Scalia dies on quail hunting trip

[Zaune]

Well, shit. Sorry, guys, it looked legitimate at first glance; apparently NoScript stopped whatever was setting off Borgholio's security software and it was passed to me by someone I trust, so I didn't look too hard at the URL.

[Tribble]

Well, shit. Sorry, guys, it looked legitimate at first glance; apparently NoScript stopped whatever was setting off Borgholio's security software and it was passed to me by someone I trust, so I didn't look too hard at the URL.

Not to worry.

It doesn't matter anyways, Obama could nominate Jesus and the Republicans would act the same way. Hell, even Saint Ronald Regan (who is far higher up on their food chain than Jesus judging from the way they talk) wouldn't stand a chance.

[Rogue 9]

Well, he's picked a candidate.

And boy are the Republicans going to be pissed.

David Mikkelson, founder of Snopes, a website that takes the fun out of stories on the internet in order to generate advertising revenue, who is also currently being sued by Fox News for calling them a “fake news site”, told ABC News that he approves of what a story like this is accomplishing.

“This type of story, when it goes viral, and we debunk it, we make money,” Mikkelson said. “We use our cookie-cutter outlines, we copy and paste the original article into ours, type in one or two sentences of original content and then we make hella’ cash. If it wasn’t for people like internet news satirist, Paul Horner, my children wouldn’t have been able to go to college.”

[Elheru Aran]

Well, he does have a point. Debunking false news sites on the Internet *is* how he makes money.

[Broomstick]

NOW you tell me!

If it's a bad link then can a mod break it?

[Rogue 9]

Well, he does have a point. Debunking false news sites on the Internet *is* how he makes money.

Well yeah, but he'd never say it in those terms, at least to the media, and I doubt ABC News would characterize his site as "tak[ing] the fun out of stories on the Internet," as the primary descriptor.

[Zaune]

NOW you tell me!

If it's a bad link then can a mod break it?

Once again, I'm really sorry about this. I wouldn't have posted the link if I'd known it was a hoax, much less an attack site; #NoScriptUserProblems, I guess.

[Simon_Jester]

...For the record, is this an attack site and should I be worried because I clicked the link?

[General Zod]

...For the record, is this an attack site and should I be worried because I clicked the link?

You might want to run a malware scan just to be safe. The entire thing is basically clickbait.

[Rogue 9]

Malware scan comes up negative for me, though the site also didn't trigger any security warnings from Firefox. I suspect Adblock probably had a similar effect to NoScript if malware is in the ads they're trying to peddle (which is why I installed Adblock in the first place back in the day).

[Napoleon the Clown]

...For the record, is this an attack site and should I be worried because I clicked the link?

It may be, it may not be. The site itself may be "clean" but an ad can carry some nasty shit in. It's happened to several webcomics, where ad hosting companies got... compromised. My dislike of ads has nothing to do with them being ads in and of themselves, it's the security risk I don't like.

[SCRawl]

NOW you tell me!

If it's a bad link then can a mod break it?

Done.

[Broomstick]

Well, my anti-virus/firewall didn't pick up anything, but then, we keep it updated. No harm done here this time.

[Dominus Atheos]

Is there any better feeling in the world than schadenfreude?

Hey GOP Senators, This Is It - No Hearings No Votes
Feb. 22, 2016
GOP senators, if you give whichever Constitution-shredding libfascist Obama nominates a hearing, much less a vote, we are gone. Out of the GOP. Finished. And that means you’re finished too.


The “we” is us conservatives, and we are not in the mood for any pompous, delusional Senate-speak about how you can’t do what we elected you to do and defy Obama. You need to take a stand and shut him down. And we don’t care how much heat you have to take from the mainstream media and your distinguished commie colleagues across the aisle.

Man the hell up.

Our enemies keep blabbing about your alleged “duty” to act. Yeah, you have a Constitutional duty all right – to the freaking Constitution.

The reaction of Mitch McConnell was a pleasant surprise. After rolling over again and again, it seems to have dawned on Mitch that we conservatives are done with a submissive Senate going Gimp every time Obama demands something. Spending, Obamacare, illegal immigration – the GOP hasn’t been seemed to be able to draw a line, much less hold one, and we conservatives have been wondering why we even bothered to retake the Senate in 2014. But now our right to freely exercise our religion, our right to keep and bear arms, and even our right to criticize politicians like Hillary Clinton are at stake. There’s nowhere left to retreat to. Back, meet wall.

This is it. This is the moment you need to stop pretending the Senate is some sort of collegial debating society and realize that this is a life and death struggle for the future of our country. If the left gets its way, America is in serious trouble. And so are you, because if the GOP Senate can’t even stop the left from turning the Supreme Court over to the kind of people who run safe space universities, then what damn use is a GOP Senate?

We’ll be gone from your flailing party. We’ll check out, and then you’ll check out of the cloakroom for good. The revolt is already barreling down the highway; your weakness will only supercharge it. Do you think Donald Trump is some sort of accident? He’s the result of you and the rest of the GOP talking a big game about liberal abstinence and then getting to D.C. and giving it up to the first smooth talking establishmentarian you meet at the bus station.

You should be afraid, because this is about your careers. And remember, K Street’s not going to need you quite so much when there’s a big Democrat Senate majority after you betray us again – you might have to (gasp!) go get your sorry rears real jobs.

Supersize this, squishes. Are you feeling me?

But most of you are smart enough to understand that and to cultivate a healthy fear of losing your cushy sinecures – the majority of you seem to get that you don’t want to go home and run on not having stopped the SCOTUS nominee who just gave the thumbs up to trucks rumbling through your constituents’ neighborhoods with a speaker blaring, “Bring out your guns!”

But we can feel how much you truly want to submit, to adopt that chin-stroking pose of thoughtful pseudo-wisdom on some Sunday morning show and disclaim about your solemn duties and how the president’s candidate deserves careful consideration and blah blah blah blah blah. You know you’re in for mainstream media hell if you take a stand, and there’s nothing you hate more than having to actually defend conservatism rather than basking in the warm glow of strange new respect by going along and getting along with the liberal narrative. But most of you are also canny enough to see that this time is different, that this time you won’t be able to walk some weaselly tightrope where you avoid liberal establishment hate while not alienating your conservative voting base quite enough for it to toss you out of office.

Everyone knows fussy little Lindsey Graham would love to reach across the aisle and hug some guy on the other side, but he knows that South Carolina voters can tolerate only so much cavorting with the enemy. John McCain’s got an election in November and Arizona voters are watching, so he’ll hold fast even though we can see he’s aching to maverick all over conservatives again.

But then there are fools like Dean Heller of Nevada, who decided to respond with a joke when failing to commit to blocking whoever Obama nominates:

“‘The chances of approving a new nominee are slim, but Nevadans should have a voice in the process. That’s why I encourage the President to use this opportunity to put the will of the people ahead of advancing a liberal agenda on the nation’s highest court. But should he decide to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, who knows, maybe it’ll be a Nevadan,’ said Senator Dean Heller.”

Hey Heller, you’re hella unfunny. Do you think attacks upon Nevadans’ First and Second Amendment rights are comedy gold? Let me help you, and every other spineless senatorial sissy, with what you need to say:

“President Obama has spent over seven years disrespecting and disregarding the Constitution. He and his liberal soulmates have expressed nothing but utter contempt for the separation of powers and for our most basic rights. I will not stand by and allow them any further opportunity to infringe upon our freedoms. So my advice to Obama is not to bother nominating anyone to replace Justice Scalia, but if he does so then I shall withhold my consent. I will not support hearings on, or a vote on, or confirmation of, any Obama Supreme Court nominee, ever. Period.”

That’s how you do it. And unless Heller does, in two years I and others will be supporting and donating to his primary opponent – who I hope will be Adam Laxalt, the current Nevada Attorney General and a real conservative. But here’s a little secret – I hope Heller doesn’t come out clearly for what Hugh Hewitt has hashtagged #NoHearingsNoVotes. I hope he keeps trying to please the liberal media instead of his constituents. Why? Because I want us conservatives to destroy the budding career of some RINO next cycle, to select one wavering weakling and boot him out of office for the crime of defying us. The British used to occasionally shoot one of their admirals in order to encourage the others to greater bravery and resolve. We GOP conservatives should adopt this innovative incentivization strategy and each cycle cull the weakest from the herd, just to make sure that these Capitol Hill cretins remain more afraid of our wrath than the Washington Post’s.

No hearings, no votes – or you’ll be hearing from us, and you won’t be getting our votes

No there is not.

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/kurtsc ... sletterad=

[Simon_Jester]

As I have said before, the Republican Party has spent the last forty to fifty years diligently creating a faction in the US government which is de facto anarchist as far as federal government is concerned. They don't want it to function at all. They don't understand it, they don't understand basic political science concepts like "loyal opposition" and "majority rule, minority rights." All they know is BIG BAD SCARY LIBRULS. And they would rather have no federal government than a one that might function in BIG BAD SCARY ways.

So basically, the Republicans have created within their base a faction which does not want the federal government to function, period. Not if that means anything other than absolute Republican control of said government.

This creates an inherent contradiction given that the Republican Party's chief goal is to be the majority party in the federal government... in a nation which is not 100% Republican and in which the Republican Party lacks the means to create a one-party state.

I am somewhat impressed they managed to hold things together in the face of that contradiction as long as it did.

[SpottedKitty]

Hell, even Saint Ronald Regan (who is far higher up on their food chain than Jesus judging from the way they talk) wouldn't stand a chance.

Isn't there a pretty convincing argument that Reagan's politics today would be considered (by his own party) anything from wishy-washy centre-ish to waytheheckoutthar loony left?

[Simon_Jester]

Since 2010 or so this is almost certainly true- because Reagan was at least willing to participate in the normal political process and negotiate with his opponents rather than demand that they give him everything he wanted in exchange for nothing.

[Darth Lucifer]

Washington Post

Why Brian Sandoval might be Obama’s best Supreme Court pick — and still wouldn’t get confirmed

By Amber Phillips February 24
Meet Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval

The White House is said to be considering Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-Nev.) as a nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Here's what you need to know about him. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

In what's already a contentious Supreme Court confirmation battle, it looks as though President Obama is considering -- or at least trying to make it appear as though he is considering -- going the bipartisan route: As The Washington Post's Mike DeBonis and Juliet Eilperin reported Wednesday, the president has started vetting Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) as a possible replacement for the late justice Antonin Scalia.

This doesn't mean Sandoval is a sure choice or even a finalist; the term-limited popular Republican governor is probably among several people Obama is considering. And some in Nevada are skeptical about whether Obama is even seriously considering Sandoval.

But, purely from a political perspective, Sandoval could be a strong pick for two big reasons:

1. Of the names that have been floated, he is one of the most difficult for Republicans to shut down. Turning aside a moderate Republican governor could make life difficult for vulnerable Senate Republicans defending seats in blue states.

2. Sandoval's résumé is the stuff of Republican recruiting dreams. He was the first Hispanic to win statewide office in Nevada. He has served as Nevada's governor since 2011. He favors the death penalty, school choice vouchers and gun rights. Before he was governor, he served as a federal district judge in Nevada from 2005 to 2009, a spot he surprised many by leaving to run for governor. Today, his résumé make him an automatic short-lister for just about any national position, from Supreme Court to Cabinet to vice president. (The one big hitch: Sandoval favors abortion rights, making it tough for him to make a national GOP ticket.)

If Obama is truly looking to go the consensus route, Sandoval is an almost unparalleled option. He has proven time and again he can draw up a bipartisan coalition of supporters. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) actually recommended the then-attorney general to President George W. Bush for an opening on U.S. District Court. (In Nevada political circles, it's common knowledge that Reid was deftly maneuvering to get one of his most formidable potential opponents out of Nevada. Sandoval left the bench to run for governor in 2010 and defeated Reid's son, Rory Reid.)

In Sandoval's 2005 Senate confirmation hearing for the bench, senators from both sides praised him. "There has been a lot of squabbling in recent years here with judges," Harry Reid said at the time. "Brian Sandoval will cause no squabbles. Everyone will vote for him. He is a class act." He is "somebody we both agree is an outstanding choice for the bench," said then-Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.). "He is going to make a great judge, no question," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), a top Republican on the Senate panel in charge of considering all judicial nominations.

The Senate confirmed Sandoval's appointment unanimously.

In picking Sandoval, Obama also could make the case that he's not selling out the Democratic Party's core principles entirely. The governor's record on abortion, expanding Medicaid, same-sex marriage and even Syrian/Iraqi refugees could be made palatable for Democrats.

As with every decision, of course, there are potential downsides.

For one, Sandoval would be skipping a level to get from the District Court to the nation's highest. "I'm sure there would be questions on his full legal credentials," said Eric Herzik, a professor at the University of Nevada at Reno, who added that he thinks a Sandoval nomination is a long shot.

Sandoval and Obama might argue that he has both legal experience and real-world political experience. "As a former federal judge, I am cognizant of the legal issues," Sandoval told the Los Angeles Times in 2014. "As governor, I am forced to deal with their ramifications."

And then there's the very important matter of abortion. Sandoval is a Republican and is conservative on many issues, but the Supreme Court is the court that decides the future of abortion restrictions. Putting a pro-abortion-rights justice on the court would quite simply be a very hard sell with many of the most animated sections of the GOP base. These voters might be just fine with Sandoval being a Cabinet secretary or even president; the Supreme Court is another matter.

Beyond that, it's a virtual certainty that conservatives would balk at a GOP governor who has been "soft" on the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage. Given that Sandoval would be replacing a very conservative originalist justice in Scalia, he certainly would represent a move to the left on many issues that are of the utmost importance to the activists. Sandoval may be fiscally conservative, but that doesn't really matter on the court. Social issues and policy do.

Sandoval looks like a consensus pick who could -- but probably wouldn't -- break what is shaping up to be a Republican blockade of Obama's nominee. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he wouldn't even personally meet Obama's nominee, and all 11 members of the Senate panel that would review the pick agreed not to hold hearings until a new president is inaugurated.

There's a saying in Washington: When no one's happy, that's when you've found compromise. And if anyone could get the Senate to compromise, it might be Sandoval. On the other hand, if no one's totally happy, the default will probably just be to wait for the next president.

[General Zod]

Moot point, Sandoval doesn't want the nomination anyway.

[Sir Sirius]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ant ... 60bf76efa4

Antonin Scalia's Death Just Cost This Company $835 Million
Dow Chemical settled a price-fixing lawsuit because it lost the late justice's vote.

Cristian Farias
Legal Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post

Dow Chemical Co., one of America's largest chemical manufacturers, agreed on Friday to settle a price-fixing lawsuit for $835 million in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia's death.

The company had challenged a $1 billion judgment in a high-stakes, class-action case. But without Scalia, it appears the new reality at the high court was too big a gamble for the company to continue with the litigation.

"Growing political uncertainties due to recent events within the Supreme Court and increased likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class action suits have changed Dow’s risk assessment of the situation," the company said in a statement.

Dow said a case the Supreme Court heard last year but hasn't yet decided, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, was the reason its own case was still on hold at the court. Both cases present common questions of law that may limit class-action liability -- an area where the Supreme Court of late has been friendly to business interests.

Stunningly, Dow's statement singled out two major cases in which Scalia wrote the majority opinions -- 2011's Wal-Mart v. Dukes and 2013's Comcast v. Behrend -- essentially conceding that, without Scalia, the company no longer had any prospects of winning. Both of those cases were decided 5 to 4, with conservatives ruling for the corporations.

Given the new eight-justice court, Dow called its decision to end the litigation "the right decision for the company and our shareholders." As is usual with settlements, the company maintained its innocence.

"While Dow is settling this case, it continues to strongly believe that it was not part of any conspiracy and the judgment was fundamentally flawed as a matter of class action law," the company said.

A jury in 2013 had found Dow Chemical liable in a price-fixing scheme with four other companies for chemicals used to produce urethane, a compound used in foam upholstery for furniture and plastic walls in refrigerators, according to Bloomberg. About 2,400 businesses that bought the chemicals from Dow joined in a class action against the industrial giant.

Friday's settlement is just another example of the shifting landscape at the Supreme Court -- and why it matters who fills the now-vacant seat.

Dying really is the best thing Scalia ever did.

[Civil War Man]

Obama nominates Merrick Garland to replace Scalia

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday said he would nominate Merrick B. Garland as the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appeals court judge for the lifetime appointment and daring Republican senators to refuse consideration of a jurist who is highly regarded throughout Washington.

Mr. Obama introduced Judge Garland to an audience of his family members, activists, and White House staff in the Rose Garden Wednesday morning, describing him as exceptionally qualified to serve on the Supreme Court in the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February.

The president said Judge Garland is “widely recognized not only as one of America’s sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence. These qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle.”

He added that Judge Garland “will ultimately bring that same character to bear on the Supreme Court, an institution on which he is uniquely prepared to serve immediately.”

Mr. Obama said it is tempting to make the confirmation process “an extension of our divided politics.” But he warned that “to go down that path would be wrong.”

Mr. Obama demanded a fair hearing for Judge Garland and said that refusing to even consider his nomination would provoke “an endless cycle of more tit for tat” that would undermine the democratic process for years to come.

“I simply ask Repbulicans in the Senate to give him a fair hearing, and then an up or down vote,” Mr. Obama said. “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a preocess for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

In choosing Judge Garland, a well-known moderate who has drawn bipartisan support over decades, Mr. Obama was essentially daring Republicans to press their election-year confirmation fight over a judge many of them have publicly praised and who would be difficult for them to reject, particularly if a Democrat were to win the November presidential election and they faced the prospect of a more liberal nominee in 2017.

Judge Garland persevered through a lengthy political battle in the mid-1990s that delayed his own confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by more than a year. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, argued at the time that the vacancy should not be filled.

Twenty years later, Mr. Grassley and other Republicans are again standing in the way of Judge Garland’s appointment, arguing that the next president should be the one to pick the successor to Justice Scalia. Republicans in the Senate and on the presidential campaign trail vowed to stand firm against whomever Mr. Obama chose.

In remarks Monday, Mr. Obama chastised Republicans for taking that stand, demanding that the Republican-controlled Senate fulfill its responsibility to consider Judge Garland and hold a timely vote on his nomination. Do do anything else would be irresponsible, he said.

Judge Garland is often described as brilliant and, at 63, is somewhat older for a Supreme Court nominee. He is two years older than Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who has been with the court for more than 10 years. The two served together on the appeals court and are said to be friends.

The Oklahoma City bombing case in 1995 helped shape Judge Garland’s professional life. He coordinated the Justice Department’s response, starting the case against the bombers and eventually supervising their prosecution.

Why Obama Nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court

Merrick B. Garland is a candidate who had support from Republicans in the past but would still move the court in a progressive direction.

Judge Garland insisted on being sent to the scene even as bodies were being pulled out of the wreckage, said Jamie S. Gorelick, then the deputy attorney general.

“At the time, he said to me the equivalent of ‘Send me in, coach,’” Ms. Gorelick said. “He worked around the clock, and he was flawless.”

White House officials on Wednesday noted that Judge Garland was confirmed to his current post in 1997 with the support of seven sitting Republicans: Senators Dan Coats of Indiana, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, John McCain of Arizona, Pat Roberts of Kansas.

In an email on Wednesday just before Mr. Obama was to appear in the Rose Garden to formally nominate him, one official said that Mr. Hatch said this year that Mr. Obama “could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man.” They noted that Mr. Hatch was quoted in 2010 as saying that Judge Garland would be a “consensus nominee” if he had been picked that year.

The White House also cited positive comments about Judge Garland from Chief Justice Roberts, the Republican governors of Oklahoma and Iowa, and former Republican officials in the Justice Department.

Because of his position, disposition and bipartisan popularity, Judge Garland has been on Mr. Obama’s shortlist of potential nominees for years. In 2010, when Mr. Obama interviewed him for the slot that he instead gave to Justice Elena Kagan, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said publicly that he had urged Mr. Obama to nominate Judge Garland as “a consensus nominee” who would win Senate confirmation.

“I know Merrick Garland very well,” Mr. Hatch said at the time. “He would be very well supported by all sides.”

Supreme Court Nominees Considered in Election Years Are Usually Confirmed

Since 1900, the Senate has voted on eight Supreme Court nominees during an election year. Six were confirmed.

In an email to supporters early Wednesday morning, Mr. Obama said he considered three principles in making his choice: whether the person possessed “an independent mind, unimpeachable credentials and an unquestionable mastery of law”; whether the nominee recognized “the limits of the judiciary’s role”; and whether his choice understood that “justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook.”

Mr. Obama said that he was “confident you’ll share my conviction that this American is not only eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court justice, but deserves a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote.”

The White House has created a new Twitter handle, he said — @SCOTUSnom — and he urged people to follow it for “all the facts and up-to-date information.”

At a news conference on Thursday, Mr. Obama said that Republicans must “decide whether they want to follow the Constitution and abide by the rules of fair play that ultimately undergird our democracy and that ensure that the Supreme Court does not just become one more extension of our polarized politics.”

Republican senators have urged the president to hold off on a nomination, saying the next president should make the pick after voters express their preference in the presidential election. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has repeatedly said he would oppose any nomination until next year.

“President Obama is getting dangerously close to narrowing down the field of potential candidates for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Mr. McConnell warned his supporters in a fund-raising appeal last month.

The outcome of the Washington clash could determine whether Mr. Obama gets to set the direction of American jurisprudence for decades. After the death last month of Mr. Scalia, a leading conservative, the court is evenly divided, with four liberal justices and four conservatives. A new justice appointed by Mr. Obama could be the deciding vote in several close cases.

I don't know much about him personally, but so far everything's pointed to him being a very uncontroversial pick (or, to be more specific, he'd be an uncontroversial pick any other day).

Someone like him was largely suspected here and elsewhere, since many believe he'd genuinely be a good choice and is held in high enough regard that refusing to even hold hearings on his nomination just highlights how unreasonable Congressional Republicans have become.

It helps that, according to this article, Republicans suggested him as a consensus candidate in 2010 after Obama nominated Kagan.

[Borgholio]

Good choice. I too, don't know much about him personally...but if he has had support from the GOP in the past and is actually a moderate, this could split the ranks of the Congressional Republicans and make the right-wingers look even worse than they already are.

[Iroscato]

Sounds like a modest win-win all round really, quite reasonable. I look forward to the shit-flinging and screeching from the Tea Party.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Listened to the nomination and the Senate reaction on the radio this morning, and it could be summed up thusly:

Obama: "Here I have this cute puppy. It's an adorable puppy. Everybody loves puppies right? This puppy is especially loveable, with its soft fur and big, dewy eyes. My heart is melting just holding this puppy. You wouldn't kick this puppy, would you?"

McConnell: "FUCK YOU!" *kicks puppy* "AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!"

So ... yeah, it was a solid nomination that's going to go absolutely nowhere. (Although I've heard that, if the Democrats win the White House in November; the Republicans are likely to confirm Garland during the lame duck session to avoid the possibility that the incoming President-elect will nominate a younger, more liberal, candidate.)

[Flagg]

If the Democrats win the Senate, Obama should nominate and get Senator Elizabeth Warren pushed through and confirmed during the 17 days between when the Congress and next President get sworn in just to show the squealing pigs wallowing in their own vile shit that is the Republican Party that their obstructionist bullfuckery got them a liberal firebrand instead of a reasonably left of center but largely middle of the road Justice.

Not that that would happen. But one can dream...

As far as this announcement today, it just makes Republicans, especially those in the senate, look even more ridiculously partisan and unreasonable. Something they don't seem to mind since that exists in reality, something they clearly reject.