Why Obama Wants This Court Fight

[Judi Lynn]

February 25, 2016
Why Obama Wants This Court Fight

by Eoin Higgins

It’s pretty obvious that President Barack Obama is welcoming the opportunity to have one last knock down, drag out showdown with Senate Republicans.

Obama’s decision to forego attending the funeral of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a good indicator that the president is ready to rumble. Yes, Obama paid his respects to Scalia on Friday, February 19, but by skipping the funeral, he trolled the hell out of the Senate’s Republican Majority.

No Obama at the funeral of the man who implied the Bell Curve theory should be applied to college admissions sends a message.

He wants this fight.

And that’s good! That’s really good. Because Senate Republicans have given him absolutely no reason to play nice with them nor observe the asinine gentility that obfuscates the partisan rancor of that institution.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/25/why-obama-wants-this-court-fight/

[Bluzmann57]

1. President Obama loves the USA

And since he does, he doesn't give two shits about the repukes who have done nothing but stand in his way all these years. One would think that the repukes would just give up since he's beaten them nearly every time.

[randys1]

2. 7 years of unprecedented bending over backwards to play nice with the pricks; time

to play ball, finally.

[tularetom]

3. Can somebody explain to me how floating the name of Brian Sandoval signals his readiness to fight?

I understand Sandoval has remove his name from consideration but suppose he had responded affirmatively and McChinless would have scheduled hearings immediately. We'd have had Justice Sandoval and the president would just look desperate for making such a terrible nomination.

[DonCoquixote]

4. because

The senate has said "now way no how" especially ted Cruz. The fact they would not even accept a GOP Governor will make them look even more like fools, because they cannot claim to be doing anythign other than throwing a temper tantrum.

[Nitram]

8. Floating Sandoval's name was a ploy to expose the fact that Republicans won't even vote for...

...a Republican nominee.

[tularetom]

10. Well I know that's the conventional wisdom but IMO it just makes the president seem desperate

And whatever effect it might have had went down the crapper when Sandoval immediately refused to become a pawn in the battle between the president and the senate.

We'll have to see who he actually nominates before we can say he wants a fight over this.

[Nitram]

12. The fact that Sandoval backed out confirmed the value of the exercise.

Couldn't have had a better result.

[tularetom]

14. A better result?

Nothing happened. The president still looks overly eager to compromise, the senate republicans still look like obstructionists and not a damn thing has changed.

Nothing was accomplished. You can talk all you want about umpteen dimensional chess, but the public isn't buying it. He will eventually have to nominate somebody. Do you trust him to nominate anybody further left than some bland centrist? We'll see.

[Nitram]

16. Intersting. The president doesn't look eager to compromise to me.

He made no statement about Sandoval that I'm aware of. His staff sent up a trial balloon. The president doesn't look like anything relative to this little exercise in politics. Its a messy game. I suspect Bernie supporters really don't get that at all. You guys seem to see the world in stark black and white, good vs evil, and you want instant gratification, fast results. If Bernie wins the election it will be interesting to see how quickly you all turn on him when you find out how difficult it is and how long it takes to bring about substantive change. Patience is the name of the game. We've been waiting a long time for the improvements we got with Obamacare, and we are willing to make sure change keeps going in that direction. We'll get single-payer, but it won't be in 8 years.

[tularetom]

17. Knock off that "you Bernie people" crap

Why are you changing the subject? This was a discussion about the presidents feeble little attempt to make the republicans look obstructionist. It had nothing to do with how "us guys" see the world, or whether "we" want "instant gratification" or any other silly little generalization you want to make.

You don't know me from fucking Adam. You have no clue what motivates me or what I expect out of Senator Sanders or anybody else. What I can tell you is that I have probably been around a lot longer than you and my expectations of any politician are a lot lower than they used to be. I had fairly high expectations of Obama and he's been overall a disappointment.

Either you're happy with the status quo or you aren't. If you think things are moving in the right direction it appears that you have an option. But I have to tell you, you are definitely in the minority in this country. And that is not a generalization.

[Nitram]

18. Tularetom, you're flying the Bernie logo and expressing the boilerplate Bernie supporter...

...point of view. YOU are discussing what YOU think is the president's "feeble attempt" yada yada. It has everything to do with how you guys see the world.YOU have been the one with the silly generalizations that I hear from EVERY Bernie supporter. It's like reading cookie cutter posts on every topic. I'm expressing a different point of view, so I can understand your confusion. I haven't changed the subject, I'm trying to point out where and why I think you have misjudged the situation.

As for you being around a lot longer than me, yada yada, there you go making assumptions for which there is no basis in any reality. I'm 64, how old are you my grouchy friend?

I find the status quo greatly improved since Obama took office, and I expect things to improve at a steady rate as long as we can get another Democrat into office and appoint some Supreme Court Justices.

[tularetom]

19. I was born before WWII

And raised by my grandparents until my parents came home from the Pacific where they were both serving.

And congratulations on being 64 by the way. You'll get away from Obamacare before it goes down the crapper. It was a big fat gift to the insurance industry, it has no effective cost controls, and when the subsidies run out, people will just pay the penalties instead of buying coverage.

I'm not confused and I'm not the one blindly following anybody here. I'm skeptical that anybody can straighten out this mess that thirty years of Reagan, Bush and Clinton have created. Obama tried but largely has failed. Hillary Clinton would be a disaster, Trump maybe worse. I don't know that Sanders can clean up the pile of crap that its become, but he seems to me like the only one who's willing to try.

[Nitram]

20. Well I was born before WWI and I introduced my grandparents to each other before they got married.

Just kidding. You reminded me a little of the Monty Python Four Yorkshiremen skit.

[tularetom]

21. LOL, I had forgotten that one

I still think you're full of baloney about the presidents court strategy, but that was funny.

[Nitram]

22. Likewise, I'm sure.

[longship]

5. And Al Franken has his back.

Here is what a US Senator acts like:

Love ya, Al!

[rhett o rick]

6. He doesn't have a very good track record taking on the Republicons. nm

[Nitram]

9. Who? Obama?

He has come out ahead in most fights. Look how well shutting down the government went for them.

[rhett o rick]

11. Most fights? Which fights? Many of his appointees are being held up. He couldn't even close Gitmo.

[Nitram]

13. Budget fights for one. nt

[rhett o rick]

15. Sorry but that isn't true. The Republicons shut down the government costing billions.

Our defense budget is higher than ever.

[Doctor_J]

23. We now have Paul Ryan's budget. With wins like that, who needs losses?

[malthaussen]

7. We'll see.

I prefer not to speculate until he actually does something.

-- Mal