Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus

[Anonymous]

So much sanctimonious b-s about the senate doing its duty, etc.

I am a liberal and if someone like a Ginsburg were to retire or die, I'd want a Democratic senate to use every available means to block the nomination if the president were Republican - and if the vacancy occurred in an election year.

It is just politics and both sides indulge in this sort of thing. It is the reason why Schumer essentially talked about blocking nominations under GWB after Roberts and Alito were appointed and turned out to be even more conservative than was anticipated.

[Anonymous]

I think the Senate would be wise to take this up- if Hillary gets elected she'll likely get pressure to nominate someone a lot more liberal. If Trunp gets elected, who the hell knows what you'd get?! Smart of Obama to pick someone who is well respected and sailed through the nomination process before, although at a very different time than today of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much sanctimonious b-s about the senate doing its duty, etc.

I am a liberal and if someone like a Ginsburg were to retire or die, I'd want a Democratic senate to use every available means to block the nomination if the president were Republican - and if the vacancy occurred in an election year.

It is just politics and both sides indulge in this sort of thing. It is the reason why Schumer essentially talked about blocking nominations under GWB after Roberts and Alito were appointed and turned out to be even more conservative than was anticipated.

But it was all hot air with schumer- both nominations went through. I think it's ridiculous to hold up the process for an entire year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the Senate would be wise to take this up- if Hillary gets elected she'll likely get pressure to nominate someone a lot more liberal. If Trunp gets elected, who the hell knows what you'd get?! Smart of Obama to pick someone who is well respected and sailed through the nomination process before, although at a very different time than today of course.

He called the Republicans' bluff.

[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.

They have actually refused to advise or consent, prior to hearing a name uttered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Their life experiences have very little in common with the growing number of Americans who feel completely disenfranchised and shut out under Obama

You clearly don't know anything about Sonia Sotomayor. You really should fix that.

Princeton followed by Yale Law and then elite law firms and the federal bench. J-Lo grew up in the Bronx, too, but it's been a while since either had to deal with ordinary Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope if Hillary is elected he withdraws the nomination.

That's not going to happen. Garland is an honorable man of principle who has spent the better part of his professional career serving the United States. It's offensive to think of him as a political pawn.

Are you related to him or something? He's a big boy and certainly understands the circumstances. He might come out of it with a seat on the Supreme Court or he might not.

[Anonymous]

Obama's timing is brilliant. The day after Hillary effectively locks up the democratic nomination, he makes sure the Republican establishment will be fighting battles on three fronts: against Trump, against Hillary, and against a Supreme Court nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much sanctimonious b-s about the senate doing its duty, etc.

I am a liberal and if someone like a Ginsburg were to retire or die, I'd want a Democratic senate to use every available means to block the nomination if the president were Republican - and if the vacancy occurred in an election year.

It is just politics and both sides indulge in this sort of thing. It is the reason why Schumer essentially talked about blocking nominations under GWB after Roberts and Alito were appointed and turned out to be even more conservative than was anticipated.

OK, here's a hypothetical for you and everyone else: Let's say (1) Trump gets elected president, (2) the Democrats take back the Senate, and (3) Ginsburg dies on his first day in office. Would the Democrats in the Senate be acting appropriately and fulfilling their duty if they say, "Nope, we consider Trump an ideologue and a charlatan, so we're not going to consider any Supreme Court nominee he offers. We'll just wait until the next President arrives in 2020 to replace Ginsburg." Justifiable in your worldview?

FWIW, you could easily flip that hypothetical too: Would a Republican Senate in 2017 be justified in refusing to consider any Hillary Clinton nominations for her entire four-year term?

I know the current line Republicans are drawing is just the third year of a President's term, but there's not reason it cannot be extended: Second half of a President's term? Entire President's term? What's the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much sanctimonious b-s about the senate doing its duty, etc.

I am a liberal and if someone like a Ginsburg were to retire or die, I'd want a Democratic senate to use every available means to block the nomination if the president were Republican - and if the vacancy occurred in an election year.

It is just politics and both sides indulge in this sort of thing. It is the reason why Schumer essentially talked about blocking nominations under GWB after Roberts and Alito were appointed and turned out to be even more conservative than was anticipated.

I'm a liberal Democrat, but if the roles were reversed and a good moderate judge by a Republican were nominated I'd have no reason to complain. But current Republican party would try and get a Scalia-clone and I would not be OK with that.

This is a great move by Obama. I think another swing judge is probably a good thing for the court, and America. When Hillary is President she can nominate a solid liberal replacement for Ginsberg.

[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.

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.

Those who voted against him said it was because they didn't want anyone else on the circuit, not because if his qualifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much sanctimonious b-s about the senate doing its duty, etc.

I am a liberal and if someone like a Ginsburg were to retire or die, I'd want a Democratic senate to use every available means to block the nomination if the president were Republican - and if the vacancy occurred in an election year.

It is just politics and both sides indulge in this sort of thing. It is the reason why Schumer essentially talked about blocking nominations under GWB after Roberts and Alito were appointed and turned out to be even more conservative than was anticipated.

OK, here's a hypothetical for you and everyone else: Let's say (1) Trump gets elected president, (2) the Democrats take back the Senate, and (3) Ginsburg dies on his first day in office. Would the Democrats in the Senate be acting appropriately and fulfilling their duty if they say, "Nope, we consider Trump an ideologue and a charlatan, so we're not going to consider any Supreme Court nominee he offers. We'll just wait until the next President arrives in 2020 to replace Ginsburg." Justifiable in your worldview?

FWIW, you could easily flip that hypothetical too: Would a Republican Senate in 2017 be justified in refusing to consider any Hillary Clinton nominations for her entire four-year term?

I know the current line Republicans are drawing is just the third year of a President's term, but there's not reason it cannot be extended: Second half of a President's term? Entire President's term? What's the difference?

To respond to your question, if Trump or Cruz were elected and wanted to replace a Ginsberg with a hardline conservative, I'd hope that the Democrats would use every available means to prevent the nomination going through. But I'd want them to confirm a more middle of the road candidate even if the individual were less liberal than Ginsberg.

If Hillary were elected, I'd expect the Republicans to also try and prevent a very liberal judge but would expect them to be receptive to a middle of the road candidate.

The reality is that the Senate has an "advise and consent" role and how that term is interpreted is in the eye of the beholder - which means that politics does come into play.

In many ways, I wish appointments to the Supreme court were not as polarized to a point where one has a liberal bloc and a conservative bloc. It would be great if those on the court were judges whose vote would not be taken for granted based on their judicial philosophy. More justices similar to Kennedy who vote on both sides of issues - especially on social issues would be more preferable than what we have today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama's timing is brilliant. The day after Hillary effectively locks up the democratic nomination, he makes sure the Republican establishment will be fighting battles on three fronts: against Trump, against Hillary, and against a Supreme Court nominee.

Except I'm quite positive that our "do as I say, not as I do" president admonished the nation not to politicize this process...

More liberal hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To respond to your question, if Trump or Cruz were elected and wanted to replace a Ginsberg with a hardline conservative, I'd hope that the Democrats would use every available means to prevent the nomination going through. But I'd want them to confirm a more middle of the road candidate even if the individual were less liberal than Ginsberg.

If Hillary were elected, I'd expect the Republicans to also try and prevent a very liberal judge but would expect them to be receptive to a middle of the road candidate.

The reality is that the Senate has an "advise and consent" role and how that term is interpreted is in the eye of the beholder - which means that politics does come into play.

In many ways, I wish appointments to the Supreme court were not as polarized to a point where one has a liberal bloc and a conservative bloc. It would be great if those on the court were judges whose vote would not be taken for granted based on their judicial philosophy. More justices similar to Kennedy who vote on both sides of issues - especially on social issues would be more preferable than what we have today.

I posed the hypothetical. I agree with your wish that both R and D would work together to fill the Court with moderate judges, and not ideologues. But unfortunately that's not where we are, and it's not where we've been for a long, long time. Republicans are refusing to consider anyone at all in Obama's third year. My question for anyone who thinks that's acceptable is: "Where do you draw the line? Would it be acceptable for the Senate to refuse all nominees for a President's entire four-year term?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama's timing is brilliant. The day after Hillary effectively locks up the democratic nomination, he makes sure the Republican establishment will be fighting battles on three fronts: against Trump, against Hillary, and against a Supreme Court nominee.

Except I'm quite positive that our "do as I say, not as I do" president admonished the nation not to politicize this process...

More liberal hypocrisy.

He appointed a clear moderate. How does that "politicize the process"?