Anyone Know Merrick Garland?

[bilby]

If the Republicans were smart, they would call Obama's bluff, and accept this nominee.

So at least we can rule that out as a possibility.

 

[Ford]

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

From what I heard today on NPR (the radio network only slightly to the right of Karl Marx), Garland is the nominee, period. He'll be denied a hearing by the Senate, Obama and the Democrats will use that to hammer the GOP and any Senators up for reelection in November, and then if the White House goes to the Democrats the lame-duck Senate will confirm him for fear of having an even more liberal justice nominated by President Clinton or Sanders.

A risky move, but it makes sense.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, it's not risky in the sense that there's some kind of risk, since the only way Clinton isn't getting into the a White House is if it gets blown up before November and she needs to put her Presidential office somewhere else.

What would be interesting is if the GOP tries to confirm him in the lame duck session and then the Dems block him so that they can get an even more liberal guy in there.

 

[Underseer]

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

Don't forget Jade Helm 15 and the dastardly Weather Weapon!

 

[Underseer]

Wait, why is it constitutional for Obama to nominate anyone at all?

First of all, Obama is a criminal because he murdered patriot Scalia with a hooker, therefore he should be in jail rather than the Oval Office.

Also, Obama should have been impeached for his involvement in the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy.

Lastly, Obama was never a legitimate president because he was born in Kenya and sent here as a terrorist spy-baby.

Since Obama is not the president, the Senate would be violating the constitution if they approve anyone Obama nominates. You libtards would understand this if you didn't hate the constitution so much. Learn to think for yourself, sheeple! Wake up! Freedom isn't free! Benghazi! The tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants! Benghazi! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the Republicans were smart, they would call Obama's bluff, and accept this nominee.

It isn't a bluff though. It is a reasonable selection. He certainly couldn't get Bernie Sanders onto the Supreme Court, but this is a reasonable selection for all involved.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yup, thanks to republican stupidity, they find themselves in a position where all of their courses of action are bad

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I should qualify my post, this Justice doesn't want to overturn Roe v Wade, therefore he is automatically out with the Republicans.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

I hope he wasn't picked because he is a white male and that is felt to be more palatable. That is just as racist and sexist as selecting a minority female just for the sake of "breaking ground".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

I can see how this can be viewed as a strategic pick, but I have to wonder. Is there ANYBODY Obama could have picked without him being accused some some sort of shenanigans? He picked somebody fairly conservative, as a compromise, and it gets spun into some diabolical political ploy.

 

[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.

I hope he wasn't picked because he is a white male and that is felt to be more palatable. That is just as racist and sexist as selecting a minority female just for the sake of "breaking ground".

It has been on the minds of some people since he named Wu Tang Clan to fill 1/3 of his Cabinet.

 

[funinspace]

Oh man the Repug asshats want it both ways. If they get slaughtered in Nov, then they will take Pres. Obama's reasonable nominee...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tys-supreme-court-blockade-all-about-politics

The Arizona Republican said that the Senate should consider Garland in a lame duck session if Hillary Clinton is elected president, fearing that Clinton would appoint a jurist who is more liberal than Garland.

"Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican on the Judiciary Committee who is generally deferential on presidential nominees, said “yes” when asked whether he would move to confirm Garland in the lame-duck session if Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, wins in November.

“For those of us who are concerned about the direction of the court and wanting at least a more centrist figure than between him and somebody that President Clinton might nominate, I think the choice is clear — in a lame duck,” Flake said Wednesday after Obama named Garland."

Sen. Orrin Hatch also said he was open to a vote but only in the lame-duck session, and NPR’s Nina Totenberg has “learned that Senate Republicans have signaled via ‘back channels’ that they would approve Garland, but only after the general election in November.”

And what happens if Obama withdraws the nominee on Nov. 9th?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh man the Repug asshats want it both ways. If they get slaughtered in Nov, then they will take Pres. Obama's reasonable nominee...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tys-supreme-court-blockade-all-about-politics

The Arizona Republican said that the Senate should consider Garland in a lame duck session if Hillary Clinton is elected president, fearing that Clinton would appoint a jurist who is more liberal than Garland.

"Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican on the Judiciary Committee who is generally deferential on presidential nominees, said “yes” when asked whether he would move to confirm Garland in the lame-duck session if Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, wins in November.

“For those of us who are concerned about the direction of the court and wanting at least a more centrist figure than between him and somebody that President Clinton might nominate, I think the choice is clear — in a lame duck,” Flake said Wednesday after Obama named Garland."

Sen. Orrin Hatch also said he was open to a vote but only in the lame-duck session, and NPR’s Nina Totenberg has “learned that Senate Republicans have signaled via ‘back channels’ that they would approve Garland, but only after the general election in November.”

And what happens if Obama withdraws the nominee on Nov. 9th?

I mean talk about being 100% born and inbred hypocrites! They won't consider the nominee because Obama is in his last year of his Presidency and they feel the people should decide... but if the people decide on Clinton... they'll try and go with Obama's nomination. What a bunch of assholes!

 

[Arctish]

Oh man the Repug asshats want it both ways. If they get slaughtered in Nov, then they will take Pres. Obama's reasonable nominee...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tys-supreme-court-blockade-all-about-politics

The Arizona Republican said that the Senate should consider Garland in a lame duck session if Hillary Clinton is elected president, fearing that Clinton would appoint a jurist who is more liberal than Garland.

"Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican on the Judiciary Committee who is generally deferential on presidential nominees, said “yes” when asked whether he would move to confirm Garland in the lame-duck session if Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, wins in November.

“For those of us who are concerned about the direction of the court and wanting at least a more centrist figure than between him and somebody that President Clinton might nominate, I think the choice is clear — in a lame duck,” Flake said Wednesday after Obama named Garland."

Sen. Orrin Hatch also said he was open to a vote but only in the lame-duck session, and NPR’s Nina Totenberg has “learned that Senate Republicans have signaled via ‘back channels’ that they would approve Garland, but only after the general election in November.”

And what happens if Obama withdraws the nominee on Nov. 9th?

Well, the first thing that would happen is I'd laugh so hard I'd probably hurt myself. The second thing that would happen is I'd pay money to watch the pandemic of conniptions, vapors, and apoplexy in the Republican Party.

No doubt they'll take the nomination under consideration right before the election if the signs point to a Clinton or Sanders victory, just to be safe.

 

[Sarpedon]

What amazes me is how stupid they are not to see this. By anouncing that they wouldn't do anything before the fat fucker was cold, they gave plenty of time to Obama to mature his strategy. Not that it really took very long to figure out how to outmanuever those clowns. They walked up the stairs to the gallows themselves and tied the noose around their own neck.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I can't wait for "New Rules" and John Oliver this weekend. Republicans are simultaneously destroying their presidential hopes AND their senate majority all within the last month. One cannot write better material.

aa

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can't wait for "New Rules" and John Oliver this weekend. Republicans are simultaneously destroying their presidential hopes AND their senate majority all within the last month. One cannot write better material.

aa

They are losing the Senate regardless. It is whether they'll fall to 49 seats or 45 seats. The House is also in play.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I mean talk about being 100% born and inbred hypocrites! They won't consider the nominee because Obama is in his last year of his Presidency and they feel the people should decide... but if the people decide on Clinton... they'll try and go with Obama's nomination. What a bunch of assholes!

Yeah, the Republicans have not been particularly secretive about their douchebaggery.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Oh man the Repug asshats want it both ways. If they get slaughtered in Nov, then they will take Pres. Obama's reasonable nominee...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tys-supreme-court-blockade-all-about-politics

And what happens if Obama withdraws the nominee on Nov. 9th?

I mean talk about being 100% born and inbred hypocrites! They won't consider the nominee because Obama is in his last year of his Presidency and they feel the people should decide... but if the people decide on Clinton... they'll try and go with Obama's nomination. What a bunch of assholes!

Just remember, if you are not a tea party fanatic, you are not people.

 

[RavenSky]

Oh man the Repug asshats want it both ways. If they get slaughtered in Nov, then they will take Pres. Obama's reasonable nominee...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...tys-supreme-court-blockade-all-about-politics

And what happens if Obama withdraws the nominee on Nov. 9th?

I mean talk about being 100% born and inbred hypocrites! They won't consider the nominee because Obama is in his last year of his Presidency and they feel the people should decide... but if the people decide on Clinton... they'll try and go with Obama's nomination. What a bunch of assholes!

And completely open in their hypocrisy, too.