Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus

[Anonymous]

Just read an article about Garland's daughters. Both went to Sidwell and then Yale ... natch.

[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.

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.

The difference is that the Democrats did a lot of barking but ultimately upheld the Constitution and confirmed the nominees. The Republicans on the other hand are unwilling to uphold their Constitutional responsibility and duty.

[Anonymous]

On another note, I saw Garland in two of Shakespeare Theatre's Mock Trials along with Ginsburg and Breyer and he was pretty funny.

[Anonymous]

Susan Collins is in favor of holding hearings. Any other Republicans saying the same or is she the only one so far?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes they can try to block it. But these are the senate seats up for re-election in 2016:

[Anonymous]

I don't get not letting the process go forward- the Republicans have a majority, they can just vote him down. What's the point in making a circus out of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just read an article about Garland's daughters. Both went to Sidwell and then Yale ... natch.

I wish I was jewish. i feel so dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get not letting the process go forward- the Republicans have a majority, they can just vote him down. What's the point in making a circus out of it?

Ask Mitch. Only he knows.

[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.

The GOP -- which controls the Senate, the House, and a large majority of state governorships and assemblies -- has yet to make these government shutdowns work. That party -- which controls the Senate, the House, and a large majority of state governorships and assemblies -- is in disarray.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes they can try to block it. But these are the senate seats up for re-election in 2016:

A meaningless map: what matters is which seats are at risk. Now the Republicans have several vulnerable seats but most of the seats are safe.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On another note, I saw Garland in two of Shakespeare Theatre's Mock Trials along with Ginsburg and Breyer and he was pretty funny.

^^^ All you need to know, in one nice little sentence. ^^^

[Anonymous]

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?

I had a Republican judge tell me in January 1997, pretty much the first week of Clinton's second term, that he thought the Senate could and should just refuse to confirm judges for four years. I had another Republican judge on the same court tell me, "You know what advise and consent means? It means we get to pick half of them."

They just make this shit up as they go along.

[Anonymous]

He is 63 and a placeholder until we get through the end of Obama and the fur years of Trump. Then the Dems can put in someone more long term.

[Anonymous]

Could the Senate Republicans be thinking, stall until the election in November, if Clinton wins, they confirm Garland (to deny Clinton the opportunity to nominate someone more liberal) and if Trump wins they stall until after he takes office.