TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

Redneck_Buddha wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Keep in mind, meeting with him does not mean having a confirmation hearing or Senate vote. Also, I bet some want to explain to him it's nothing personal they aren't going to consider him.

I on the other hand, would let the nomination languish but that may not be the best strategy. I wouldn't care if they voted on him as long as it was assured he wouldn't be approved. That would be risky though.

You mean they should Bork him?

Your comment prompted me to do a quick Google search. Found some interesting reading. Also note some of the players back then are still around. Regenerates my desire and enthusiasm for term limits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_ ... nomination

mojo84 wrote:Keep in mind, meeting with him does not mean having a confirmation hearing or Senate vote. Also, I bet some want to explain to him it's nothing personal they aren't going to consider him.

I on the other hand, would let the nomination languish but that may not be the best strategy. I wouldn't care if they voted on him as long as it was assured he wouldn't be approved. That would be risky though.

Pariah3j wrote:I'm hoping this election cycle has taught the 'establishment' republicans a thing or 2 and that they will stick to their guns and not even allow the POTUS nomination a hearing, much less confirm any 'moderates' that he puts up.