Obama to nominate Merrick Garland for SC vacancy

[Gulo Blue]

We also might not have had Obama Care if not for the Liberal bias.

It's a corporate bias, not a liberal bias. Which is what we should be more concerned with.

 

[KAWDUP]

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

You can argue all day whether what you believe was done was right or wrong - I am sure there are differences of opinion, but "gaming the system" is exactly what Obama is doing. Political motivation for pieces of the nomination process is a similarity that belies whether you think Biden was right or not. I am certain I could find credible dissenting opinions on any difference being due to context, rightness or wrongness, or any other mitigating circumstance you can come up with.

 

[KAWDUP]

It's a corporate bias, not a liberal bias. Which is what we should be more concerned with.

It's bias, and would not have happened if any of the liberal justices had been replaced by some conservative constitutionalist.

 

[Michchamp]

You can argue all day whether what you believe was done was right or wrong - I am sure there are differences of opinion, but "gaming the system" is exactly what Obama is doing. Political motivation for pieces of the nomination process is a similarity that belies whether you think Biden was right or not. I am certain I could find credible dissenting opinions on any difference being due to context, rightness or wrongness, or any other mitigating circumstance you can come up with.

how is Obama "gaming the system?" you think he killed Scalia?

nominating a Supreme Court justice to fill a vacancy due to death... yes, how dare this president do something which the US Consitution expressly requires him to do. How unprecedented...

 

[KAWDUP]

how is Obama "gaming the system?" you think he killed Scalia?

nominating a Supreme Court justice to fill a vacancy due to death... yes, how dare this president do something which the US Consitution expressly requires him to do. How unprecedented...

It's who he nominated dipshit. How stupid do you have to be to not see the political overtones of that nomination?

 

[KAWDUP]

. . . actually quite a brilliant gambit by our POTUS. He is right leaning on everything except all the big issues that need to be decided in the next year. Wow, how did he find that diamond in the rough.?!?

 

[Michchamp]

It's who he nominated dipshit. How stupid do you have to be to not see the political overtones of that nomination?

. . . actually quite a brilliant gambit by our POTUS. He is right leaning on everything except all the big issues that need to be decided in the next year. Wow, how did he find that diamond in the rough.?!?

the way you keep framing this shows how out-of-touch with reality you are.

yes, how diabolical of Obama, nominating a guy everyone agrees has impeccable credentials, a judicial reputation for moderation, and who Orrin Hatch expressly said he should nominate.

It was so unfair of Obama not to play along with Republicans' bluff and nominate a dangerous bomb-throwing Communist radical like we all know he really wants to, so that Mitch McConnell and the Sen. Judiciary Republicans could tell the people Obama nominated an extremist, and they would not look so unreasonable and partisan during election season.

 

[hailhail]

To be fair "gaming the system" is a strange phrase to use. I don't think you'd use it to describe Republican policy and political decisions that weigh political considerations (which, I think, is what you're fundamentally claiming regarding Obama).

Thinking about it in more positive terms, isn't this the exact kind of result our two-party system should produce when functioning properly (or functioning at all)? I don't necessarily agree with that but you could maybe make the case.

Edit: Obviously directed at Kawdup's most recent posts.

 

[Michchamp]

Obama is gaming the system by compromising with Republicans, which doesn't help them portray him as a dangerous extremist, and therefore is unfair to them.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's bias, and would not have happened if any of the liberal justices had been replaced by some conservative constitutionalist.

That's not what we get from republicans now. You get Roberts.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Obama is gaming the system by compromising with Republicans, which doesn't help them portray him as a dangerous extremist, and therefore is unfair to them.

I bet this new pick is all pro big business as anyone. He's supposed to be more right wing tough on crime...but how? In a pro-private prison capacity?

 

[Michchamp]

That's not what we get from republicans now. You get Roberts.

the same Roberts who sided with Kennedy (a Reagan appointee), Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, & Breyer to hold the Affordable Care Act constitutional, but in a case of actual judicial activism, wrote the opinion in such a way as to make the law more complicated for the states to implement for no good reason.

 

[tinselwolverine]

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

It would be an informal gesture but also empty.

The president would just throw the list in the trash and stick with his nomination of Garland.

Were there eventually to be a straight up and vote and Garland not confirmed or a rejection of Garland in committee Obama would leave the list in the trash and nominate his next choice.

 

[Sbee]

It would be an informal gesture but also empty.

The president would just throw the list in the trash and stick with his nomination of Garland.

Were there eventually to be a straight up and vote and Garland not confirmed or a rejection of Garland in committee Obama would leave the list in the trash and nominate his next choice.

Kind of funny because Garland would have been on that informal list to begin with.

In 2010, when Garland was under consideration for the Supreme Court vacancy that went to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) told Reuters that he had known Garland for years and that he would be ?a consensus nominee.?

 

[KAWDUP]

the way you keep framing this shows how out-of-touch with reality you are.

yes, how diabolical of Obama, nominating a guy everyone agrees has impeccable credentials, a judicial reputation for moderation, and who Orrin Hatch expressly said he should nominate.

It was so unfair of Obama not to play along with Republicans' bluff and nominate a dangerous bomb-throwing Communist radical like we all know he really wants to, so that Mitch McConnell and the Sen. Judiciary Republicans could tell the people Obama nominated an extremist, and they would not look so unreasonable and partisan during election season.

Right, I'm out of touch with reality. If you can honestly say that this would have been the nomination prior to his last year as POTUS, maybe you have something. My guess is that he would have been on the short list but still not gotten the nomination due to not being liberal enough. So yeah, the nomination is politically motivated. How out of touch with reality do you have to be to not see it?

 

[KAWDUP]

. . . and BTW - it is not unfair of Obama at all, just an obvious attempt to make the Republicans look worse than they already do. That is a real trick with todays Congress.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I bet this new pick is all pro big business as anyone. He's supposed to be more right wing tough on crime...but how? In a pro-private prison capacity?

As a federal prosecutor, he played a role in the convictions of Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber.

 

[Gulo Blue]

As a federal prosecutor, he played a role in the convictions of Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong at all.

I don't know if those two things make him "more right wing tough on crime" or not, but those are the things, to my understanding, that make him "supposed to be."

 

[byco42]

This "tough on crime" stance applies to all elected officials. They are selective on the people they crack down upon. But there is this.