Obama to nominate Merrick Garland for SC vacancy

[Sbee]

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.

No, I wouldn't be crying if the shoe was on the other foot. Elections matter, if you want to nominate justices, win the election.

also, to further underscore how weak your point about Biden is, the 102nd congress in 1992 confirmed more court nominees for appeals courts than any other year in US History.

Let's not worry about facts, let's hear some more cliches KAWDUP. We want more cliches!

 

[Sbee]

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.

Who comes up with your hypothetical list? the whole senate or just senate republicans? what kind of majority is needed to put someone on the list?

What your situation would do is absolve republicans of blame for obstruction. they could point the finger at the president and say that he's not approving their nominees.

You're trying to justify a stance that can't be justified. McConnell came out and said that they're not going to approve anyone the president chooses, that's as clear of an example of obstructionism as there is. McConnell called Garland personally to say that he would not even get a hearing. I don't see how a reasonable person could justify this stance, refusing to even hold hearings on a nominee for political gain.

 

[byco42]

Who comes up with your hypothetical list? the whole senate or just senate republicans? what kind of majority is needed to put someone on the list?

What your situation would do is absolve republicans of blame for obstruction. they could point the finger at the president and say that he's not approving their nominees.

You're trying to justify a stance that can't be justified. McConnell came out and said that they're not going to approve anyone the president chooses, that's as clear of an example of obstructionism as there is. McConnell called Garland personally to say that he would not even get a hearing. I don't see how a reasonable person could justify this stance, refusing to even hold hearings on a nominee for political gain.

You don't think that the Senate has never suggested nominees? It has. That said, the Senate should go through the process and accept or reject Merrick. McConnell is a boof's boof, but that's a different discussion.

 

[Sbee]

You don't think that the Senate has never suggested nominees? It has. That said, the Senate should go through the process and accept or reject Merrick. McConnell is a boof's boof, but that's a different discussion.

Then we pretty much agree, nominees should be considered on their merits and voted on. Unfortunately I think that the Senate republicans won't consider a nominee in good faith given what has been said already.

 

[KAWDUP]

No, I wouldn't be crying if the shoe was on the other foot. Elections matter, if you want to nominate justices, win the election.

also, to further underscore how weak your point about Biden is, the 102nd congress in 1992 confirmed more court nominees for appeals courts than any other year in US History.

Let's not worry about facts, let's hear some more cliches KAWDUP. We want more cliches!

Yeah you would be crying/whining, just taking the other side of the argument. You keep pointing to your facts, and I will point to the outcome of the politically motivated action.

You are more transparent than normal. Give it up, you got nothing.

 

[byco42]

Then we pretty much agree, nominees should be considered on their merits and voted on. Unfortunately I think that the Senate republicans won't consider a nominee in good faith given what has been said already.

The process takes about 75 days. Obama has the opportunity to appoint a provisional judge when the Senate recesses. That has not happened since Eisenhower.

 

[Michchamp]

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? :*)

How can you read Biden's actual statement, in context, and compare the facts at the time to this matter and claim they are the same? Seriously. Just read what he said, not even the whole speech, just enough to get the proper context, and come back and say this.

this isn't an argument. there wasn't any "Biden Rule" he was just giving a speech in which he said if there's a RESIGNATION in summer or fall of an election year - which seems a lot more likely to be a case of trying to game the system than a guy unexpectedly dying almost an entire year before the president's term ends- the president should forego a nomination and allow his successor to make it.

McConnell is being disengenuous by 1) claiming there's a "Biden Rule" & 2) alleging the situation at the time Biden gave his speech bears any resemblence whatsoever to the current situation

 

[Michchamp]

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

I said right-leaning on criminal law issues; I read that he had been on the panel in a Guantanamo detainee lawsuit that recommended denying non-citizens held by the government the right of habeus corpus, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court (in which I believe Scalia actually sided against the federal gov't/Bush Admin on the issue).

I've since read a commentary that Garland may not actually have held that position; the opinion was written to make clear the majority felt they were bound that way by precedent.

I do not think there's any question he's to the left of Scalia on 99% of issues, if not 100% though given how extreme Scalia was, that's not saying much.

 

[Michchamp]

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.

I think, given what the Constitution says, and how it's been done for ~Two Hundred and Twenty-Five (225) years, it's pretty clear the President nominates & the Senate consents. The advice part, if/when it has been done is behind closed doors. And it's more like "here's my names, Senate party leader from my own party. thoughts on who I can get approved?"

 

[Sbee]

Yeah you would be crying/whining, just taking the other side of the argument. You keep pointing to your facts, and I will point to the outcome of the politically motivated action.

You are more transparent than normal. Give it up, you got nothing.

No, I would be pissed if president Romney won the election and was appointing Scalia 2.0 but I would respect the process. Again, elections matter, the people spoke in 2012 and said that they wanted president Obama appointing justices for any vacancies for his term.

 

[Sbee]

How can you read Biden's actual statement, in context, and compare the facts at the time to this matter and claim they are the same? Seriously. Just read what he said, not even the whole speech, just enough to get the proper context, and come back and say this.

this isn't an argument. there wasn't any "Biden Rule" he was just giving a speech in which he said if there's a RESIGNATION in summer or fall of an election year - which seems a lot more likely to be a case of trying to game the system than a guy unexpectedly dying almost an entire year before the president's term ends- the president should forego a nomination and allow his successor to make it.

McConnell is being disengenuous by 1) claiming there's a "Biden Rule" & 2) alleging the situation at the time Biden gave his speech bears any resemblence whatsoever to the current situation

Context? Who gives a shot about context when you can watch a 20 second clip on cable news.

In all fairness the Biden rule is actually the Thurmond rule. It just started to be called the Biden rule after Scalia died. Never mind that it's not really a rule, just an opinion. I get the value in calling it the Biden rule, even though Biden himself said that he would vet and vote on a candidate in 1992. It's not good pr to invoke a devout segregationist who had a second family with a black woman.

 

[hailhail]

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.

Honestly, I've thought a bit about this and I completely understand the political motivations. The stakes are massive, and really can't be overstated. If Obama/Clinton get to appoint another justice (the likely outcome in any case) you're talking about a game changer that could last decades.

But at the same time I don't agree that we're in some gray area, where the next election is soon enough that the claim Obama shouldn't appoint the next justice is legitimate. I would also be extremely disappointed if the initial position of "my" party was the sentiment that we wouldn't even consider a nomination (if for no other reasons than the political backlash).

I also get that you can't justify these actions in purely political terms--that would resonate with some base voters but not most people in the country.

So yeah, I understand what Republicans are doing, and would likely advocate a similar strategy given the stakes if things were reversed and exactly the same. That doesn't mean the underlying justification is anything but hollow.

 

[Sbee]

Honestly, I've thought a bit about this and I completely understand the political motivations. The stakes are massive, and really can't be overstated. If Obama/Clinton get to appoint another justice (the likely outcome in any case) you're talking about a game changer that could last decades.

But at the same time I don't agree that we're in some gray area, where the next election is soon enough that the claim Obama shouldn't appoint the next justice is legitimate. I would also be extremely disappointed if the initial position of "my" party was the sentiment that we wouldn't even consider a nomination (if for no other reasons than the political backlash).

I also get that you can't justify these actions in purely political terms--that would resonate with some base voters but not most people in the country.

So yeah, I understand what Republicans are doing, and would likely advocate a similar strategy given the stakes if things were reversed and exactly the same. That doesn't mean the underlying justification is anything but hollow.

Recently democrats have been huge pussies when it comes to digging in and fighting as a minority. When the Democrats controlled the Senate they were less apt to block legislation and filibuster everything. Republicans play that game a lot better, democrats fold easily

 

[Michchamp]

Context? Who gives a shot about context when you can watch a 20 second clip on cable news.

In all fairness the Biden rule is actually the Thurmond rule. It just started to be called the Biden rule after Scalia died. Never mind that it's not really a rule, just an opinion. I get the value in calling it the Biden rule, even though Biden himself said that he would vet and vote on a candidate in 1992. It's not good pr to invoke a devout segregationist who had a second family with a black woman.

huh. yeah, according to several sources online, Thurmond was the one who held up LBJ's nominee Abe Fortas in 1968, but Fortas was already a justice and this was nominee for chief justice.

but it wasn't a "rule" in that case either, and according to wikipedia was motivated more by Fortas too-close ties to LBJ than partisan politics.

In any case, yeah, there really are no non-political reasons to hold up Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court, and the situation doesn't even bear much resemblence to past circumstances.

Garland was approved for the DC Circuit by a vote of 76-23, a vote which included seven current GOP senators: "His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned,? Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch said during Senate debate on March 19, 1997, adding that ?his legal experience is equally impressive.?

Seriously the GOP should do the decent thing and confirm him. Hell, even for selfish reasons... this obstructionism certainly doesn't play well with voters, and it's not like anything about his record indicates he's going to be another Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Sonia Sotomayor, so Obama definitely met them halfway on this.

 

[Sbee]

huh. yeah, according to several sources online, Thurmond was the one who held up LBJ's nominee Abe Fortas in 1968, but Fortas was already a justice and this was nominee for chief justice.

but it wasn't a "rule" in that case either, and according to wikipedia was motivated more by Fortas too-close ties to LBJ than partisan politics.

In any case, yeah, there really are no non-political reasons to hold up Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court, and the situation doesn't even bear much resemblence to past circumstances.

Garland was approved for the DC Circuit by a vote of 76-23, a vote which included seven current GOP senators: "His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned,? Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch said during Senate debate on March 19, 1997, adding that ?his legal experience is equally impressive.?

Seriously the GOP should do the decent thing and confirm him. Hell, even for selfish reasons... this obstructionism certainly doesn't play well with voters, and it's not like anything about his record indicates he's going to be another Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Sonia Sotomayor, so Obama definitely met them halfway on this.

republican senators that opposed Sotomayor said that they'd support Garland as an alternative.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think Obama went moderate specifically because Scalia was so conservative. It's still a big shift for the court, but as small a shift as you're going to get with a Democrat President.

 

[Gulo Blue]

republican senators that opposed Sotomayor said that they'd support Garland as an alternative.

She replaced Souter. It's wasn't so much of a shift.

 

[Sbee]

She replaced Souter. It's wasn't so much of a shift.

Though it shouldn't make a difference in the process. if Garland has the qualifications and background it shouldn't matter who he's replacing unless the decision is blatantly politically motivated

 

[KAWDUP]

Though it shouldn't make a difference in the process. if Garland has the qualifications and background it shouldn't matter who he's replacing unless the decision is blatantly politically motivated

In a perfect world I agree with all your positions - I really do, I was, in at least part, only playing devil's advocate, but these days, what decision from any branch of our government does not have at least some political overtones?

It isn't only the conservative leaning justices that could have an agenda on any given topic. It goes both ways - for instance, in a perfect world, we may have had Gore as president instead of GW. Conservative bias duly noted. We also might not have had Obama Care if not for the Liberal bias.

So, although it shouldn't make a difference, it actually makes quite a profound difference.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Though it shouldn't make a difference in the process. if Garland has the qualifications and background it shouldn't matter who he's replacing unless the decision is blatantly politically motivated

I disagree. A hypothetical person with no partisan leaning could be motivated to consider how big a change they are making to the court. It isn't inherently partisan.