Anyone Know Merrick Garland?

[Alcoholic Actuary]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470643431/-i-ve-made-my-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee-president-obama-says

Obama's selection for Supreme Court Justice. He seems kind of vanilla (not in a racist way, but in a political way).

I guess there are two ways to go with the nomination:

1) Select someone with your party's political leanings (Sotomayor) and move the legal enviornment in a direction favorable to the party but risk outright rejection (Sotomayor).
2) Select someone closer to the center and increase the liklihood for approval - at least with a sane congress, but risk swing votes on important legal cases with significant political ramifications (Kennedy?)

It sounds like Obama is going with option 2 here. I know it's early but I'm not sure about this guy, yet. He's from Chicago so it also seems like kind of a homer pick.

Anyone know anything about him?

aa

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pretty much a well liked guy who is sitting on the 10th most important Judicial seat in the nation. Definitely Option 2. Obama could have played politics with it, gone with a well qualified black or hispanic, but instead, is nominating a moderate who is the Chief Justice of the DC Circuit. It'll piss off the racists that they can't complain about him nominating a white guy. The Republicans couldn't really hope for a better selection, and honestly, I'm quite good with him. I don't want partisans.

This is also a safe pick for the pickee. He is already Chief Justice of the DC Circuit, so it isn't as if he is going to lose an opportunity here.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

 

[Jaecp]

Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Which is going to make the republican politicians look like utter assholes. That's a win

 

[credoconsolans]

Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.

"It's not about what's-his-name, it's about the principle of Obama not choosing to obey a tradition which was entirely invented after Scalia's tragic death, but before he got cold."

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

...And here is McConnell's response to the nomination, right on cue:

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/470664561/mcconnell-blocking-supreme-court-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person

"It seems clear President Obama made this nomination not, not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election," McConnell said.

And this one is classic:

"I will oppose this nomination"


James Inhofe, R-Okla.

Inhofe is one of the seven sitting Republican senators who voted to confirm Garland in 1997.

"It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have all made statements that the Senate does not have to confirm presidential nominations in an election year. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court's future."

The people did decide. They voted for Obama. Twice.

aa

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.

"It's not about what's-his-name, it's about the principle of Obama not choosing to obey a tradition which was entirely invented after Scalia's tragic death, but before he got cold."

That's not true at all. He was dead for a while before being discovered, so he was already cold.

- - - Updated - - -

...And here is McConnell's response to the nomination, right on cue:

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/47066...urt-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person

Yup... the only reason to oppose this guy is because you want to put a radical right-wing Alito clone on the bench. I think it is funny, by not playing politics, Obama is playing politics with the selection.

 

[funinspace]

...And here is McConnell's response to the nomination, right on cue:

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/47066...urt-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person

Yup... the only reason to oppose this guy is because you want to put a radical right-wing Alito clone on the bench. I think it is funny, by not playing politics, Obama is playing politics with the selection.

Well, it makes sense, when you consider the fact that Pres. Obama is primarily responsible for the rise of the Donald.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yup... the only reason to oppose this guy is because you want to put a radical right-wing Alito clone on the bench. I think it is funny, by not playing politics, Obama is playing politics with the selection.

Well, it makes sense, when you consider the fact that Pres. Obama is primarily responsible for the rise of the Donald.

And ISIS,
And Kim Jong-un,
And the Cascadia fault

 

[Shadowy Man]

Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Which is going to make the republican politicians look like utter assholes. That's a win

It appears that Republican voters elect their politicians *because* they're assholes.

- - - Updated - - -

Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.

It has been flying very well for them for several years now. Their voters don't seem to mind it and quite possibly actually appreciate it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which is going to make the republican politicians look like utter assholes. That's a win

It appears that Republican voters elect their politicians *because* they're assholes.

- - - Updated - - -

Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.

It has been flying very well for them for several years now. Their voters don't seem to mind it and quite possibly actually appreciate it.

Oddly, the Tea Bagger / Trump support is upset that the Republicans haven't been partisan enough!

 

[lpetrich]

Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.

"It's not about what's-his-name, it's about the principle of Obama not choosing to obey a tradition which was entirely invented after Scalia's tragic death, but before he got cold."

It looks like the Republicans are playing Calvinball here. That's loudly asserting new rules as one plays.

 

[Elixir]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470643431/-i-ve-made-my-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee-president-obama-says

Obama's selection for Supreme Court Justice. He seems kind of vanilla (not in a racist way, but in a political way).

I guess there are two ways to go with the nomination:

1) Select someone with your party's political leanings (Sotomayor) and move the legal enviornment in a direction favorable to the party but risk outright rejection (Sotomayor).
2) Select someone closer to the center and increase the liklihood for approval - at least with a sane congress, but risk swing votes on important legal cases with significant political ramifications (Kennedy?)

It sounds like Obama is going with option 2 here. I know it's early but I'm not sure about this guy, yet. He's from Chicago so it also seems like kind of a homer pick.

Anyone know anything about him?

aa

Great pick. He's not who Obama really wants, but was confirmed to his current bench with unanimous approval among Republicans. So they'll look like total assholes for refusing to confirm him, and Obama will not have wasted someone he would really want on the SCOTUS by nominating Garland.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470643431/-i-ve-made-my-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee-president-obama-says

Obama's selection for Supreme Court Justice. He seems kind of vanilla (not in a racist way, but in a political way).

I guess there are two ways to go with the nomination:

1) Select someone with your party's political leanings (Sotomayor) and move the legal enviornment in a direction favorable to the party but risk outright rejection (Sotomayor).
2) Select someone closer to the center and increase the liklihood for approval - at least with a sane congress, but risk swing votes on important legal cases with significant political ramifications (Kennedy?)

It sounds like Obama is going with option 2 here. I know it's early but I'm not sure about this guy, yet. He's from Chicago so it also seems like kind of a homer pick.

Anyone know anything about him?

aa

Great pick. He's not who Obama really wants, but was confirmed to his current bench with unanimous approval among Republicans. So they'll look like total assholes for refusing to confirm him, and Obama will not have wasted someone he would really want on the SCOTUS by nominating Garland.

It does seem strategic. Even if this guy gets declined, Obama could submit more and more liberal leaning candidates until the next president is elected. If that's Hillary or Bernie they could move even farther left until the senate openly hopes for a candidate as neutral as Garland. There are also senate and congressional seats up for election with the president this year.

aa

 

[Arctish]

Great pick. He's not who Obama really wants, but was confirmed to his current bench with unanimous approval among Republicans. So they'll look like total assholes for refusing to confirm him, and Obama will not have wasted someone he would really want on the SCOTUS by nominating Garland.

It does seem strategic. Even if this guy gets declined, Obama could submit more and more liberal leaning candidates until the next president is elected. If that's Hillary or Bernie they could move even farther left until the senate openly hopes for a candidate as neutral as Garland. There are also senate and congressional seats up for election with the president this year.

aa

I agree with AA and Elixer.

Garland is a strategic pick, and a very good one. Republicans risk shooting themselves in the foot (again) by refusing to perform their official duties and consider him, and they'll be hard pressed to come up with a reason to reject him. If they do reject him, Obama surely will nominate someone like Sri Srinivasan, so they gain noting by being obstinate.

 

[MarkW]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470643431/-i-ve-made-my-decision-on-supreme-court-nominee-president-obama-says

Obama's selection for Supreme Court Justice. He seems kind of vanilla (not in a racist way, but in a political way).

I guess there are two ways to go with the nomination:

1) Select someone with your party's political leanings (Sotomayor) and move the legal enviornment in a direction favorable to the party but risk outright rejection (Sotomayor).
2) Select someone closer to the center and increase the liklihood for approval - at least with a sane congress, but risk swing votes on important legal cases with significant political ramifications (Kennedy?)

It sounds like Obama is going with option 2 here. I know it's early but I'm not sure about this guy, yet. He's from Chicago so it also seems like kind of a homer pick.

Anyone know anything about him?

aa

My take would be that Obama is actually combining options 1 and 2 here. Garland is a very safe centrist, but he's replacing Scalia, a very conservative justice, so he does shift the balance on the court, because his appointment changes where the median vote is on most cases. It's been Kennedy for about the past decade, but Garland himself, or Breyer, would now be the median most of the time. That would, at a minimum, mean no new cases like Shelby County, Hobby Lobby, etc., and could very well mean that some of those cases themselves might be reversed or at least narrowed.

That assumes that Garland is confirmed, of course. Right now, McConnell is still sounding his "no vote at all" battle cry, but if the Republicans start to take political heat for this--specifically, enough to threaten their Senate majority and McConnell's access to the Majority Leader's office--he is perfectly capable of reversing course. Doubly so if it also looks like Clinton will win the presidency and have a Senate majority to get a more liberal nominee through.

 

[laughing dog]

Frankly, I look forward to the Republicans refusing to deal with a white Jewish male appointment.

 

[J842P]

Outright rejection was guaranteed by the Senate majority leader before he even made his pick.

Wouldn't they have to explain why they rejected the nominee?

"Because I'm partisan" isn't going to fly.

Why wouldn't it? As far as I know, they don't even have to give a reason.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, but they can't just shut up either.

Because they are politicians.