Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus

[Anonymous]

^^Obama is in the fourth year of his presidency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^Obama is in the fourth year of his presidency.

Correct. Apologies for my typo. I meant "after Obama's third year."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

The Senate can block a nomination for as long as they wish: if it acts in a reckless way the price to be paid would be at the next election where those blocking the confirmation of ANY candidate might have to pay a price - assuming the electorate is disgusted with the behavior.

Blocking any nomination endlessly is indefensible but the price to be exacted would be by the voters.

With regard to the Garland nomination, that is the risk the Republicans face with senate seats that are potentially in play - and they are aware of it.

[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.

Well, I am a liberal and I disagree. I would perhaps be relieved if a Democratic senate did it, but I'd know I was being a hypocrite because it is not the right thing to do. It's the cowardly thing to do. The right thing to do is give the nominee a vote. If he's that bad, don't vote for him. But it's wrong to block even a vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If life experience were the deciding factor for judges, President, or any national elective office, very few of the sitting officials would qualify. All these people are lawyers. Pardon me if I would actually like some smart lawyers on the Supreme Court. I don't want Joe the Plumber deciding major legal questions; I want someone who is trained in the law and brilliant to boot. The highly charged case are the ones anyone can understand -- death penalty, abortion, whatever -- but the majority of the court's decisions concern legal issues that require scholarship and interpretation, not ideology.

In any event, PP, it sounds like you are advocating for judges who are empathetic -- those who may not have lived an experience (because none of us have all lived the same experience) but who can empathize and put themselves in the place of those who have. I happen to agree with that view. And it's why I think Obama's court picks have been excellent. I will note that when Obama articulated this philosophy years ago, the Republicans mocked and derided it.

[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. [/quote}

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really don't understand this objection. You're saying that by virtue of going to a good law school and working as a lawyer in a prestigious position like a judge, the person is too "out of touch" with the common folk to be considered for the Supreme Court, even if they grew up in modest circumstances -- in Sotomayor's case, very modest circumstances.

But who do you think should be appointed then? Someone who went to a less-prestigious law school, just to prove a point? Someone who is not a lawyer and has no experience with the law? who do you think would be an appropriate pick?

[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.

+1

Sotamayor is from a working class/middle class family. Her mom was an LPN and her dad was a tool and die worker. She went to college on a scholarship.

[Anonymous]

The blocking of nominations like this is going to be bad news. You all know politicians and there is no reason to believe that any sort of restraint will be shown if they are not thoroughly chastised for this. Public humiliation is a good thing. Without partisan exception.

If Mitch et al gets away with this, there is nothing to prevent the Senate from doing this to all appointees. All of them. If you think gridlock is bad now, you've seen nothing yet.

[Anonymous]

The GOP has yet to make these government shutdowns work. In the end this will fire up the millennials to show up in droves. The result is that Hillary will win, and maybe McConnell will lose the Senate since he has so many seats to defend this cycle.

My guess is that they back down by October.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Sure why not? It's within their right to do so, like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The blocking of nominations like this is going to be bad news. You all know politicians and there is no reason to believe that any sort of restraint will be shown if they are not thoroughly chastised for this. Public humiliation is a good thing. Without partisan exception.

If Mitch et al gets away with this, there is nothing to prevent the Senate from doing this to all appointees. All of them. If you think gridlock is bad now, you've seen nothing yet.

Would you have felt the same way if it was a Democratic senate blocking the nomination by a Republican president?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The GOP has yet to make these government shutdowns work. In the end this will fire up the millennials to show up in droves. The result is that Hillary will win, and maybe McConnell will lose the Senate since he has so many seats to defend this cycle.

My guess is that they back down by October.

Eh. Didn't hurt them before. Won't hurt them now. Elections are local, nobody's going to fire their senator because of Garland.

[Anonymous]

So maybe the solution here is that Obama should just use his military powers or some sort of EO to somehow force Congress into recess, and then appoint Garland via a recess appointment. All's fair, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It just reiterates the continued exclusion of Protestants and those who haven't gone to elite law schools from the Supreme Court. You'd have four Jews and five Catholics on the court, all products of Harvard, Yale or Columbia Law School. Their life experiences have very little in common with the growing number of Americans who feel completely disenfranchised and shut out under Obama, and strongly believe things would be no different with Hillary.

I understand the concern with too little diversity on the Court (I'm a Catholic and think there are too many Catholics on the Court now -- it's a little ridiculous.) But I TOTALLY don't get the concern with having jurists that went to the best law schools. I'm from a middle or working class family from fly-over nowheres-ville. I worked hard and studied and went to one of those law schools. And, while there were lots of ritzy folks from Manhattan there, there were also plenty of regular folks from all sorts of walks of life there. Should we pass by the people with the best credentials and take people from inferior law schools just because we're looking for "regular folk"? I mean, honestly, would you want "regular folk" performing brain surgery on you? No, you would want the person that trained at Harvard or Hopkins or wherever fancy brain surgeons train. We have a system whereby "regular folk" get input into the government -- that's called elections.