Obama to nominate Merrick Garland for SC vacancy

[grandy]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-scotus-nominee-announcement-live-134637234.html

 

[Michchamp]

well, okay. his record looks... okay.

orrin hatch's statement made me think of that scene in Ghostbusters where they all try not to think of any thoughts, but Ray thinks up the marshmellow man.

you can just imagine all the Republicans on the judiciary committee thinking "nobody give him a name, please god, nobody give him a name..." then hearing a loud collective groan when Orrin says "well merrick garland would be a good choice, not that obama will nominate him."

 

[biggunsbob]

Mcconnell just invoked the Joe Biden rule so he never sees a vote. Do nothing congress in action . Seems like the obstructionist McConnell is at it again. If it looks like the Republicans will lose this fall you watch they will confirm him.

 

[Gulo Blue]

well, okay. his record looks... okay.

orrin hatch's statement made me think of that scene in Ghostbusters where they all try not to think of any thoughts, but Ray thinks up the marshmellow man.

you can just imagine all the Republicans on the judiciary committee thinking "nobody give him a name, please god, nobody give him a name..." then hearing a loud collective groan when Orrin says "well merrick garland would be a good choice, not that obama will nominate him."

Their focus is elsewhere. If a Gozer-possessed Obama said to them "choose and pay", you'd end up with a giant marshmallow Trump walking down the street. They just couldn't help it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Mcconnell just invoked the Joe Biden rule so he never sees a vote. Do nothing congress in action . Seems like the obstructionist McConnell is at it again. If it looks like the Republicans will lose this fall you watch they will confirm him.

What are they thinking? Who do they think is going to offer a pick they'd like more than Obama's? Clinton or Trump? ...Sanders?

 

[sggatecl]

What do our resident conservatives think of this? I haven't seen any of their opinions yet.

 

[Michchamp]

What do our resident conservatives think of this? I haven't seen any of their opinions yet.

haven't had their opinions spoonfed to them yet by Fox, Breitbart, etc. give it time.

their "thought makers" are still trying to find the best way to slander a guy orrin hatch had just praised, and who has a body of opinions that are more or less completely centrist and even right-leaning on criminal law and consititutional issues.

do they sling mud at him and hope something sticks?

or continue to (FALSELY) claim Obama nominating someone now would be "unprecedented" and or "unconstitutional" knowing their retarded base has never even read, let alone understood, the Constitution.

 

[Gulo Blue]

What do our resident conservatives think of this? I haven't seen any of their opinions yet.

Wikipedia page looks good. Biggest strike against him is that he's a Chicago native, which as we all know, gives you a warped sense of how government and police operate. He leans towards transparent government, which I like. I would like to know if his past rulings show a bias for or against corporations.

 

[Gulo Blue]

has a body of opinions that are more or less completely centrist and even right-leaning on criminal law and consititutional issues.

Garland is considered a judicial moderate[32] and a centrist.[24] Garland has been described by Nina Totenberg and Carrie Johnson of NPR as "a moderate liberal, with a definite pro-prosecution bent in criminal cases."[2] The New York Times said he "is often described as brilliant"[24] and wrote that "If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years."

Sounds moderate-left, not moderate-right. Who would expect Obama to pick someone that leans right?

 

[grandy]

Wikipedia page looks good. Biggest strike against him is that he's a Chicago native, which as we all know, gives you a warped sense of how government and police operate. He leans towards transparent government, which I like. I would like to know if his past rulings show a bias for or against corporations.

I'll have to read this later, but this might have some more information.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/12661...-of-collegiality-record-of-republican-support

 

[sggatecl]

I've read that he has had GOP support in the past. I have to imagine that was intentional.

"So he was good enough before but now? Tell us again how you're not just being assholes."

 

[Sbee]

Mcconnell just invoked the Joe Biden rule so he never sees a vote. Do nothing congress in action . Seems like the obstructionist McConnell is at it again. If it looks like the Republicans will lose this fall you watch they will confirm him.

Are you talking about the Thurmond rule? the one that's not actually a rule, just an idea one senator had. As for Biden in 1992, keep in mind that's different situation where a justice was going to resign so Bush could appoint someone before he potentially lost the election. Biden also said in the same speech that he'd consider a moderate nominee. The situation is completely different than having a justice die and force the court to operate with 8 members for almost a year with important cases coming up, potentially the Apple privacy case, is completely irresponsible.

This is the thing that conservatives don't want to admit, elections matter. If you lose the presidency, you lose the right to pick supreme court justices. Obama isn't a lame duck president by definition, though that's what McConnell calls him. The Constitution is pretty clear about this, elections matter.

 

[KAWDUP]

Are you talking about the Thurmond rule? the one that's not actually a rule, just an idea one senator had. As for Biden in 1992, keep in mind that's different situation where a justice was going to resign so Bush could appoint someone before he potentially lost the election. Biden also said in the same speech that he'd consider a moderate nominee. The situation is completely different than having a justice die and force the court to operate with 8 members for almost a year with important cases coming up, potentially the Apple privacy case, is completely irresponsible.

This is the thing that conservatives don't want to admit, elections matter. If you lose the presidency, you lose the right to pick supreme court justices. Obama isn't a lame duck president by definition, though that's what McConnell calls him. The Constitution is pretty clear about this, elections matter.

Sorry, it's not a different enough situation to do anything different. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Libtards are just pissed off because they did it first, so now they can whine and cry all they want -it isn't going to change anything. Shoe's on the other foot now - how does it feel to have the president do something politically motivated, and then have a Congress controlled by the other party tell you to shove it? :*)

 

[byco42]

There is no deadline for appointing and approving a SCOTUS.

 

[Sbee]

Sorry, it's not a different enough situation to do anything different. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Libtards are just pissed off because they did it first, so now they can whine and cry all they want -it isn't going to change anything. Shoe's on the other foot now - how does it feel to have the president do something politically motivated, and then have a Congress controlled by the other party tell you to shove it? :*)

I get that you can see a sound byte and make your decision off of that, too bad it's nowhere near the same situation. here's a quote from Biden from that same speech

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," he said. "Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."


I guess in your mind that's the same as saying "we're going to block whoever is nominated"

 

[byco42]

I suggest the Senate send POTUS a list of candidates for his consideration with the promise that it will confirm any one of them that he selects.

 

[Sbee]

There is no deadline for appointing and approving a SCOTUS.

No, there isn't, but I don't think that justifies saying that you're going to block whoever the president appoints until after the election. by that logic you can block candidates for 4 years. There is a process in place laid out by the constitution and the senate should proceed without undo delay. Again, elections matter, the people have spoken on Obama twice, therefore he gets to appoint a judge to the supreme court.

 

[Sbee]

I suggest the Senate send POTUS a list of candidates for his consideration with the promise that it will confirm any one of them that he selects.

so you're advocating a reverse process, the senate picks the nominee's and then the president approves? Too bad the founding fathers didn't write the constitution that way

 

[KAWDUP]

I get that you can see a sound byte and make your decision off of that, too bad it's nowhere near the same situation. here's a quote from Biden from that same speech

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," he said. "Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."


I guess in your mind that's the same as saying "we're going to block whoever is nominated"

Amazing how your all Constitution based when it suits your ignorant arguments. Again - and here is another sound bite for you - pot meet kettle.

What would you be saying if the EXACT situation was on the other foot? I completely cry BULL SHIT if you answer anything but the same thing.

 

[byco42]

so you're advocating a reverse process, the senate picks the nominee's and then the president approves? Too bad the founding fathers didn't write the constitution that way

and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate...Judges of the Supreme Court...

I said "for his (POTUS's) consideration." So POTUS would make the actual nomination. Of course, he is free to not nominate any candidate on the list. Just as the Senate is free to reject any nominee that POTUS puts forth. There's nothing in the language of the constitution that mandates that the origin of the nomination has to come solely from the president. Show me if there is.