General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCenk Uygur rips Merrick Garland: If he were nominated by a Repub ‘I’d want to filibuster him’
Im supposed to support this guy because somebody with a (D) next to their name said that that was the party line,' Uygur asked. Hell no is not strong enough. If he was proposed by a Republican president Id want to filibuster him.
While activists are staging rallies to pressure Republicans to vote on Garlands nomination, Uygur argued that Garlands record concerning the Citizens United ruling and habeas corpus rights make him unfit to serve on the high court.
Uygur noted that, as Just Security reported, Garland was the only Democratic appointee who chose not to dissent when the DC Circuit Court of Appeals refused to rehear a case involving US detainees right to a hearing before being transferred to countries in which they might credibly fear torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Snip
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/cenk-uygur-rips-merrick-garland-if-he-were-nominated-by-a-repub-id-want-to-filibuster-him/
BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)If this was a bluff; it could backfire big time. I would have nominated a liberal with stellar credentials and stopped trying to work with assholes that have obstructed my entire presidency.
Cosmocat
(14,583 posts)there is 0, absolutely zero, ZERO chance they hold a vote on any BHO nominee now.
The pick was made to highlight their completely untenable partisan position on this matter, but as much as they are going to take a big hit for not holding a vote, they have a greater fear - their own lunatic fringe base.
ANY R who voted to allow for cloture on a BHO SC pick now would never see another term.
They fear for their jobs first and formost, and they fear their own base INFINITELY more than the general public.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)zentrum
(9,866 posts)
..in France fears its people.
In Francea large street demonstration can topple the government. Here, thousands in the street in each major city won't even get MSM coverage.
-none
(1,884 posts)It is just not the base most people think it is.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)that they might maybe possibly be willing to vote on and approve this nominee after the election (if Democrats win of course).
Dawg forbid a Democrat could actually select a Democrat for that seat.
Cosmocat
(14,583 posts)When he had a d senate ....
Hed have done the same this time, too.
There is a reason merrick got picked at his age.
He knew he had aged out and no r would pick him, hes a toss away.
BHO will pull his nomination before the election.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)the one that could change the nature of the court.
Cosmocat
(14,583 posts)The rs arent even going to allow a vote on this seat, not sure what is so hard to understand about that.
BHO has made two prior strong progressive picks the first two openings, so it is clear hed do it again if he could.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)That being the case, why didn't he pick someone that we could be excited about?
21st Century Poet
(254 posts)The Constitution says that the President has to appoint judges to the Supreme Court in consultation with the Senate. The Constitution does not make exceptions for when Senate members happen to be assholes. Appointing a liberal judge would have been the right thing to do if Democrats had been elected as a majority to the Senate. The people chose otherwise so the President's choice has to reflect the situation of a Democratic President and a Republican majority Senate.
I know that this is not what the Democratic base likes to hear but that's the way it is. You have the Constitution, the President and the Senate all playing a role in this. These institutions and people's democratic choices are what run the country and not the Democratic base.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)problems with the appointee.
Which would never be the case with an appointment by Obama.
RAFisher
(466 posts)Imagine if a President Cruz appoints a replace for RBG and the Democrats control the Senate. I don't many Democrats will be supporting the pick just because there is no obvious or unusual problems with the nominee.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... the fact that this nomination is tying the Republicans in knots is just gravy.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Mitch McConnell may be doing the president a favor by holding up this nomination.
In ten years people would be asking what brain dead moron appointed that asshole to the SCOTUS.
dembotoz
(16,864 posts)you see the chess thing.....
we keep making excuses on how the centrist obama is really a progressive but he is just too damn smart for us when he does these middle of the road things.....
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)just good politics, of which President Obama has proven himself to be a master time and again.
There is no chance - zero, zilch, nada - that ANY nominee is going to get a hearing, much less a vote. Obama knows that. Garland knows it. Congressional Democrats know it.
Some apparently would like Obama to waste a nomination on an actual, viable candidate and have them dragged through the mud and raked over the coals for absolutely nothing. They wouldn't get the seat and the next president certainly wouldn't nominate someone who has already been through that.
Loki
(3,825 posts)BS would be so proud of you. And that's just what it is BS..
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Just like the name calling you just tried to assert you are against. Expected though.
Loki
(3,825 posts)Repukes do that.
revbones
(3,660 posts)The terms of service say "But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. "
I'm so tired of people saying you can't criticize someone if they have a D behind their name. How else does the part improve and grow if you can't criticize them???
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)but not the actual name calling.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)True colors come out.
Gothmog
(145,794 posts)the replies to this are hilarious. People on this forum are mostly Republicans who defend conservative polices.
BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)Asinine post.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)It's a nomination to protect the TPP.
redkwamya
(17 posts)You may not like what he does, but he has been more successful than not. If Cenk doesn't like his choice, it really doesn't matter.
MisterFred
(525 posts)But he's right. It's a pretty conservative nomination.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And it may not have mattered to you but it matters to us because we look at facts not personalities. The fact is this guy is exactly like John Roberts. Thanks for settling though. Next.
(Welcome to my IL...)
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)I've disagreed with a majority of Obama's myself, especially his major ones.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the SCOTUS doesn't have anything to do with the TPP
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)They will on the TPP as well.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)This guy is terrible.
When the repubs like him you know it was a bad choice.
Cosmocat
(14,583 posts)They would not hold a vote on a BHO pick this cycle if he reanimated Reagen corpse and nominated it.
People want to get into histrionics, but there is zero, ZERO chance the Rs hold a vote any BHO's now because any R senator who voted for cloture to even allow a vote would never see another term because their base would turn on him.
All his picking a big liberal would do would give them some semi-legitimate bs rationale.
Merrick just helps to further highlight how big of assholes they are.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)getting picked for a viable nomination next year. Garland is a throwaway candidate.
Amazing how people here don't see that. It's not some crazy, twisted plot...it's just common sense politics.
BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)This was Garland's last chance. All the other candidates were much younger. Obama was actually, you know, thinking about more than politics. But he's a 3rd way corporatist tool of the MIC so damn him anyway.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)knew what he was doing and Garland would make a fine Supreme Court judge. Now we must back the President because he is just using this judge as a pawn.
By the way, how does Garland stand on Roe v. Wade? Because there is a chance this guy will be the ninth judge.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)The repubs can now easily hold a vote, confirm, and claim victory in forcing the President to nominate a judge they would want anyway. Your theory about this hurting the GOP discounts the M$M, who will spin this to the voters as a 'win' for conservatives.
At least if there is no vote Obama can use it as a tool to ensure the defeat of multiple GOP Congress critters.
So, no, this nomination only makes sense of Obama wants a conservative as a replacement for a conservative.
BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)Pause for a moment, consider that you might not have a better understanding of this nominee than the President. I know it's a longshot, but it could be possible, you know.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But standing with Citizens United and against Habius Corpus are huge negatives that are not mitigated by green lighting a lawsuit.
So, on the whole a disappointment. His nomination is terrible politics.
BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)From the NYT article posted above:
Hes been a lower-court judge and acted like one for these past 19 years, said Neal K. Katyal, a former acting United States solicitor general.
And:
He joined a unanimous opinion in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 ruling from a nine-judge panel that allowed unlimited contributions to super PACs, nominally independent groups that support political candidates. The logic of the Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United required the move, the appeals courts opinion said, transforming the political landscape.Citizens United concerned only independent spending by corporations and unions, not rich people. But it said that there was only one justification for restricting political spending: quid pro quo corruption akin to bribery. It added that independent spending could never satisfy that standard.
While Judge Garland unhesitatingly extended Citizens United when he believed its logic compelled him to do so, he was unwilling to push further than it required. In July, writing for a unanimous 11-member panel in Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, Judge Garland upheld a ban on campaign contributions from federal contractors, saying the interest in preventing corruption that survived Citizens United warranted the move.
That both cases were unanimous suggests that the D.C. Circuit works hard to achieve consensus and confirms findings by political scientists that ideological voting is less common on federal appeals courts than on the Supreme Court.
There's also this, fwiw:
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But I don't put much faith in anonymous 'political scientists'
Cosmocat
(14,583 posts)They will NOT hold a vote.
It isnt happening.
He could nominate the reanimated corpse of ronald reagen and they wouldnt hold a vote because of how horribly brain washed their zombie base is.
OBAMA PICK BAD, ME KILL R WHO VOTES FOR OBAMA PICK.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Based on Obama's historical interaction with the GOP, I find it much more likely that they will cave, realizing that the are getting mild pro-corporate conservative to replace Scalia that will side with the donor class.
I don't see this happening until after the Democratic nomination though.
The fact is that the M$M will market any about face by the GOP as a victory over Obama to shore up the bulk of the GOP base going into November.
You dismiss my assumption as having no data n w assumption w no data ...
Except I have endless "data" based on the behavior of these assholes supporting my point, which stands.
Feel free to respond back id the rs actually vote for merrick, cause I know you wont when the dont.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)That have ended w/the GOP caving.
Can you point to an incident where they haven't?
Cosmocat
(14,583 posts)than Rs being absolute and complete partisan jackoffs in their obstruction of him ...
On what planet is there even 1/100 of the data of them "caving" to BHO vs them cutting of their and nations noses in strident opposition to him?
Point stands, there will NOT be a vote on Merrick ...
blackspade
(10,056 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Because he is a great nominee from their standpoint.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for people who think Scalia was perfect?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)They are the ones who like him.
One example.....
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/republicans-are-huge-hypocrites-about-merrick-garland-20160321
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Damn Obama has been disappointing.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)This is the the man from a still persecuted minority group who made history and talked like a more eloquent Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail. But then turned and gave us RepubliCON lite policy. He could have been as great as FDR but he settled for H W bush.
imagine2015
(2,054 posts)onenote
(42,821 posts)Unless one party has 60 plus Senators.
Garland wouldn't have been my choice, not by a long shot. But if his nomination warranted filibustering, then basically every nominee would warrant filibustering by one side or the other.
If that's the standard, then no one ever gets confirmed.
gordyfl
(598 posts)when Dems take back the Senate. With Bernie at the helm, we'll get rid of Citizens United.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)He's found a niche schtick posing as the supposed "mouthpiece of the legitimate left."
Obnoxious and insufferable imposter.
His unending outrage is so "faux" and so wearying.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Berckkkk!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)saying something I thoroughly agree with.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Red Knight
(704 posts)Garland is another Harvard educated representative of the "professional" class that Obama worships so dearly. I don't even know if it's about one issue or another--it's the whole 'class" he really represents. Look at his advisers and where they come from--it's really enlightening in explaining who president Obama is and what he really stands for.
The Dems have essentially tossed away the working class as part of a strategy going back to McGovern. The DLC really put this into action and Bill Clinton was the biggest leader of its movement. President Obama is the same, really.
He also puts the next President(if it's a Democrat) in a bind. Do they pick someone truly liberal? Or--since this was Obama's choice do they have the excuse that this candidate deserves a hearing?
President Obama knows exactly what he's doing.
I highly recommend reading Thomas Frank on this subject of the Democratic party--how it got here and what it means for the future.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)I'm not gonna read too much into why he was nominated. I'm not gonna proclaim we could have gotten something better. He's the President's nominee and he seems fine. I may have picked somebody different, but on an up or down vote, he's way better than an empty seat and WAY better than Scalia.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Based on what?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)You don't have to be in ideological agreement to work for someone.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)unfit is a really unfair categorization for someone with so many years on the bench. harriet miers was unfit, garland is fit.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and President Obama nominated him, Republicans would scream that Scalia is too liberal.
Attilla the Hun would be "too liberal".
They would reject a zombie Ronald Regean on principle.
It's pure stupidity, but that is what a typical Republican wants - their way or the highway and even if they agree with you, if they didn't think of it themselves, your idea is worthless. Domineering asshole is about as kind of a description I can offer.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)He used to be pro-Democrat, but he's gone way out to la la land.
Obama is playing 3d chess with the GOP obstructionists. Wasn't there a time that TYT would appreciate and support him?
Or am I delusional?
Oh well.
Stephanie Miller and Bob&Chez are about the only good shows anymore.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... Republicans nominate hard right idealogues and the Democratic senate confirms them. When Democrats get to nominate, they are restricted to "centrists".
Your party, working for you!