Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus

[Anonymous]

It's not a throw away, but it's certainly not Obama's preferred nominee. Garland will be confirmed during the lame duck unless they find a body buried in his backyard.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of his nominating a fairly moderate jurist forcing Mitch to put up and block it or fold and be seen as a spineless pansy (moreso than he is now). If it's blocked, the nominate someone new in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance this is a "throw away" nomination so Mitch et al can throw a fit and stymie it only to have the real second nomination please stand up?

Very likely - after all, that's how he got John Kerry and Chuck Hagel confirmed, by floating names he knew would make the GOP flip out, then ultimately nominating his real choices once they'd blown their collective wad.

Ha.

Well in any event, Garland is a good judge. I doubt they'll confirm him but if they do, I'll be happy with him. He'll make a good justice. He's been around a while and is well-respected. Of course if they don't confirm him and Hillary wins and nominates a super-liberal, that would be fine with me, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:my thinking is that, there isn't even a good chance for this pick to be seated so why damage srinivasan or kelly or karlan or watford (or lynch) with the shitshow that the R's will put them through.

No, no. Democrats do "shit-show". (See, eg, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork.) Republicans do advise and consent. Understand the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my thinking is that, there isn't even a good chance for this pick to be seated so why damage srinivasan or kelly or karlan or watford (or lynch) with the shitshow that the R's will put them through.

No, no. Democrats do "shit-show". (See, eg, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork.) Republicans do advise and consent. Understand the difference.

Not much advise and consent going on right now. More like whole-sale refusal to consider anyone, even a centrist, unobjectionable pick like Garland. I seriously doubt they will consider him.

[Anonymous]

Terrible choice -- another old moderate white man. Fuck that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my thinking is that, there isn't even a good chance for this pick to be seated so why damage srinivasan or kelly or karlan or watford (or lynch) with the shitshow that the R's will put them through.

No, no. Democrats do "shit-show". (See, eg, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork.) Republicans do advise and consent. Understand the difference.

Oh, sure, sweetie. *pats head*

[Anonymous]

I guess being Jewish and having gone to Harvard is what it takes to get ahead these days.

This may be good news for Trump - just one more indication to his expanding base that Obama/Clinton are completely aligned with the Boston-Washington power elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess being Jewish and having gone to Harvard is what it takes to get ahead these days.

This may be good news for Trump - just one more indication to his expanding base that Obama/Clinton are completely aligned with the Boston-Washington power elite.

his daughter is jewish and went to wharton.

his son-in-law is jewish and went to harvard.

not sure what you are getting at here.

[Anonymous]

Apparently Orrin Hatch said Garland would have been a "slam dunk" when he was floated in 2010 for the seat that went to Sotomayor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Terrible choice -- another old moderate white man. Fuck that.

Terrible choice. Typical DC liberal, ex-Brennan clerk. Obama's "I'm so sorry we have such division in Washington" is total bullshit. Most divisive president in my lifetime. "News of Garland’s selection leaked out after Obama held a conference call with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee." Partisan, partisan, partisan.

Thank you, Barack, for Donald Trump.

[Anonymous]

Maybe he should have nominated someone Bork-like. Just to test the waters and if the Senate agreed to hearings, withdrawn the nomination. Ha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible choice -- another old moderate white man. Fuck that.

Terrible choice. Typical DC liberal, ex-Brennan clerk. Obama's "I'm so sorry we have such division in Washington" is total bullshit. Most divisive president in my lifetime. "News of Garland’s selection leaked out after Obama held a conference call with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee." Partisan, partisan, partisan.

Thank you, Barack, for Donald Trump.

If you don't like him because he's too liberal, and others don't like him because he's not liberal enough, then I'd say he's the right guy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible choice -- another old moderate white man. Fuck that.

Terrible choice. Typical DC liberal, ex-Brennan clerk. Obama's "I'm so sorry we have such division in Washington" is total bullshit. Most divisive president in my lifetime. "News of Garland’s selection leaked out after Obama held a conference call with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee." Partisan, partisan, partisan.

Thank you, Barack, for Donald Trump.

Karl Rove, is that you? I'm guessing the Donald isn't returning your calls this morning.

[Anonymous]

Smart. Big pressure on Grassley, who recently got a very strong Democratic opponent.