Since Republicans will oppose ANY Supreme Court nominee, no matter who it is, they are irrelevant.

[Towlie]

The selection of a Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens should in no way involve the anticipated response of the Republicans in Congress. Their response is predetermined by the identity of the nominator and has nothing to do with the identity of the nominee, and is therefore not an issue worthy of consideration.

This is a big moment in Barack Obama's presidency and one of the most important reasons that we worked so hard to elect him. Let's all hope that by now, he's finally learned to stop trying to pet http://www.lyricsondemand.com/a/alwilsonlyrics/thesnakelyrics.html">the snake.

[damntexdem]

1. Yes, and the corollary is: he should appoint a very-liberal person to the Court.

And dare the GOP to block an up-or-down vote.

[liberal N proud]

2. The Democrats and the President need to take McConnell's remarks to the people

They need to make sure it is repeated time and time again from now until November emphasizing the ANY nominee part and that this was said before they even knew who the nominee would be.

[BeFree]

3. this will be a test

A test for the progressives and the liberals. Will we fight?
Or will we let the regressive right and the teabaggers make their tea and have us drink it?

[LLStarks]

4. Didn't we do the same thing with Alito and Roberts? nt

[Bandit]

6. No we did not

Republicans threatened the Democrats with "the nuclear option" and Democrats fell into line. They established a group of fourteen, Democrats and Republicans that would insure Bush* nominees always got an up or down vote.....

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Well, If they chose to filibuster, the court will just have to live with Stevens.