I haven’t seen anything from Trump that assumes he feels this way towards women.

Because he uses misogynistic comments to assault these individual women.

It’s a mystery as to why 25% of women still support him /sighing at women for the patriarchy

When you’re tired, it’s hard to keep up appearances (of moderation).

I think it’s time for a boycott threat.

Congrats, this means you’re winning at life! :D

So #blessed that Novak Djokovic approves of my period.

I for one happily slogged through The Tudors, and still didn’t make the connection that the Duke of Suffolk is Superman.

Jez had an article a few weeks back on the same thing happening at a biotech conference.

If Kelly actually paid attention to others, Donald would be whining that she’s ignoring him.

I is sorry :(

Your comment suggests that we have not come that far at all.

I think that’s because Garland is the kind of nominee who values precedent, even if he doesn’t agree with them. I could see him supporting further restrictions on campaign finance as a means to limit the effects of Citizens United. I certainly wouldn’t call him “center right.” But I think that this discussion shows…

It’s possible, though usually POTUS will nominate someone else if the Senate looks like they’ll never confirm.

Hatch and Graham both voted for Garland’s confirmation in the past. Those were the days...

I think most gamblers would put the money on Clinton in a Clinton v. Trump match-up, but Trump is unpredictable. And with a SCOTUS seat up in the air, just enough GOP voters might vote for Trump even if they despite him.

The Senate could stall on the nomination well past the election, but then decide to vote on Garland when Obama is actually in the lame-duck phase of the presidency. This is actually what some GOP Senators are claiming they plan to do.

You’d still need a nominee that gets advice and consent from the Senate, which is unlikely if the nominee is too far to the left.

It may depend on Senate elections this year. If the Senate composition is pretty much the same, then stick with Garland. He’s a moderate whose decisions are less about his political views and more about his belief that judiciary should defer to executive in interpreting vague statutory language. Good for a Dem White…

Meanwhile, the GOP’s like “Garland’s fine and we’ll probably ok with him as soon as Clinton is elected POTUS kthxbai.” :|