Last I looked, a resume isn’t a statement meant for public consumption. I know mine isn’t.
Really? Are you suggesting that any possible future Supreme’s name is/has been drawn out of a hat that contained names drawn randomly from the phonebook? Shirley must have had some idea (aka vetted) that a nominee was somewhat qualified for the job before they were nominated.
Are you running for a public office?
His judicial record is already available. Why would he need to submit anything?
ETA: How do you think he was selected to begin with?
If you have to go to this level of goofy in order to make your point, maybe your point isn’t all that defensible?
Neither is Judge Garland, in case you weren’t aware. This is an appointment process, not an election. There are 100 people directly concerned with it (not counting Garland himself), and that is not public.
Probably should be sent to the Senators AND the Senators constituents. You know, those people who write letters and send emails demanding that a hearing should OR SHOULD NOT be held.
Are we talking about a public sector or private sector job?
Are you kidding? Give it up. You’re not winning this one.
Having read many of your prior statements, I can comfortably dismiss this one as incorrect.
He is, however, amusing.
I have not seen this much random flailing about since adahr tried to explain how all of the 2012 presidential polls were “skewed”
You are saying he should mail his resume to the entire voting age nation because some of them write letters? That seems a rather unreasonable burden, don’t you think? Should every federal appointee also send out their resume to the entire nation?
Sure, that’s unreasonable. Post it on a website and be done with it.
Paper? Mail? That is so totally 1900’s.
I refer you to the case of Cheney v. Bush
Garland wants the job. Garland needs the support of the voters to overcome the reluctance of the majority of the Senate. He can chose to make his position clear on whether or not the U.S. Bill of Rights is a bill of individual rights. That might overcome any/some resistance from the voters.
Unless there’s been a change, it’s Garland and Obama who don’t seem to be winning this one.
I’ve already dismissed your interpretation of my future statement as not being my statement.
How bad do they want the job? How they chose to pursue that job is up to them.
Just to put a fine point on this, there is not going to be some kind of grass roots Republican groundswell forcing their Senators to consider Garland. Matter of fact, most are probably secretly if not openly pleased that their elected representatives are continuing the same old obstructionist path, preventing ‘that evil President’ from getting anything done.
Once again, Garland has absolutely nothing to gain from such a public statement, nothing forcing him to do so, and things to lose. It’s simply not going to happen. Period. End of discussion.
We don’t know that to be the case without a vote, now do we?
The opposition to even having hearings, much less a vote, isn’t *from *the voters, or even a majority of Republicans. It’s from McConnell and those who follow him, which does not include all of his own caucus.
Are the Republicans winning?
Garland isn’t. Obama is.