Pres Obama should withdraw the nomination of Garland by mid Sept

[wt1531]

He should withdraw the Supreme Court nomination of Garland by mid September and throw Republicans' words back at them.
"I did my job. Nominated this qualified man. Republicans refused to even hold a hearing saying the next pres should be the one appointing the next justice. I have given Republicans a chance to do their jobs but they have been politicizing this for all these months and they refused to even give him a hearing hoping a Republican to win the White House appoint the next justice. Thus, I withdraw the nomination of Justice Garland, as to allow the next President of the United States, to appoint the next Supreme Court justice." And Hillary should nominate, a young, reliably liberal justice who could shape the court for decades. A newly elected Democratic Senate would swiftly confirm this justice.

[spooky3]

1. Pres Obama is in office until Jan. I think he should

Have the right to keep his nomination active until he leaves office.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. agreed.

[Jarqui]

3. +1

[RapSoDee]

13. + 2

Keep the Garland nomination alive.

Remind people that the Republican Congress
gleefully takes your paychecks* but refuses to do its job.


* Your hard-earned tax dollars swirling
down the Republican crapper.

[randome]

24. Pound this point forward repeatedly.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[lastlib]

66. +1,000,000,000!!

GOPee, DO YOUR F***ING JOB!!!

If you don't, we WILL BLUDGEON YOU OVER YOUR THICK HEADS WITH IT!!

Pres. Obama Has a right and a DUTY to nominate his choice for the open seat. It is YOUR JOB to VOTE ON IT! DO IT, OR RESIGN YOUR OFFICE!!

[BlueMTexpat]

43. Of course he should!

[virgogal]

54. Joe Biden wouldn't agree.

[BlueMTexpat]

57. And what makes you so sure

of what is in Joe Biden's mind? :shrug

[virgogal]

74. It's not what's in Biden's mind,it's what he said in 1992.

No appointment during an election year. :shrug

[BlueMTexpat]

75. Biden was NOT talking about

a Supreme Court nominee at the time. That also happened from September 1992 on and only involved appointees to lower courts.

But yes, please do bring this up along with other RW TPs. You out yourself.

[virgogal]

79. He WAS talking about the Supreme Court .

C-Span has it on video----and hold the insults,please.

[MBS]

44. +100 n/t

[yurbud]

62. definitely true. The question is whether he nominated Garland because he could get confirmed

or because he was the sort of judge he wanted.

If it's the latter, he should definitely leave the nomination hanging until he leaves office.

[JoePhilly]

4. he could not do that ... or, he could withdraw it the day after she wins the election and the Senate

[bettyellen]

5. That's what I was thinking

[BobbyDrake]

36. Yeah, why mid-September instead of Nov 9th?

Following this kind advice would be bad for Democrats on so many levels. I suspect that wonder if the OP knew that while writing it.

[msongs]

6. after all the repubs are claiming the next president should choose the nominee lol nt

[lastlib]

67. We can't let them win on that point!!

Withdrawing Garland's nomination would be a win for the asshole side.

The only scenario that I see withdrawing his nomination is when the new (Democratically-controlled) Senate convenes in January, he pulls it and nominates a flaming progressive firebrand, just to rub in their faces that they should've voted for the moderate guy when they had the chance.

[tinrobot]

7. Not now, but maybe after the election if/when we take the Senate

[oberliner]

8. No, he shouldn't

Justice Garland deserves to be confirmed.

[a kennedy]

22. I agree......he DESERVES to be confirmed. eom

[MBS]

45. yes!!! N/T

[Drahthaardogs]

49. I would rather she nominate a liberal

Garland is a moderate. IF we win, we should enjoy the spoils.

[synergie]

58. She will be nominating liberals. Garland is an excellent and thoughtful jurist, even if he's a

"moderate" by some standards, he's still "liberal" compared to the CONs choices.

[Drahthaardogs]

63. I want a real liberal.

and Garland is not it. He is a Kennedy clone. I want RuPaul liberal on the bench. It is time.

[synergie]

65. I want someone with a functional intelligence who respects his position as a non political jurist.

The fact that the reasonable and constitutional positions are "real liberal" is something that makes him a "real liberal". He is no clone of anyone. RuPaul is not a jurist and has no legal education, that you don't semm to get that is troubling. It is to stop being the mirror image of the know nothing CONS who need blatant partisans rather than jurists who understand that they must keep their politics out of jurisprudence. The "liberal" judges on the bench know thus, the political CON appointees make their professionalism look "liberal", when it is simply well reasoned and educated.

[Drahthaardogs]

68. Nice lecture.

I want a liberal. An ideological liberal.

[synergie]

69. Too bad it made no impact in the ignorance that demands ideological purity

tests over an actual ability to do the job, which should not involve ideology. I am sorry what I said sailed over your head and that you could not follow what I actually said.

[synergie]

71. Your need to resort to personal attacks after demonstrating that you clearly did not understand

really just underscores my point, thanks for proving it once again, and I am truly sorry that simp,e concepts are so very difficult and make you so very angry when you cannot grasp things, it is not an excuse for incivility, but so much of the anger, the purity tests and the level of discourse in thus election seem to based on utter ignorance and fear and anger that causes. It is what fuels the Trumpeteers, and those who imitate the same behavior on the "left".

[Hekate]

9. Why do people keep thinking this is a good idea? It's not.

Merrick Garland is perfectly qualified. Obama would not put forward anyone who wasn't. The fantasy that Hillary could ram through the ultra-liberal of your dreams is just that -- a fantasy.

[Exilednight]

14. Garland is a compromised nomination. He was chosen for

his moderate credentials. On many social issues, he's middle-of-the-road and on business issues he leans conservative.

The person he would most closely align with would be Kennedy.

Thanks to a justice like Kennedy we got Citizens United. I don't see Garland changing that.

[woolldog]

15. This isnt about how qualified Garland is

It's about punishing the Republicans for this stunt. And they MUST be punished for it. Otherwise there was no downside for their outrageous behavior and a lot of possible upside(i.e had their side won the Presidency obstruction would have paid off). When there is no downside to a course of action and only upside, then the correct move is to embark on that course of action. By not withdrawing the Garland nomination Obama justifies what the GOP did as the right move. Bad idea.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. Bullshit! Let the people see how recalcitrant

these ReThugs are...and how racist and disrespectful they been since the day he took office.

Any nominee the president put forward would be treated the same, regardless of how liberal or moderate he/she is.

[woolldog]

20. From a game theory perspective

you have to extract a price from them for their choice. The heaviest price will come in the form of the most liberal nominee possible, a Goodwin Liu or someone like that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. Let the sitting president have his nominee pick

[TheKentuckian]

23. The pick is a weak ass gimmick designed to make the TeaPubLieKLANs look

like obstructionist assholes and they should be shown that they had their chance for as friendly a pick as they are going to get and now having shit all over the bed the message should be "fuck you, that ship has sailed".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

30. I don't give a shit. That's not the point. The president has chosen. He deserves his pick!

[TheKentuckian]

35. The nation deserves a better one.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. I know it's hard to accept the black president, but so long as he is the president, he can choose

whoever the fuck he wants.

Get over it!

[TheKentuckian]

39. It isn't hard for me, I worked hard and donated to elect him in the first place

Also, I'm black so find some other bullshit to spout.

Obama being black is a nothingburger excuse to pretend people cannot simply think the pick is too conservative and not the best person to change the heading of the court which needs a swing hard to the left to get even to truly moderate even much less solidly liberal not a Kennedy - lite that should appeal to fictional reasonable conservatives.

The gambit failed and the right didn't play ball and as such the "moderate" option should be off the table and now that they have sit the bed it is time they are made to lie in it and they get the Democratic analog to the kind of judges they shove down the nation's throat for the last 35 years.

They have had EVERY opportunity to be met halfway, they spit in our face so now it is time for them to take their medicine not use Obama as an excuse for a stupid compromise even if Obama wants it, his term is about up but we will have to deal with a selection potentially for decades.

It is about us not him.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

42. Please. You are sounding like you can't accept the black man being president making his own decision

This paternalist way of thinking is very common when it comes to this black president.

Please stop. He's way smarter than you are. He deserves to have his Supreme Court nominee pick, just like the other presidents have done.

Happily it seems that most people in this thread agree with me, not you!

Just stop!!

[TheKentuckian]

78. No, I won't just stop. Who should stop is you with your dishonest attempt to smear

in order to hammer away at your false narrative.

[MBS]

46. I agree completely. n/t

[WiffenPoof]

10. The Republicans are....

....going to be kicking themselves for not allowing for the nomination. Naw, let's go ahead and wait. We'll be able to nominate someone far more conservative.

-P

[sofa king]

11. I say wait.

For two important reasons:

First, it makes President Obama highly relevant in this election, and Republican stonewalling allows him to run against twenty Republican Senators while Mrs. Clinton focuses on her own campaign. When is the last time we've seen a President in his seventh year who was not a lame duck? You'd have to go back to Roosevelt or Truman for that. So let's allow the President to punish Republicans for the error of their ways.

Second, assuming the Presidential race is a foregone conclusion (it is not), Garland himself may decide he's been on the shelf too long and no longer wants the job. Or President Obama might decide in January that he wants someone else for the job. President Obama may not have offered his first pick first. Garland's moderation serves a highly useful role right now, but for two weeks in January he might have a window not only to get his nominee passed but to change his nominee entirely.

Both options require Garland to stay "live" until November at the earliest. There's no reason to give the Republicans anything at all until then.

[Hekate]

33. Yes. Some here forget that Obama is the one who plays 3-dimensional chess. Also....

....and on more than one occasion has played the Road Runner. Meep meep!

[DemonGoddess]

12. No, he shouldn't

Judge Garland is qualified for the position he was nominated for. The FACT that the Rethugs are refusing to have a hearing on this qualified jurist just shows how much they'd rather just "stick it" to PBO, than do the jobs they were elected to do.

[woolldog]

19. You have to make the GOP

pay the price for their choice. Otherwise obstruction was a win win proposition for them, where if Clinton wins they get what they would've gotten if they had done their job in the first place (Garland on the Court) and if Clinton loses they benefit (conservative on the Court). Offering no downside, only upside to obstruction is a bad idea. You don't want to make bad behavior/obstruction the rational, correct choice

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

16. The president should do whatever the fuck he

wants...within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution and the powers granted to him therein.

He is the President of the United States until Jsnuary 2017! Please respect him!

[BlueMTexpat]

47. + a million!

It is so interesting to see many who seem just to have woken up to the world of politics tell our President what he should do.

He nominated Garland. Garland deserves to have a vote on whether or not he should be confirmed and WE should not be letting up on any GOPers who refuse to do their job.

If Pres O decides at some time to withdraw his nomination, that is his choice alone to make. But I don't believe that he will make that choice. For many reasons.

[Ligyron]

53. of course he should.

But I think he made the mistake of thinking, once again, that the Repugs would actually be reasonable. He did his job which the constitution requires. They are not doing theirs.

Garland is certainly qualified. THEY are the ones making this political.

They should have to pay a price for this - they're not just slow learners, they're obstinate and obstructive and have been on absolutely everything he proposes and tries to do.

The minute Hills wins and providing the senate becomes ours once again, you can be sure the committee will immediately want to hold hearings.

He can do whatever he wants, as you say - I just think it would be cool if he withdrew Garland's nomination saying, "No, you had your chance".

[Demsrule86]

18. yes and then when Hillary chooses a younger version of Ginsberg...the GOP

will be sorry they shirked their constitutional duty...shame on them.

[yeoman6987]

27. What makes anyone think Ginsberg will leave the court in 4 years?

Yes she's 83, but her mind is sound. 87 is not as old as it once was.

[Demsrule86]

34. If Hillary is elected she should leave the court...and allow a younger person to take her place

thus ensuring that a GOP president does not get to appoint her successor later. However, I am hoping some of the right wing types retire. if elected pres. Sec Clinton will have one pick right now which shifts the court 5-4 in our direction.

[SticksnStones]

25. Do we have to play politics with EVERYTHING?

Can't that be one of the qualities of the Democratic Party that separates our side from theirs? That we don't unnecessarily play politics with every move.

Garland was nominated. The president finds him to be a fine candidate for the court. If the republicans are going to only hold hearings if they lose the presidency well, then I say let that whole gamesmanship narrative be on them.

They go low, we go high. Our new mantra.

A President Hillary Clinton will have her opportunity to leave her imprint on the court.

Let's go get high..I mean let's go high. Well you know what I mean....

[spooky3]

28. I don't think the Repubs will hold hearings before the election.

So if things go as we hope with the election and Dems hold both the Pres and Senate, Pres Clinton will likely choose her own nominee regardless.

[SticksnStones]

29. I think it's entirely likely that if they lose the Senate in November they will have a hearing

I would think they'd want those hearings to occur while they hold a majority just so they can have gavel control over the optics of it all.

But we shall see now, won't we ~

[spooky3]

32. It will be interesting. They haven't proven to be

Shrewd negotiators thus far (let alone good agents acting in the public interest). They also seem to have a bit of that narcissism their fearless leader has. So they may not even conceive of the possibilities.

[baldguy]

26. An give the Senate GOP a victory? No, and no.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. No he should not withdraw Garland. Watch the lame duck Republican Senators rush to confirm him

Watch the lame duck Republican Senators rush to confirm him after Hillary gets elected President and, with a little luck, a Democratic majority in the Senate elected too.

[LiberalFighter]

37. Hell NO! Obama gets to make the nomination.

[StevieM]

40. Or he could call them back into session in October and demand that they give him a vote.

They won't do it, but it will make them look bad.

[MohRokTah]

41. BULLSHIT!!!!

That would be a direct insult to Merrick Garland.

Obama would NEVER stoop that low.

[BlueMTexpat]

48. No. Just no. eom

[Eric J in MN]

50. I don't want Merrick Garland but I disagree about timing.

HRC is leading. Obama shouldn't do anything major which could change the dynamic before November 8. On November 9 he should withdraw Garland.

[6chars]

51. Withdraw her nomination? Why?

Totally unfair that she never won an academy award.

Oops. Wrong Ju. Garland.

[piechartking]

52. This is pure, crass politics in my post, but...

...I have always felt that he made a political mistake in nominating Merrick Garland, and not an African-American woman like Loretta Lynch or Kamala Harris (both are qualified) to the Supreme Court.

It's essentially a dare to the Senate Republicans to obstruct, and then when they do obstruct, tie on the added weight of racism to go around their necks, along with their recalcitrance.

It would have been huge Presidential campaign politics extremely favorable to the Democratic Party. But President Obama's always got this streak about doing the "right" thing, and not looking partisan. Sigh.

[book_worm]

55. Nope. Obama is our president until January 20

It is up to the Senate to consider this nomination. I doubt they will.

[DFW]

56. Obama has every right to stick with his nomination

If Garland withdraws his own name, that is another issue entirely. But there is no reason Obama should have to withdraw Garland's nomination himself.

The time window between Jan. 2, when the new Congress is sworn in, and the inauguration, is tiny, and not really enough to schedule confirmation hearings and a vote, but it could be done in theory. I'm sure Obama will sit down after the election with Senate Democrats and hear them out on their preferences. It is also possible that if McTurtle is faced with an oncoming Democratic White House and Senate majority, that he will allow the Garland confirmation to go through for no other reason that Hillary's pick will be farther to the left (for native speakers of Republicanese: "libbrul&quot than Garland is.

[Exilednight]

59. Hillary will keep the Garland nomination if he is not confirmed before Obama

Leaves office.

[DFW]

61. I would assume that, but there is another possibile scenario

Garland might withdraw his name from consideration if he is not confirmed by the inauguration. Not because he is no longer interested, but out of courtesy to allow Hillary to make her own selection. If, in deference to Obama's shabby treatment by McTurtle, she decides to re-nominate Garland, that is her option, but I suspect that is one Garland will offer her.

[ROCK2]

80. She said months ago that she would

nominate Garland in deference to Obama's pick.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. I voted for him for four years. His term is not over yet.

[DemonGoddess]

73. ^^^This!!!

[bluedigger]

64. Garland should walk into the SC and seat himself.

I like the argument that refusal to hold a hearing is tacit approval. Let the Court decide on the legality of the appointment, since the legislative branch is unwilling to do so.

[LeftRant]

72. I have mixed feelings on this, but as long as it blows up in the GOP's faces, it's all good :)

[Lil Missy]

76. That would be stupid. and Obama is not stupid. n

[orpupilofnature57]

77. Trump is the punishment for Historic Obstruction of Justice, Republicans should be

Ashamed. President Obama hang tough !!!!!!!!!!