Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus

[Anonymous]

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 Just to test the waters and if the Senate agreed to hearings, withdrawn the nomination.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

I was joking to my husband that maybe he'd nominate Ted Cruz. How would that be for a high-stakes poker game. The Senate hates Cruz and would love to get rid of him. At the same time he's impeccably conservative and would likely be an activist conservative at that -- perfect to replace Scalia. That would have given the Senate judiciary committee serious heartburn.

Of course Obama couldn't do that because they might just have called his bluff and agreed to consider him, and he couldn't take that risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 Just to test the waters and if the Senate agreed to hearings, withdrawn the nomination.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

I was joking to my husband that maybe he'd nominate Ted Cruz. How would that be for a high-stakes poker game. The Senate hates Cruz and would love to get rid of him. At the same time he's impeccably conservative and would likely be an activist conservative at that -- perfect to replace Scalia. That would have given the Senate judiciary committee serious heartburn.

Of course Obama couldn't do that because they might just have called his bluff and agreed to consider him, and he couldn't take that risk.

I guess the question is whether the nomination could be withdrawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 Just to test the waters and if the Senate agreed to hearings, withdrawn the nomination.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

I was joking to my husband that maybe he'd nominate Ted Cruz. How would that be for a high-stakes poker game. The Senate hates Cruz and would love to get rid of him. At the same time he's impeccably conservative and would likely be an activist conservative at that -- perfect to replace Scalia. That would have given the Senate judiciary committee serious heartburn.

Of course Obama couldn't do that because they might just have called his bluff and agreed to consider him, and he couldn't take that risk.

I guess the question is whether the nomination could be withdrawn.

Yeah, I don't know. but even if it could, that would look terrible and would scuttle Obama's chances to get anyone else through.

[Anonymous]

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

Sigh.

[Anonymous]

It's so ironic how defensive he gets in his speeches. I'm guessing if he had a moral compass he's reminded that he voted against Alito and Roberts because of ideological reasons, even though he admonishes Republicans against doing the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's so ironic how defensive he gets in his speeches. I'm guessing if he had a moral compass he's reminded that he voted against Alito and Roberts because of ideological reasons, even though he admonishes Republicans against doing the same.

Alito and Roberts received a fair hearing and vote. That's how things are supposed to work. You also seem to be unaware that more than two dozen Republicans voted against conforming Garland to the DC Circuit. Get used to hearing what Hatch had to say about Garland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's so ironic how defensive he gets in his speeches. I'm guessing if he had a moral compass he's reminded that he voted against Alito and Roberts because of ideological reasons, even though he admonishes Republicans against doing the same.

He did not stop Alito or Roberts from getting a hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so ironic how defensive he gets in his speeches. I'm guessing if he had a moral compass he's reminded that he voted against Alito and Roberts because of ideological reasons, even though he admonishes Republicans against doing the same.

He did not stop Alito or Roberts from getting a hearing.

You understand (probably not) that there are 11 legislative weeks remaining in 2016.

11 weeks. That's why there's a throw-away candidate speaking right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so ironic how defensive he gets in his speeches. I'm guessing if he had a moral compass he's reminded that he voted against Alito and Roberts because of ideological reasons, even though he admonishes Republicans against doing the same.

He did not stop Alito or Roberts from getting a hearing.

You understand (probably not) that there are 11 legislative weeks remaining in 2016.

11 weeks. That's why there's a throw-away candidate speaking right now.

Can you please break this down for me? Do you mean Garland has no chance of getting confirmed, so why tarnish another (better) nominee? What happens if HRC wins the election? Does Garland get confirmed after November? Does HRC get to pick someone else?

Also, do you think the Chicago connection had anything to do with this?

[Anonymous]

The president picked the OLDEST judge on the list of candidates and he's already been voted down by the Senate Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Yes, this is absolutely a serious pick by the president, said nobody.

[Anonymous]

I think Garland is a great choice. It's not as though his name has never been on the short list before. He is highly qualified, and has as good a chance as anyone of actually getting a vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's so ironic how defensive he gets in his speeches. I'm guessing if he had a moral compass he's reminded that he voted against Alito and Roberts because of ideological reasons, even though he admonishes Republicans against doing the same.

He did not stop Alito or Roberts from getting a hearing.

You understand (probably not) that there are 11 legislative weeks remaining in 2016.

11 weeks. That's why there's a throw-away candidate speaking right now.

More bulkshit excuses. The Senate isn't doing squat. They only spend a couple of days in DC each week. This is one of the most indisputably qualified jurists in America. Obama purposefully didn't pick a controversial nominee. He nominated a white male who sat on the appellate bench with Roberts and is highly respected by his peers. This could be wrapped up in a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The president picked the OLDEST judge on the list of candidates and he's already been voted down by the Senate Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Yes, this is absolutely a serious pick by the president, said nobody.

A number of people have pointed out that a lot of candidates wouldn't want to be nominated in these circumstances, because the GOP is so determined to obstruct. So some will see this as a way to save more desirable picks for HRC and a possible Democratic Senate. I have no idea if that's correct but I thought it was an interesting possibility.

[Anonymous]

I'm a libertarian and he has my seal of approval.

[Anonymous]

I hope if Hillary is elected he withdraws the nomination.