a way to give his favorite last words, "You're fired".

It keeps Romney in the political light, and as someone who might challenge Trump in 2020. It keeps his name out there...Or is this something to appease the "Establishment"...I dunno about this one.

like Obama did to Huntsman, so he could look bipartisan, while insuring he wouldn't have to run against him in 2012.

could be our Donald wants them to lead our new elite death squads..

He just wants him to twist slowly in the wind until he tells him to fuck off. It's called payback.  Trump lives for it.

First of all, Obama and Hillary were nowhere NEAR as nasty to each other as the ugly name-calling between Trump and Romney, who did everything he could to sabotage Trump.
Second, getting State did NOT "fuck her" and the email problem was NOT a necessary part of the State job.  She did that to herself, and she admitted it.

....tell them he's considering them, do a quick head fake and then tell them to fuck off....

Hillary was criticized during the campaign for embracing the late Robert Byrd, who had been a member of the KKK.  He changed. People change.  So while I don't like what Sessions said back then, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt, as does anyone the President Elect wants as part of his team.
My advice to the Dems (not that they're interested, LOL) is to question sharply but let Trump have the team he wants and to save their ammo for blocking any right-to-lifer to the Supreme Court.

Poor poor Hillary, nothing but a victim of circumstances all her life. She just never caught a break. With that line of thinking she'd have been better off had her mother chosen an abortion.

No guts to stand up to someone who basically lied and jacked them up.....worms, both of them.

But WB doesn't ever let the facts get in the way of smears and lies.  

You have just demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the rules of the Senate.  Ever heard of a thing called a "filibuster?"  Were you aware it takes 60 votes to invoke "cloture" and end a filibuster for a SCOTUS nominee?  Did you know the Reps will have only 51 votes (or 52 when the LA runoff is done)?
So their only option is to go "nuclear" and end the Senate rule re the filibuster.  Will they do it?  I've predicted they will but several senior Rep Senators, including Orin Hatch have said no.  And it only takes a few.  So don't bet on any extreme right-to-lifers making the cut.
I'm sure you are relieved to hear that.
Now please make sure to attend the next session of "How a bill becomes a law 101" at JDU.
PS: "SCOTUS" is an acronym and should be written in all caps.  Even that dunce GaGa knows that.

-- Modified on 11/19/2016 8:15:14 AM

But change doesn't happen overnight to anyone. If you believe in dramatic events that cause sinners to see the light and turn things around just in the nick of time to save the day, you ought to skedaddle down to Hollywood.

I was talking about the Dems have already gone nuclear, which would give the Reps cover if they decide to do same for Scotus (fuck you, I will acronym how i want) and they would have no choice if D's filibustered every nominee.

I stand by what I wrote. Now please calm down.  You're starting to hyperventilate like that cranky old fucktard, Grant.

This is going to be a contentious four years, if it lasts that long. Pretending to get along is more dangerous not getting along. It's like pretending to be in love. You can't argue that that works very well.

It applies to SC justices and to all legislation.