General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING: President Obama going with Merrick Garland for SCOTUS
...per AP
Merrick Brian Garland (born November 13, 1952) is the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Early life, education and legal training
Garland was born in Chicago, Illinois. His mother, Shirley (née Horwitz), was a director of volunteer services, and his father, Cyril Garland, headed Garland Advertising in Chicago. Garland grew up in Lincolnwood, Illinois, graduated eighth grade from Lincoln Hall Middle School, and graduated high-school from Niles West High School in Skokie, Illinois, in 1970. He was named one of 119 members of the Presidential Scholars Program by the Commission on Presidential Scholars, and he came with that group to the White House on June 4, 1970 to listen to a special address in the East Room of the White House to the group by President Richard Nixon. Garland also was named a National Merit Scholar.
Garland graduated valedictorian from Harvard College with an A.B. summa cum laude in social studies in 1974 and then graduated from Harvard Law School with a J.D. magna cum laude in 1977.[6] During law school, Garland was a member of the Harvard Law Review and served as articles editor from 1976 to 1977. Following graduation, he clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1977 to 1978, and then clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. from 1978 to 1979.
Professional career
Garland was Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States from 1979 to 1981. He then joined the law firm of Arnold & Porter, where he was a partner from 1985 to 1989 and from 1992 to 1993. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1989 to 1992, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1993 to 1994. From 1994 until his appointment as U.S. Circuit Judge, Judge Garland served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, where his responsibilities included the supervision of the Oklahoma City bombing and UNABOM prosecutions. One of Garland's mentors, according to a July 6, 1995 Los Angeles Times article, was then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick.
Garland has taught antitrust law at Harvard Law School and has served as co-chair of the administrative law section of the District of Columbia Bar.
Federal judicial service
On September 6, 1995, President Bill Clinton nominated Garland to the D.C. Circuit seat vacated by Abner J. Mikva.
Garland received a hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on December 1, 1995. However, his nomination languished under the Republican-controlled Senate until after the 1996 election. At the time of his nomination, many Republican senators cited as their reason for objecting to his nomination the fact that they did not believe that the D.C. Circuit needed an additional judge.
After winning the 1996 presidential election, Clinton renominated Garland on January 7, 1997. Garland was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1997 in a 76-23 vote and received his commission on March 20. He became Chief Judge on February 12, 2013.
Supreme Court
He was widely seen as a leading contender for a nomination to the Supreme Court in the Obama administration following the announced retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. On March 4, 2016, The New York Times reported that Judge Garland was being vetted by the Obama administration as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Judicial philosophy
Considered a judicial moderate,[15] Garland told senators during his U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1995 that the U.S. Supreme Court justice for whom he had the greatest admiration was Chief Justice John Marshall, and that he had personal affection for the justice for whom he clerked, Justice William Brennan. "Everybody, I think, who hopes to become a judge would aspire to be able to write as well as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes," Garland told the committee at that time. "None are going to be able to attain that. But I'll try at leastif confirmedto be as brief and pithy as he is."
Hufaiza Parhat v. Gates
On June 23, 2008 it was announced that a three judge panel of the D.C. circuit, made up of David B. Sentelle, Garland, and Thomas B. Griffith, overturned the determination of Hufaiza Parhat's Combatant Status Review Tribunal.[16] Parhat's was the first case to be ruled on since the Supreme Court's ruling in Boumediene v. Bush. However, the ruling was made under a section of the Detainee Treatment Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland
RandySF
(58,799 posts)I was hoping he would appoint someone that excited the progressive base.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)how many far left judges out there that are qualified and would "energize the base"??
Obama can make some futile attempt to find a hardcore liberal who would get rejected in 30 seconds, or he can play the long game and set up the GOP to slit their own throats this November....
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Plain and simple. I think we're mostly the same kind of people who basically think the same way and basically want the same things. Only he's on the inside and knows 1000 times more than I do about all facets of this. Oh, 10,000 times -- Obama's a constitutional scholar on top of everything else.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)is no surprise because big money always gets every single thing it wants under BO.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)It is obvious to me that ignorance manifesting as excessive cynicism is just as big a limitation to understanding as ignorance manifesting as excessive gullibility.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)But I understand that it is the only thing you had to work with since I am right.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to get at least one foot back on the ground. It's considered pretty moderate, so it doesn't routinely hide large blocks of reality that might contradict far left or far right ideologies. There are many, many others, of course, but one could start there and follow the links...
(Sarah Palin might have offended the hard right by claiming she read The Atlantic, but she would have fooled others into thinking she wasn't as dumb as they thought.)
This article from January addresses your concerns, giving background from before Scalia's death, but won't offend you by pretending we don't have to worry about reinforcement of money in politics.
The U.S. Supreme Court Can Still Take Big Money Out of Politics
Who the next president appoints to the Supreme Court could revolutionizeor reinforcebig moneys dominance of political campaigns.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/campaign-finance-supreme-court/423567/
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)to the left rather than the right (which happens in every one of his magical chess games) then there will not be anything new in it.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)won't cite ALL the times.
"There are few issues in the last decade on which the Court has been so consistently and bitterly divided as it has over campaign-finance law. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently decried what has happened to elections in the United States and the huge amount of money it takes to run for office. She argued that eventually, sensible restrictions on campaign financing will again be in place because the true symbol of the United States is not the eagle, its the pendulumwhen it swings too far in one direction, it will swing back.
On the Court, that swing back only requires one new or existing justice to adopt the approach of four current members. A shift in the Court could permit reasonable regulation of big money in politics. To be sure, state and federal legislators would need to pass new laws to regain the ground that has been lost, and mere reversal of campaign-finance decisions of the last decade would not solve all of the problems of excessive influence. Because of older Supreme Court decisions, for example, new laws still could not limit the total amount of spending in any election.
... By contrast, appointment of one or more justices who share the vision of the Courts four-member minority could bring substantial power over elections and the political process back to ordinary Americans."
This last was, of course, before Scalia providentially dropped dead. We now know that our liberal Democratic president will hopefully be able to appoint that fifth justice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You put up a consensus moderate appointee ... when the gop makes good on their promise to NOT give him a hearing, we shine the light on the fact that the gop is going against what the majority of Americans want ... which is campaign material for Senate races.
If the gop balks and give him a hearing, they then have to explain why he was good enough for the DC Court of Appeals, but not the SCOTUS. AND the explanation has to be strong enough overcome their "We will not seat a Justice on your watch" position ... again, pissing off the American electorate.
If they give him a hearing and cannot find a suitable explanation, we get a Justice who will, at a minimum, swing the court to the left.
Great strategy.
And further, putting him out there first ... as the sacrificial, least liberal, lamb ... we still have the more progressive candidates to advance.
Again, Great Strategy.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)also having a terrible time as his line keeps threatening to break on him. Bless his empty, power-hungry heart.
7962
(11,841 posts)Now watch the GOP just knock over the table!!
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)... to say nothing of having the entire senate having an up and down vote.
Anyone that excited the progressive base would have resulted in zero action in the senate.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The GOP will drag their feet. The will not let this get near an actual floor vote.
That is UNTIL they think they can predict the outcome of the general election. At that point, if it looks like Trump/Hillary is going to appoint someone, they'll make a determination of which one will give them their better choice. If it is Hillary, they'll probably approve whomever Obama appoints, because Hillary will either re-appoint them, or appoint a more liberal choice.
If it is Trump, they'll be concerned that the dems will be in a position to block any "conservative" choice, and so they'll get someone more moderate.
Either way, there is little to be lost by appointing someone both younger and more liberal than this choice. If they get confirmed, it won't be because of who THEY are, but because of who the potential president is. If they don't get confirmed, it's because NO ONE was going to get confirmed.
And quite honestly, it is probably as valuable to us that they make a huge mockery of the whole process because we can use it on the down ticket races to get more seats back in the senate. The GOP have calculated that they could lose the senate with this, in combination with Trump, and they are ready to do that. I think we should take them up on that.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)months to go by appointing a Right Wing ideologist to SCOTUS After campaigning on "Change We can Believe in "
in 2008 Obama began filling his cabinet with Republicans and leftovers from Bush.
So this appointment should come as no surprise.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Concerning how the guy was totally for the Big Tobacco Firm of RJ Reynolds.
So apparently he will not be too good to us pesty consumers.
And I suspect he will also be very much in the pocket of Monsanto, just like Kagen and Sotomayor.
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)Being qualified, competent, balanced and fair is more important than being exciting.
RandySF
(58,799 posts)The Republicans won't budget so I figured nominate someone that could put turnout in key Senate races.
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)I think you mean 'budge'.
elljay
(1,178 posts)How many people are there who are not motivated to vote because of the prospect of President Trump but who are by the appointment of a progressive Justice? Being a flaming liberal myself, of course I would love to have a SCOTUS packed with justices who agree with me. Being realistic, however, I recognize that Attila the Hun is to the left of Scalia, so Garland will improve the court 1000%.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's the Senate that gets to consent. The Senate we have today. Not an imaginary one made up of Bernies.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)by tricking the Right into going along with a nominee they like. He's sure a crafty devil!
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Garland was confirmed 76-23.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)Whoever gets put forth, no matter how qualified, is going to be ripped to shreds.
brooklynite
(94,535 posts)the new balance is an Obama choice now vs a Clinton choice supported by a D Senate next year.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)take a chance on Hillary and a Dem majority.
If they do, I will attribute that to some fancy footwork between Hillary and Obama, because she came out talking about Obama appointing a true progressive, and they may just decide that they can't take the chance they'd lose the Senate and have to deal with her nominee.
Win/win.
7962
(11,841 posts)The wise thing is to confirm someone many of them already confirmed for his current post, but they'd prefer to look like idiots
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)What fool thinks that?
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)brooklynite
(94,535 posts)WI, IL, OH, NH
...with several other strong prospects.
I speak from experience; I've talked to DSCC and all of our candidates.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)And, I also speak from experience.
brooklynite
(94,535 posts)...if you'd care to offer your own data and analysis, rather than just saying "no"/
gabeana
(3,166 posts)that thinks they are smarter than everybody else, they don't need to provide any evidence
because polling shows that if Trump or Cruz get the Repug nom, we the Dems reclaim the Senate
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/08/democrats-favored-win-senate-trump-cruz.html
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Maybe Wi will come to their senses
It can be done
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Tell me, how is Ron Johnson going to get re-elected? What about Kirk? Ayotte?
I'll wait. I'm fascinated to hear your arguments.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Democratic turnout will be low and the Republican turnout will be high. Pretty simple.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)....choice didn't make it to the GE. If we want to let the GOP continue with trying to shut down the government....well, that is our choice too.
GOTV.
Greybnk48
(10,168 posts)It's too early in the day for me to laugh as hard as I just did, Tommy! OMG!
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)FreedomRain
(413 posts)or maybe it just wants to be fed, idk, it's my favorite line from the movie
LAGC
(5,330 posts)By putting this moderate out here, he can expose the GOP for the unreasonable partisan hacks that they are.
This will hurt their chances in retaining control of the Senate.
And once they lose control of the Senate, a real liberal can be nominated next year instead.
The GOP had better tread carefully. This is their only shot at stopping a complete liberal take-over of the SCOTUS. Of course, they are going to blow it and not let this judge be confirmed.
BeyondGeography
(39,371 posts)It's also fair to the nominee and non-nominees alike. He is older and it's his last chance. A younger nominee would have been potentially scarred and damaged for life by this process.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)MBS
(9,688 posts)exboyfil
(17,863 posts)I think it is a good club to use.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)No matter what they do, I don't see an upside for them.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)That the repubs are obstructionists and irrational?
Meldread
(4,213 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)But Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalias most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland
Obama wants the nomination to fail? Or give Clinton cover so she can argue two positions again? Probably the latter. Or... I don't even want to think about that.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i understand he might be doing this to expose the blatant obstructionism of the gop, but i am sick of the games. we know the gop is obstructionist.
he is out the door next year anyway. wish that one time before he leaves, he would show some courage and go for broke.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Strategy is what is requires for Democrats to win.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)they stand for the right values, whether you call it games or strategy, imo is a risky move and a shitty thing to do to your base.
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)The president is not elected to do things for his base. The president is elected to do things for all Americans.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)ananda
(28,859 posts)From Martin Gardner in the Annotated Alice, fn, pp. 208-9:
So many memorable passages have been written in which life itself is compared to an enormous game of chess .... Sometimes the players are men themselves, seeking to manipulate their fellow-men as one manipulates chess pieces. The following passage is from George Eliot's Felix Holt:
"Fancy what a game of chess would be if all the chessmen had passions and intellects, more or less small and cunning; if you were not only uncertain about your adversary's men, but a little uncertain also about your own; if your Knight could shuffle himself on to a new square on the sly; if your Bishop, in disgust at your Castling, could wheedle your Pawns out of their places; and if your Pawns, hating you because they are Pawns, could make away from their appointed posts that you might get checkmate on a sudden. You might be the longest-headed of deductive reasoners, and yet you might be beaten by your own Pawns. You would be especially likely to be beaten, if you depended arrogantly on your mathematical imagination, and regarded your passionate pieces with contempt.
" Yet this imaginary chess is easy compared with a game a man has to play against his fellow-men with other fellow-men for his instruments . . . "
Sometimes the players are God and Satan. William James dallies with this theme in his essay on "The Dilemma of Determinism," and H. G. Wells echoes it in the prologue of his fine novel about education, The Undying Fire. Like the Book of Job on which it is modeled, Wells' story opens with a conversation between God and the devil. They are playing chess.
"But the chess they play is not the little ingenious game that originated in India; it is on an altogether different scale. The Ruler of the Universe creates the board, the pieces, and the rules; he makes all the moves; he may make as many moves as he likes whenever he likes; his antagonist, however, is permitted to introduce a slight inexplicable inaccuracy into each move, which necessitates further moves in correction. The Creator determines and conceals the aim of the game, and it is never clear whether the purpose of the adversary is to defeat or assist him in his unfathomable project. Apparently the adversary cannot win, but also he cannot lose so long as he can keep the game going. But he is concerned, it would seem, in preventing the development of any reasoned scheme in the game."
Sometimes the gods themselves are pieces in a higher game, and the players of this game in turn are pieces in an endless hierarchy of larger chessboards. "And there is merriment overhead," says Mother Sereda, after enlarging on this theme, in James Branch Campbell's Jurgen, "but it is very far away."
SHRED
(28,136 posts)If that's what Obama did then again he is dissing the Progressive base of his party.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)21st Century Poet
(254 posts)For good or ill, the Constitution dictates that the Senate has to be consulted. There is legally a difference between party and senate, even if a party happens to control the senate.
Just as the president represents all Americans and not just those of his party, the senate represents a majority of people and not just those belonging to its party.
My point is that if Mr Obama consulted the senate to make his choice, he was simply doing what the constitution demands of him. He didn't consult the GOP. He consulted the Senate. That the senate happens to be controlled by the GOP is legally and technically immaterial.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Senate Democrats got 20 million more votes than Senate Republicans
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/senate-democrats-got-20-million-more-votes-than-senate-republicans-which-means-basically-nothing/
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)Legally and technically, the Senate majority represents the majority of people. The title of the article that you linked to says it best when it says that the 20 million "mean basically nothing."
I'm not necessarily saying that the current system is necessarily the best one but that's the way it is.
Democat
(11,617 posts)The minority Democrats represent the majority of Americans.
Look at the vote totals.
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)It's the number of seats that matter. That's how the system is.
Democat
(11,617 posts)It doesn't mean they represent the majority of Americans. Republicans still represent a minority of Americans.
Democrats got far more votes.
RAFisher
(466 posts)Obama was democratically elected by the people. But so were the 54 GOP senators in the Senate. If people wanted a more liberal justice then more people should have voted for Democrats in 2010 & 2014. I don't say that with pleasure but that's the system we have. Obama picked someone who he thought GOP senators would support.
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)The Senate has no real excuse for not appointing the nominee now other than being deliberately obstructionist. People will not look kindly on the GOP Senate majority if they are.
If Mr Obama had chosen an extremely liberal judge, people would say that he is being deliberately provocative and uncooperative with the Senate majority. Then the Senate would be excused for not cooperating.
Mr Obama has fulfilled his Constitutional duty and thrown the ball into the Senate's court. A wise move perfectly adapted to the current (difficult) circumstances.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)...an accomplished juror who knows what's at stake.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Well that's just fucking terrible. Not that I expected it not to be but... yet another crushing disappointment.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)New blood is needed.
Retrograde
(10,136 posts)but yeah, enough Harvard already.
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)New blood for the sake of new blood does not make sense. Are you suggesting that people who graduated from Harvard stop being considered for public posts simply because they graduated from Harvard? Surely you can see that that is illogical. It's about whether he is qualified, competent, balanced, fair and has a good track record not whether he graduated from Harvard or not.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)There is an intellectual monoculture as well as eastcoast high church point of view and belief system that most of the rest of the country does not share. Intellectual diversity is important.
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)So you are saying that judges who went to Harvard and Yale should automatically be excluded, irrespective of their background, intellect, talent, qualifications and experience.
For how long should the moratorium on Harvard and Yale educated judges last?
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Maybe five. If you can't see the damage that having a tiny self selected group set the legal policy of a large nation then you are unfit to comment on these matters.
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)So you are saying that if X is more qualified, experienced and intelligent than Y, Y should still be chosen because he or she went to the right school (let's face it, probably an inferior one) and X didn't.
There are two problems with that: first, it is discriminatory, and second, dropping standards to meet some arbitrary diversity quota does not make sense.
Apart from different schools, should they also be chosen according to race, gender, state, sexual orientation, hairstyle, music they listen to and a number of other arbitrary diversity criteria? Why not throw in profession into the mix? Most people are not judges so why stuff the supreme court with them? Throw in a mechanic and a hotel receptionist in there. It's not merit that we are after, after all but diversity.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)21st Century Poet
(254 posts)Why is your arbitrary standard of diversity more important than competence, qualifications, talent and experience?
My reasoning is crystal clear. I do not care who the nominee is, what the nominee looks like, where the nominee comes from or which school the nominee went to.
I just want the most qualified person for the job. Why don't you?
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)It just means they are inside the clique.
As a practicing trial lawyer for more than a quarter century, do you know what I see when my opponents are Harvard and Yale grads? I see victims. I have not, and seeing as how I am retiring in August, will never lose to an Ivy League lawyer. They know the right people. I know where Mary Seat of Wisdom Parish is.
I am retiring off of Ivy League arrogance..
elljay
(1,178 posts)and I agree with you about the arrogance of many Ivy League (and Stanford) grads. I turned down an Ivy League school and have a degree from a state university. Does that make me less smart or capable? Some of the smartest, most competent people I know had to go to state and less prestigious schools because they had severe financial issues. I would dearly love to see a justice who went to community college, transferred to a state school, and then completed law school at night because s/he was working to pay for tuition.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Here we go with the moderate b/s again.Just remember the reason Ginsburg wouldn't retire from the court is because she didn't think Obama would replace her with another progressive.Looks like she's 110% right
morningfog
(18,115 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)with a liberal justice, but that the Senate would not confirm one.
http://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-explains-why-she-wont-retire-272876
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Scalia 50
Thomas 43
Roberts 50
The way you keep SCOTUS Liberal or Conservative for a generation is to appoint young ideologues. Yeah, if I'm a R, I'd take it in a minute.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)He figured the GOP would have less reason to oppose a 63-year-old and risk a more liberal and/or younger appointee next year.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)Harvard valedictorian and Presidential Scholar, this guy had serious IQ points going in. He'll be hard for the RW to punch holes in his resume. Pretty much all they'll have is "Lame duck!"
Not to toot my own horn, but was in that Scholars group with him. Don't recall him being one of the dozen or so I got to know during the events leading up to the ceremony at the WH. Remember ones from Idaho, New York, and Arkansas, but not Illinois. Still have my bronze medallion.
Happenstance24
(193 posts)the truth is he could nominate Jesus Christ and Pugs would vote him down. Let's be realistic. What young liberal up and coming judge is gonna agree to be a punching bag that is ultimately destined to fail anyway?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Nominate the most die hard liberal you can find. If they won't confirm ANYONE, what difference does it make? Furthermore, once Clinton wins and they have to confirm HER choice, it only makes them look that much more obstructive.
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)Finding anyone who would accept to be nominated must have been extremely hard. The nominee accepted only because he doesn't mind being shot down. He knows his nomination will most probably not be accepted. Most judges would simply not want to go through that.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I'm sorry if he finds the job too hard, but none the less I expect him to do it exceptionally well.
Believe me, there are plenty of people who would be willing to have half a go at being an SC judge. There are 3 possible outcomes and really only one of them is particularly bad. Remember, these folks tend to be federal judges that already have lifetime appointments. And being the first nominee means there's a good chance you'll be re-nominated in January by President Clinton. Furthermore, a real firebrand liberal would probably realize this is their best chance, if any, of actually getting nominated, much less approved.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)the lame duck Senate decides to approve this candidate (older, moderate and Republican) rather than whoever the new President nominates in 2017.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)The GOP will look like fools trying to block this guy.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...it makes us all here in the Democratic Party all warm and fuzzy when GOP politics influences his choice rather than choosing a Progressive to satisfy his own party for a change.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Elections have consequences.
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)The president is elected to take the best possible decisions for the whole country according to the circumstances, and in the current circumstances, with the senate as it is, a moderate nominee for the Supreme Court makes more sense than a progressive. The president represents the country first and foremost. Representing the party is a secondary and separate role.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)That a SCOTUS justice should be chosen to satisfy either political party?
We decry a partisan judiciary in then call for the same.
a kennedy
(29,658 posts)CincyDem
(6,356 posts)Like most, I would have liked a more progressive appointment but in today's climate that's not realistic.
So here we have a guy who by all accounts is a brilliant lawyer who doesn't get caught up in ideologies. That last part makes him 1000% better the Scalia. That first part is a benefit since facts usually have a liberal bias.
Worst case - by some f'ing miracle from on high, he gets appointed. That ain't bad.
Best case - we have a nightly report on the "daily flogging" that will make the benghazi committee look like a bunch of rational bipartisans.
When the day is done, the real job is to win the WH and flip the Senate. By this time next year, Garland will be a footnote in history - a brilliant lawyer willing to make his last stand for the possibility of a better country. This election will not be won by democrats or republican entrenched in their party lines. Like most elections, it's going to be the independents who move to the left of the right on a variety of issues. My hope is that civility will win the middle and for all the republican judiciary committee holds in power, it severely lacks in civility. Please let the cold hard light of public scrutiny shine on them.
OhioBlue
(5,126 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)21st Century Poet
(254 posts)Surely you can see that using the term 'terrorist' is going overboard. No buildings have been blown up yet. For good or ill, the senate has to be consulted according to the constitution. Remember that, legally speaking, the president consults the senate (the fact that the president is a Democrat and the senate is under Republican control is immaterial to the constitution).
I think President Obama has made a smart choice and he has made it difficult for the senate (not the GOP) to reject it.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)The Republicans ARE political terrorists. They shut down the government to get their way.
Did you join DU to defend them?
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)First of all, if Mr Obama consulted the Senate, he was fulfilling his constitutional duty so saying that he caved in to the Republican Party is inaccurate because the Senate is not a political party. Not being able to see the difference between constitutional bodies and political parties is a grave political error.
Secondly, I think the President has made a smart choice which is tailor-made for the situation he found himself in. If he had chosen someone who the current Senate obviously cannot confirm, they could say that the choice was made in bad faith. By choosing a moderate, Mr Obama has thrown the ball back into the Senate's court. It will be harder now for the Senate to say'no'.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)houston16revival
(953 posts)a Judge who hikes in parks
bad bad bad
I actually don't expect the Senate GOP to move AT ALL on this nominee
They are liars if they do, and losers if they don't
And they put themselves in this predicament
If this gets stalled and Dems win the White House, Judge Garland should be
renominated in 2017. It would be like saying to McConnell
"What good did all that DRAMA do you?"
SHRED
(28,136 posts)This nomination inspires no Progressives.
Democat
(11,617 posts)Otherwise they may get another Scalia.
Autumn
(45,071 posts)Should be able to get this one past the pukes.
MBS
(9,688 posts)Excellent how he mentioned the previous praise for Garland from Orrin Hatch and John Roberts, and especially the unanimous, bipartisan support that Garland received for his appointment to the DC court
Also pleased how Obama educated folks on the importance of an independent judiciary that transcends politics, and how emphasized the vital importance - to the country and to the constitution- of the senate doing its job, thus exposing any obstruction attempt by the Senate for the short-sighted, baldly political, baldly partisan and fundamentally unpatriotic stunt that it is.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...Repubs are obstructionist jerks and we need to be convinced further.
I'm not buying that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)As usual, President Obama is on top of things!
SHRED
(28,136 posts)With this nomination Obama continues this tradition.
Hekate
(90,674 posts)...and in a sane world would be a shoo-in. Now the jokers who said they wouldn't even take a look at ANYone put forward by Obama are staring a possible Clinton presidency in the face and some of them can see their own re-election bids are shaky. Must suck to be them.
mvd
(65,173 posts)I have been right most times, I can at least see why he is doing this. He's hoping it helps either Hillary or Bernie in the general election if the Repukes obstruct him. If they don't obstruct, we get the seat filled with a moderate who won't be there forever. I haven't been able to find Garland's bad decisions yet, so have yet to develop a firm opinion.
struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)at Harvard
He's qualified
But the current Republicans aren't looking a qualified judge: they want a confederate-flag-waving sovereign citizen armed with an automatic weapon, who remembers America as it was for thousands of years after Jesus wrote the constitution, before all those Indians came here from Mexico and before all those blacks came here from Africa -- back when a man and his horse could relax by the campfire after a long day and watch re-runs of Howdy Doody
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)SusanLarson
(284 posts)If I was Obama I would inform congress that a lack of a hearing and up or down vote in a reasonable amount of time will be considered consent.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)n/t
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)is even more conservative. Stop rewarding conservatives with your vote and cash and we will see change. Until then you are just part of the problem.
This choice lends more credibility to third way and the fuckfest they engage in against the middle class and below.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)eilen
(4,950 posts)Justice Roberts likes him!
So much for the SCOTUS strategy.