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.

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.

You mean like African American people?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You mean like Obama's other nominees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor? You are an idiot.

Why nominate someone so old? I am in favor of fixed terms for justices, but until we get them why not nominate someone younger?

Why not nominate someone who is brings something new to the court? I would like to see a diversity of viewpoints represented on the court. Garland is very middle of the road (has he ever supported a criminal defendant against the government?) with the same professional/personal background as everyone else on the court.

The pick is essentially giving the Republicans the candidate that is attractive to them as possible (w/r/t to both age and ideology) short of nominating O'Connor-- if you think that's a good strategy then you should be happy with it, but I disagree with that strategy.

The Senate is not going to give him a hearing, and there is no reason for them not to do so. The candidate is attractive, unobjectionable. They will object anyway.

You don't need to worry that Garland is not brown enough or liberal enough, he will not be confirmed. What he is, is prestigious enough to weather a nomination without destroying his career.

The President chooses someone in his 60's with no known position on abortion or the death penalty, i.e., about as non-political a choice as he could come up with. McConnell reacts by accusing the President of politicizing the choice. That's like Trump accusing Kasich of sensationalizing the GOP primary campaign!

Anonymous wrote:

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

You mean like Obama's other nominees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor? You are an idiot.

Why nominate someone so old? I am in favor of fixed terms for justices, but until we get them why not nominate someone younger?

Why not nominate someone who is brings something new to the court? I would like to see a diversity of viewpoints represented on the court. Garland is very middle of the road (has he ever supported a criminal defendant against the government?) with the same professional/personal background as everyone else on the court.

The pick is essentially giving the Republicans the candidate that is attractive to them as possible (w/r/t to both age and ideology) short of nominating O'Connor-- if you think that's a good strategy then you should be happy with it, but I disagree with that strategy.

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.

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

Thanks, daily kos.

Anonymous wrote:The Senate won't confirm him, Clinton will win the White House, the Dems will win the Senate and she will appoint a true liberal who will be confirmed. Thank God Republicans are so stupid.

The GOP has allowed Truml to set its house on fire and McConnell is willing to lose control of the Senate while standing on "principle." Or perhaps he's thinking he's had enough as Majority Leader and is going to scuttle what's left of the party of old white men.

The Senate won't confirm him, Clinton will win the White House, the Dems will win the Senate and she will appoint a true liberal who will be confirmed. Thank God Republicans are so stupid.

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

You mean like Obama's other nominees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor? You are an idiot.

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.

You act as if "legislative weeks" is a meaningful measurement of anything at all. We are not even through the first quarter of 2016. The question is: how long can Republicans continue to stonewall, particularly with Trump leading the their presidential nomination field. What will Republicans in contested Senate seats say when asked, "Are you seriously holding out for the possibility that Trump will pick the next nominee?" To the extent the legislative calendar matters at all, the Republicans should be worried that their stonewalling will stoke popular support for a recess appointment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here it comes. We can't oppose the Wise Latina or Justice Kagen for fear of being labeled a bigot, now we have to step aside and let Judy Garland waltz in without considering his nomination.

A bit early to be drinking this heavily, no?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here it comes. We can't oppose the Wise Latina or Justice Kagen for fear of being labeled a bigot, now we have to step aside and let Judy Garland waltz in without considering his nomination.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are saying that "we" are supposed to confirm Garland. Actually, we just want the Senate to vote on him, yes or more probably no. A hearing, not a confirmation. Asking for a hearing is reasonable, isn't it?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here it comes. We can't oppose the Wise Latina or Justice Kagen for fear of being labeled a bigot, now we have to step aside and let Judy Garland waltz in without considering his nomination.