Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brooklynite

(94,535 posts)
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:01 AM Mar 2016

BREAKING: 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 least—if confirmed—to 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

135 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BREAKING: President Obama going with Merrick Garland for SCOTUS (Original Post) brooklynite Mar 2016 OP
God, how boring. RandySF Mar 2016 #1
Why? So the senate can vote a unanimous NO? Blue_Tires Mar 2016 #10
You're right. He should have just let McConnell pick for him tkmorris Mar 2016 #16
You'd like that, wouldn't you? Blue_Tires Mar 2016 #19
No, YOU are the one who thinks Repubs opinion should decide this tkmorris Mar 2016 #50
So tell me, genius Blue_Tires Mar 2016 #67
Politics played with head and bricks is always good! randome Mar 2016 #78
I agree with your assessment. I so hope we are right about this... CTyankee Mar 2016 #79
I trust Obama's judgement. Hortensis Mar 2016 #90
I trust him to do what he wants, which in this case is to appoint a corporatist judge, which GoneFishin Mar 2016 #127
IMO, very foolish. Maybe widen your sources of information? Hortensis Mar 2016 #128
Wow. You totally convinced me with your condescending tone. Oh, wait, no you didn't. GoneFishin Mar 2016 #129
I recommend The Atlantic as one counterbalance Hortensis Mar 2016 #132
Unless it cites all of the times that Obama's elevendy dimensional chess moves required him to move GoneFishin Mar 2016 #133
No, it's not a right-wing rag, and even one of those Hortensis Mar 2016 #134
Spot on ... 1StrongBlackMan Mar 2016 #101
Yes. Great strategy. McConnell is hurting. He is Hortensis Mar 2016 #130
Obama has made a great chess move. 7962 Mar 2016 #114
LOL still_one Mar 2016 #34
yep. LOL. Rocket surgeons at work. GoneFishin Mar 2016 #131
Boring would have been the Senate judiciary committee not even having hearings let alone a vote... stevenleser Mar 2016 #30
Regardless, this is how it plays out zipplewrath Mar 2016 #55
Well why would we expect anything different from Obama with just INdemo Mar 2016 #117
And I didn't find a single word inside the OP's resume truedelphi Mar 2016 #125
The court is not a What-the-Butler-Saw machine 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #53
I'll be the first to admit I wanted to play politics with it. RandySF Mar 2016 #54
Budge or budget? 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #63
Let's be realistic elljay Mar 2016 #122
More unrealistic demands treestar Mar 2016 #110
He's gotta prove his prowess Plucketeer Mar 2016 #124
I'm a bit surprised at that. I thought he'd nominate the person that was confirmed 97-0. PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #2
He might as well nominate the goat from Jurassic Park. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2016 #3
Some are not so sure now... brooklynite Mar 2016 #4
If the Senate is capable of a smart move, they will confirm rather than Lucinda Mar 2016 #11
But the Senate leadership isnt capable of a smart move. 7962 Mar 2016 #115
LOL! No chance the D's take back the Senate. Dawgs Mar 2016 #14
Actually there is a decent chance of that tkmorris Mar 2016 #18
I obviously disagree. n/t Dawgs Mar 2016 #23
We are aheasd in four of the five States we need pickups from... brooklynite Mar 2016 #26
Still disagree. Dawgs Mar 2016 #28
A more informed discussion could be had... brooklynite Mar 2016 #32
Nah this poster is one of those gabeana Mar 2016 #44
IL is looking good Person 2713 Mar 2016 #51
FL has a chance, too RockaFowler Mar 2016 #52
Actually....we have a decent chance of it. nt msanthrope Mar 2016 #61
Your slip is showing by the minute ProudToBeBlueInRhody Mar 2016 #71
It's not hard. Dawgs Mar 2016 #93
We can do it if we all focus on downticket races and not stay home because our preferred Prez.... Hekate Mar 2016 #83
ROTFLMAO!! Greybnk48 Mar 2016 #12
................ Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2016 #25
GOP does not want to be fed, it wants to hunt FreedomRain Mar 2016 #97
Obama knows whoever he nominates will be obstructed. LAGC Mar 2016 #5
A rational choice that puts a spotlight on irrationality BeyondGeography Mar 2016 #7
^^^This!^^^ Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #45
EXACTLY right. n/t MBS Mar 2016 #70
Agree totally exboyfil Mar 2016 #8
They will be in trouble either way. Lucinda Mar 2016 #13
There are still people that need to be convinced? SHRED Mar 2016 #36
Ugh. Disgusting. I hope Republicans block him, and we can actually get a liberal instead. eom Meldread Mar 2016 #6
When people don't trust their govt don't you think their support of the 2nd amendment increases? Skwmom Mar 2016 #9
another estsblishment white male, wow. restorefreedom Mar 2016 #15
It's not a game, it's political strategy Democat Mar 2016 #35
to me, nominating someone to make a point and not because restorefreedom Mar 2016 #41
Get out of the party mindset. 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #68
and nominating a corporatist is helping whom? nt restorefreedom Mar 2016 #91
11-dimensional chess again? Odin2005 Mar 2016 #96
Lol. Or Looking-glass chess? ananda Mar 2016 #99
Letting the GOP dictate this choice is ugly SHRED Mar 2016 #38
yup. sadly, i cannot say i am at all surprised. nt restorefreedom Mar 2016 #39
It's not the GOP. It's the Senate. 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #60
The Senate Republican majority represents a minority of Americans Democat Mar 2016 #62
That means nothing. 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #64
The Republican majority represents a minority of Americans Democat Mar 2016 #73
The vote totals don't matter. 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #76
The system allows a minority of voters to have a majority of seats Democat Mar 2016 #107
I agree entirely RAFisher Mar 2016 #109
The President made a wise choice. 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #113
This part was interesting: Raine1967 Mar 2016 #17
He sounds pretty good to me from his bio. nt bemildred Mar 2016 #22
A great choice... Octafish Mar 2016 #20
A 64.5 year old Moderate tkmorris Mar 2016 #21
Enough with the Harvard AngryAmish Mar 2016 #24
At least this nominee is from west of the Hudson Retrograde Mar 2016 #49
Harvard is one of the best educational institutions. 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #66
Every justice went to Ivy League, most Harvard and Yale AngryAmish Mar 2016 #85
Should Harvard and Yale students be banned? 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #100
A generation AngryAmish Mar 2016 #102
Why shouldn't merit be the most important prerequisite? 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #103
Yup, unfit. AngryAmish Mar 2016 #104
You are avoiding answering the question. 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #105
Harvard and Yale grads have assigned themselves the titles of "The Most Qualified" AngryAmish Mar 2016 #106
I am also an attorney elljay Mar 2016 #123
The FUCK!!! bigdarryl Mar 2016 #27
When did GInsberg say that? She loves the job. morningfog Mar 2016 #33
IIRC she actually said not that Obama wouldn't replace her truebluegreen Mar 2016 #118
If Obama's going to nominate moderates in their mid-60s, I'd call that bluff WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2016 #29
That was probably part of his calculation democrattotheend Mar 2016 #56
good choice--if confirmed he would be 200% better than Scalia. book_worm Mar 2016 #31
Absolutely and clearly smarter than Roberts/Alito/Thomas combined bigbrother05 Mar 2016 #75
While I'd prefer a younger more liberal judge... Happenstance24 Mar 2016 #37
So what difference will it make zipplewrath Mar 2016 #57
Cut the president some slack. 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #72
Sorry, he asked for the job zipplewrath Mar 2016 #86
What would be worse is if, in the event of a Democratic victory in November, truebluegreen Mar 2016 #119
If the President has nominated Mitch McConnell do you think the senate would have voted him down? nt PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #89
Good solid choice. DCBob Mar 2016 #40
Yeah because... SHRED Mar 2016 #43
The GOP controlled Senate has to be considered on matters like this. DCBob Mar 2016 #47
The president is not elected to satisfy his party. 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #74
Where did you get the idea SickOfTheOnePct Mar 2016 #94
^^^^^^^^^ a kennedy Mar 2016 #46
Garland - a good choice who should get hazard pay for the next 8 months. CincyDem Mar 2016 #42
I like him. I feel sorry for the hell the GOP is likely to put him through. OhioBlue Mar 2016 #48
Obama just caved to the Republican terrorists, quite simply! L. Coyote Mar 2016 #58
You need to lie down. 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #82
No it is not. L. Coyote Mar 2016 #88
It's the president I'm defending. 21st Century Poet Mar 2016 #98
Wow, are you saying Obama consulted the Senate? He has to submit his nominee for that part. L. Coyote Mar 2016 #112
Senate Republicans in a corner houston16revival Mar 2016 #59
And more will stay home on our side SHRED Mar 2016 #81
This nomination compared to Scalia should inspire lots of progressives Democat Mar 2016 #108
We all know how important supreme court picks are. An older moderate is just the ticket. Autumn Mar 2016 #65
A thoughtful and politically savvy choice. MBS Mar 2016 #69
Yeah because somehow we don't already know... SHRED Mar 2016 #77
Yes, very clever treestar Mar 2016 #111
I, for one, am sick of Third Way triangulation SHRED Mar 2016 #80
Obama is going to make those bastards squirm, isn't he? This is a good jurist... Hekate Mar 2016 #84
While I have often disagreed with the President on strategy and feel.. mvd Mar 2016 #87
A lawyer forty years, a judge twenty years, experience in government, with some teaching struggle4progress Mar 2016 #92
I'd rather have somebody younger and more liberal. Odin2005 Mar 2016 #95
How to handle the Repubs SusanLarson Mar 2016 #116
Well that's unfortunate. Myrina Mar 2016 #120
Of course he was going to pick a conservative... Hillary whereisjustice Mar 2016 #121
Another Drug Warrior....Great billhicks76 Mar 2016 #126
MY bet he is an ace in the hole for TPP challenges. eilen Mar 2016 #135

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
67. So tell me, genius
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:44 PM
Mar 2016

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)
78. Politics played with head and bricks is always good!
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:07 PM
Mar 2016
See? See how much we can accomplish if we just keep it up?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
90. I trust Obama's judgement.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 02:17 PM
Mar 2016

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)
127. I trust him to do what he wants, which in this case is to appoint a corporatist judge, which
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 10:44 AM
Mar 2016

is no surprise because big money always gets every single thing it wants under BO.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
128. IMO, very foolish. Maybe widen your sources of information?
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:48 AM
Mar 2016

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)
129. Wow. You totally convinced me with your condescending tone. Oh, wait, no you didn't.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:51 AM
Mar 2016

But I understand that it is the only thing you had to work with since I am right.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
132. I recommend The Atlantic as one counterbalance
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:03 PM
Mar 2016

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 revolutionize—or reinforce—big money’s dominance of political campaigns.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/campaign-finance-supreme-court/423567/

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)
133. Unless it cites all of the times that Obama's elevendy dimensional chess moves required him to move
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:15 PM
Mar 2016

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)
134. No, it's not a right-wing rag, and even one of those
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:19 PM
Mar 2016

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, it’s the pendulum—when 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 Court’s 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)
101. Spot on ...
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:56 PM
Mar 2016

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)
130. Yes. Great strategy. McConnell is hurting. He is
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:54 AM
Mar 2016

also having a terrible time as his line keeps threatening to break on him. Bless his empty, power-hungry heart.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
30. Boring would have been the Senate judiciary committee not even having hearings let alone a vote...
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:51 AM
Mar 2016

... 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)
55. Regardless, this is how it plays out
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:06 PM
Mar 2016

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)
117. Well why would we expect anything different from Obama with just
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:15 AM
Mar 2016

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)
125. And I didn't find a single word inside the OP's resume
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 06:22 PM
Mar 2016

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)
53. The court is not a What-the-Butler-Saw machine
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:03 PM
Mar 2016

Being qualified, competent, balanced and fair is more important than being exciting.

RandySF

(58,799 posts)
54. I'll be the first to admit I wanted to play politics with it.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:05 PM
Mar 2016

The Republicans won't budget so I figured nominate someone that could put turnout in key Senate races.

elljay

(1,178 posts)
122. Let's be realistic
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:54 AM
Mar 2016

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)
110. More unrealistic demands
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:06 PM
Mar 2016

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)
124. He's gotta prove his prowess
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 11:48 AM
Mar 2016

by tricking the Right into going along with a nominee they like. He's sure a crafty devil!

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
2. I'm a bit surprised at that. I thought he'd nominate the person that was confirmed 97-0.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:05 AM
Mar 2016

Garland was confirmed 76-23.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,181 posts)
3. He might as well nominate the goat from Jurassic Park.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:05 AM
Mar 2016

Whoever gets put forth, no matter how qualified, is going to be ripped to shreds.

brooklynite

(94,535 posts)
4. Some are not so sure now...
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:06 AM
Mar 2016

the new balance is an Obama choice now vs a Clinton choice supported by a D Senate next year.

Lucinda

(31,170 posts)
11. If the Senate is capable of a smart move, they will confirm rather than
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:29 AM
Mar 2016

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)
115. But the Senate leadership isnt capable of a smart move.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:42 PM
Mar 2016

The wise thing is to confirm someone many of them already confirmed for his current post, but they'd prefer to look like idiots

brooklynite

(94,535 posts)
26. We are aheasd in four of the five States we need pickups from...
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:47 AM
Mar 2016

WI, IL, OH, NH

...with several other strong prospects.

I speak from experience; I've talked to DSCC and all of our candidates.

brooklynite

(94,535 posts)
32. A more informed discussion could be had...
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:55 AM
Mar 2016

...if you'd care to offer your own data and analysis, rather than just saying "no"/

gabeana

(3,166 posts)
44. Nah this poster is one of those
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:17 AM
Mar 2016

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

ProudToBeBlueInRhody

(16,399 posts)
71. Your slip is showing by the minute
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:50 PM
Mar 2016

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)
93. It's not hard.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 04:03 PM
Mar 2016

Democratic turnout will be low and the Republican turnout will be high. Pretty simple.

Hekate

(90,674 posts)
83. We can do it if we all focus on downticket races and not stay home because our preferred Prez....
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:22 PM
Mar 2016

....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.

FreedomRain

(413 posts)
97. GOP does not want to be fed, it wants to hunt
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:23 PM
Mar 2016

or maybe it just wants to be fed, idk, it's my favorite line from the movie

LAGC

(5,330 posts)
5. Obama knows whoever he nominates will be obstructed.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:11 AM
Mar 2016

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)
7. A rational choice that puts a spotlight on irrationality
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:18 AM
Mar 2016

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.

 

SHRED

(28,136 posts)
36. There are still people that need to be convinced?
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:01 AM
Mar 2016

That the repubs are obstructionists and irrational?

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
9. When people don't trust their govt don't you think their support of the 2nd amendment increases?
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:23 AM
Mar 2016


But Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s 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)
15. another estsblishment white male, wow.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:32 AM
Mar 2016

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.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
41. to me, nominating someone to make a point and not because
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:12 AM
Mar 2016

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)
68. Get out of the party mindset.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:45 PM
Mar 2016

The president is not elected to do things for his base. The president is elected to do things for all Americans.

ananda

(28,859 posts)
99. Lol. Or Looking-glass chess?
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:33 PM
Mar 2016

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)
38. Letting the GOP dictate this choice is ugly
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:04 AM
Mar 2016

If that's what Obama did then again he is dissing the Progressive base of his party.

21st Century Poet

(254 posts)
60. It's not the GOP. It's the Senate.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:20 PM
Mar 2016

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.

21st Century Poet

(254 posts)
64. That means nothing.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:35 PM
Mar 2016

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)
73. The Republican majority represents a minority of Americans
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:55 PM
Mar 2016

The minority Democrats represent the majority of Americans.

Look at the vote totals.

Democat

(11,617 posts)
107. The system allows a minority of voters to have a majority of seats
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:42 PM
Mar 2016

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)
109. I agree entirely
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:05 PM
Mar 2016

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)
113. The President made a wise choice.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:23 PM
Mar 2016

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)
17. This part was interesting:
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:33 AM
Mar 2016
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.


tkmorris

(11,138 posts)
21. A 64.5 year old Moderate
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:36 AM
Mar 2016

Well that's just fucking terrible. Not that I expected it not to be but... yet another crushing disappointment.

21st Century Poet

(254 posts)
66. Harvard is one of the best educational institutions.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:42 PM
Mar 2016

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)
85. Every justice went to Ivy League, most Harvard and Yale
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:48 PM
Mar 2016

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)
100. Should Harvard and Yale students be banned?
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:41 PM
Mar 2016

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)
102. A generation
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:58 PM
Mar 2016

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)
103. Why shouldn't merit be the most important prerequisite?
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 07:28 PM
Mar 2016

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.

21st Century Poet

(254 posts)
105. You are avoiding answering the question.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 07:56 PM
Mar 2016

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)
106. Harvard and Yale grads have assigned themselves the titles of "The Most Qualified"
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:10 PM
Mar 2016

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)
123. I am also an attorney
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:00 AM
Mar 2016

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)
27. The FUCK!!!
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:47 AM
Mar 2016

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



 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
29. If Obama's going to nominate moderates in their mid-60s, I'd call that bluff
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:50 AM
Mar 2016

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)
56. That was probably part of his calculation
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:07 PM
Mar 2016

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.

bigbrother05

(5,995 posts)
75. Absolutely and clearly smarter than Roberts/Alito/Thomas combined
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:02 PM
Mar 2016

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)
37. While I'd prefer a younger more liberal judge...
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:04 AM
Mar 2016

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)
57. So what difference will it make
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:09 PM
Mar 2016

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)
72. Cut the president some slack.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:52 PM
Mar 2016

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)
86. Sorry, he asked for the job
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:52 PM
Mar 2016

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)
119. What would be worse is if, in the event of a Democratic victory in November,
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:34 AM
Mar 2016

the lame duck Senate decides to approve this candidate (older, moderate and Republican) rather than whoever the new President nominates in 2017.

 

SHRED

(28,136 posts)
43. Yeah because...
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:14 AM
Mar 2016

...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)
47. The GOP controlled Senate has to be considered on matters like this.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:24 AM
Mar 2016

Elections have consequences.

21st Century Poet

(254 posts)
74. The president is not elected to satisfy his party.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:01 PM
Mar 2016

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)
94. Where did you get the idea
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 04:47 PM
Mar 2016

That a SCOTUS justice should be chosen to satisfy either political party?

We decry a partisan judiciary in then call for the same.

CincyDem

(6,356 posts)
42. Garland - a good choice who should get hazard pay for the next 8 months.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:13 AM
Mar 2016

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.

21st Century Poet

(254 posts)
82. You need to lie down.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:13 PM
Mar 2016

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)
88. No it is not.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 02:04 PM
Mar 2016

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)
98. It's the president I'm defending.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:29 PM
Mar 2016

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'.

houston16revival

(953 posts)
59. Senate Republicans in a corner
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:18 PM
Mar 2016

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?"

Democat

(11,617 posts)
108. This nomination compared to Scalia should inspire lots of progressives
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 08:47 PM
Mar 2016

Otherwise they may get another Scalia.

Autumn

(45,071 posts)
65. We all know how important supreme court picks are. An older moderate is just the ticket.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:36 PM
Mar 2016

Should be able to get this one past the pukes.

MBS

(9,688 posts)
69. A thoughtful and politically savvy choice.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:45 PM
Mar 2016

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)
77. Yeah because somehow we don't already know...
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:06 PM
Mar 2016

...Repubs are obstructionist jerks and we need to be convinced further.


I'm not buying that.

 

SHRED

(28,136 posts)
80. I, for one, am sick of Third Way triangulation
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:08 PM
Mar 2016

With this nomination Obama continues this tradition.

Hekate

(90,674 posts)
84. Obama is going to make those bastards squirm, isn't he? This is a good jurist...
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:28 PM
Mar 2016

...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)
87. While I have often disagreed with the President on strategy and feel..
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 02:00 PM
Mar 2016

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)
92. A lawyer forty years, a judge twenty years, experience in government, with some teaching
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 02:49 PM
Mar 2016

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

 

SusanLarson

(284 posts)
116. How to handle the Repubs
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:19 AM
Mar 2016

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.

whereisjustice

(2,941 posts)
121. Of course he was going to pick a conservative... Hillary
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:37 AM
Mar 2016

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.

eilen

(4,950 posts)
135. MY bet he is an ace in the hole for TPP challenges.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 09:25 PM
Mar 2016

Justice Roberts likes him!

So much for the SCOTUS strategy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BREAKING: President Obama...