The Supreme Court Vacancy

[Craig Arko]

Now the real fun begins.

 

Who wants to keep their Senate seat?

[USAFChief]

 

Aaaaaand ... it's Merrick Garland:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/16/11244558/merrick-garland-supreme-court-scalia

Obama has been such a disappointment to me, part 322.

[Craig Arko]

 

Obama has been such a disappointment to me, part 322.

And he only has nice things to say about you.

[gunnarthor]

Well, politically it's a great move.  He's unobjectionable so the GOP either lets him in or they get labeled (again) as the obstructionist, immature party and probably lose votes because of it.  And if they do let him in, they are the party that couldn't stand up to Obama with a clear majority.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

Obama has been such a disappointment to me, part 322.

 

Too conservative?

[USAFChief]

 

Too conservative?

This could just as well be a George Bush nominee.

 

I thought we voted for hope and change.

[Craig Arko]

 

This could just as well be a George Bush nominee.

 

I thought we voted for hope and change.

The change this is liable to drive will be in the Senate. At least I hope so.

[Mike Sixel]

 

This could just as well be a George Bush nominee.

 

I thought we voted for hope and change.

 

I have to say, I share your general disappointment in the President not being as liberal as I'd hoped (never thought I'd type that......).

[TheLeviathan]

He may be "too conservative", but the Republicans are going to latch on to his history with guns and that is going to get hammered again and again.

 

Nothing rabble-rouses the right like a totally baseless "They're takin' our guns!" rant.

[Mike Sixel]

Frankly, I would like someone not from Harvard or Yale. Frankly, I'd like someone that wasn't an old, white, male. Maybe that makes me a bad person.....but some diversity would be good (as Scalia said, some time ago, the court is not very diverse).

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I have to say, for all the talk about the current/previous makeup of the court being conservative and this nominee putting the court over the top for the liberals, there haven't seemed to be many conservative victories in the court for quite awhile.

 

I mean even the "conservative" judges are taking a crap all over the abortion cases that the insolent Red States were causing the Court to see recently. I really don't know if it's actually going to make much of a difference if the new judge is labeled "moderate" or "liberal". It's not like they are voting on policy, they are interpreting the laws, and it seems to me moderate folks, or at least judges, are interpreting laws the same way the liberals are, and largely, so are the conservative SC judges.

 

This a thousand times.  The court is not conservative leaning.  Conservative is a misnomer these days as it's really just another form of liberal politics.  True conservatism died long ago.  If the court was conservative leaning, the individual mandate would have been struck down simply because the only powers the constitution grants the federal government is to regulate interstate commerce, of which it was not. 

 

That said, Scalia was one of the more conservative justices on the court, so if anything, this allows Obama to appoint someone who will tip the balance on items associated with his administration the last few years. 

[SweetOne69]

Mitch McConnell has called Garland and informed him that the Senate will not act on this nomination.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Mitch McConnell has called Garland and informed him that the Senate will not act on this nomination.

 

No surprise. Bad game theory......but no surprise.

[stringer bell]

Let's see if McConnell can hold his caucus together. Even if the Republicans win on this, they lose. Eventually, another vacancy will occur during the last year of a Republican's term and that president won't get to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court. Maybe the better meme is that the country loses--a less than complete Supreme Court and another notch out of the Constitution.

[SweetOne69]

Let's see if McConnell can hold his caucus together. Even if the Republicans win on this, they lose. Eventually, another vacancy will occur during the last year of a Republican's term and that president won't get to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court. Maybe the better meme is that the country loses--a less than complete Supreme Court and another notch out of the Constitution.

There have been longer vacancies to the SC.

[DaveW]

 

There have been longer vacancies to the SC.

There shouldn't be one in this case....

[PseudoSABR]

 

There have been longer vacancies to the SC.

Not because a party refused to vote on a nomination.  The longer vacancies involved many candidates being nominated and either being voted down, or withdrawing their name.

 

THERE IS NO PRECEDENCE FOR WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING.  

[stringer bell]

This is getting curiouser and curiouser. The candidate is white, Ivy League, and Jewish, not really adding much diversity to the court. He profiles as a moderate, probably fitting between Kennedy and Kagan and also seems quite friendly to business, perhaps to the point that Citizens United might not be overturned.

 

Further, Republicans are saying that they might consider confirming Garland after the election, meaning they would get a moderate choice instead of the presumed liberal that Hillary would submit, especially if she would have a Democratic Senate.

 

I have seen notes that indicate that Garland is not really pro-life or pro-Second Amendment, two hot-button issues that would invite opposition from the GOP base anyway. Any Supreme Court justice who would replace Scalia would move the court to the left.

 

On balance, I'm OK with Obama's choice. It really would be good to have the court at capacity, and I like the idea of jurists that are fair, rather than ideological. It does put pressure on the GOP to act and might swing a Senate seat or two if they don't.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Obama has been such a disappointment to me, part 322.

I wish Obama were bold and unabashed too (he never did make the moral argument for health care; I too am disappointed.) As much as I hate it, Obama likes being the 50-yard-liner - the guy who gets things down (perhaps at the mercy of his principles). Yet, I get why he picked Garland.  He can survive the absurd scrutiny of the GOP in that he's both later-middle-aged and immaculately qualified.  If the GOP holds on 'no hearings and no vote', a potential nominee just gets scrutinized without any result, just flitting in the wind.  Other candidates, whom Obama would prefer, might become stigmatized through the process, and their future as Supreme Court Justice essentially at an end.  It seems like Obama is betting that the GOP sticks to its obstructionism, and Garland doesn't even get a hearing (in spite of his pristine credentials, thus proving their political ploy).  

 

The questions I'm suddenly interested in is: (1) Is Hillary Clinton obligated to renominate Garland in the new year, or does the election mandate a new nominee?  (2) What if the Republicans confirm Garland after the election, during the "lame duck" session?  (See Lindsey Graham here.)

[stringer bell]

It would be the pinnacle of hypocrisy for Republicans to say "let the voters decide" and then approve Obama's choice if they didn't like what the voters decided.

 

That said, I guess I wouldn't doubt that they would do just that.

[USAFChief]

I have to admit a certain admiration for the sheer audacity to proudly display the hypocrisy it takes to declare the nomination needs to wait for an election and then turn around and decry the "politcizing" of the process.

 

There's a certain magnificence in the ability to say such things with a straight face.

[Squirrel]

 

I have to admit a certain admiration for the sheer audacity to proudly display the hypocrisy it takes to declare the nomination needs to wait for an election and then turn around and decry the "politcizing" of the process.

 

There's a certain magnificence in the ability to say such things with a straight face.

They say it with a straight face because I think they actually believe in what they say, which is scarier, imo.

[SweetOne69]

 

THERE IS NO PRECEDENCE FOR WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING.  

 

Yes there is, there have been plenty of nominees that were never voted on.

 

This is what the founders intended.  The Senate has no obligation to vote on a nominee.  It was designed this way to prevent the President from getting too kingly.  The same goes for Ambassadors as well.

[Squirrel]

 

Yes there is, there have been plenty of nominees that were never voted on.

 

This is what the founders intended.  The Senate has no obligation to vote on a nominee.  It was designed this way to prevent the President from getting too kingly.  The same goes for Ambassadors as well.

Oh good Lord ... how is President Obama being 'kingly?' I'm sorry, but that is just Republican-speak for "I don't want the Senate to confirm an Obama appointment.'

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yes there is, there have been plenty of nominees that were never voted on.

 

This is what the founders intended.  The Senate has no obligation to vote on a nominee.  It was designed this way to prevent the President from getting too kingly.  The same goes for Ambassadors as well.

 

Actually, they are obligated to offer an opinion.......the constitution is clear on that.

[USAFChief]

I can't wait for the fireworks when President Clinton nominates former President Obama for the SCOTUS seat formerly held by Justice Scalia.

 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Not because a party refused to vote on a nomination.  The longer vacancies involved many candidates being nominated and either being voted down, or withdrawing their name.

 

THERE IS NO PRECEDENCE FOR WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING.  

 

Joe Biden begs to differ... just saying.  I'm not a fan of the Reps, but there's some pretty serious hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Maybe the better meme is that the country loses--a less than complete Supreme Court and another notch out of the Constitution.

 

I think at this point, the country loses as long as Republicans and Democrats are in control.  I think it's time we kicked them both to the curb. 

[formerly33]

 

Yes there is, there have been plenty of nominees that were never voted on.

 

This is what the founders intended.  The Senate has no obligation to vote on a nominee.  It was designed this way to prevent the President from getting too kingly.  The same goes for Ambassadors as well.

Perhaps it's the Senate who's getting too kingly. Maybe in our concern over preventing the POTUS from lording it over us, we forget he's not the only one capable of doing so. But then, of course we want the people to have a voice in this, and obviously the Senate's the people. Oh, wait ... wouldn't that indicate a higher power controlling the commonality? I'm confused ...

[biggentleben]

 

Joe Biden begs to differ... just saying.  I'm not a fan of the Reps, but there's some pretty serious hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. 

 

Make sure you get the whole quote before going there. Biden's comments have been taken very strongly out of context for Republican talking points.