pulse, McConnell feels they arent controversial. He is by far, the weakest, most inept fecal material to ever sit as a senate leader. What's wrong with Kentucky...McConnell and Bunning; two idiots.

Controversial is probably anyone who is not a right wing nut in McConnell's view.

"Controversial is probably anyone who is not a right wing nut in McConnell's view."

eagle1776

eagle:  Thanks for clearing that up. I was under the misconception that he was quoting Democrats from prior to the Alito and Roberts confirmations.

The gNOp hasn't agreed or even tried to work with Obama and any of the Dems on anything since the election, why would they try to work out something on the Supreme Court justice?

We all know that Obama is not going to nominate a radical, anti-abortion (these people are not about life!) right-winger.  And if all the Republicans don't fight against a more liberal (possibly pro-choice justice), how will they ever keep Rush and all the far right conservatives happy?

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):