Sign in to follow this  
Sean

SCOTUS pick today

Recommended Posts

They better get one in before Hillary nominated Obama

They didn't teach tense at your school did they Gouv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merrick Garland


Srinivasan’s chief judge on the DC appeals circuit is the other reported final candidate to move up from the second highest court in the land.


Merrick Garland, 63, was appointed to his current role in 2013, but has served in the same court since 1997, when he was appointed by Bill Clinton.


In what could be foreshadowing of his treatment by the 2016 Senate, the Harvard undergrad and law school alum had his nomination to the DC circuit stalled by Republicans debating whether another judge was needed on the court.


The Chicago native, who is considered a moderate, was confirmed after being nominated by Clinton a second time.


Before donning his robes, Garland clerked for liberal stalwart Justice William Brennan, worked at private firm Arnold & Porter and held various roles in the Attorney General’s Office.


Two of his prominent cases in the 1990s were the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers and Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.


SCOTUS Blog says that his record as a judge shows he “is essentially the model, neutral judge. He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements.”


He is also reportedly well-respected among the Supreme Court’s conservative judges, and was thought to be in the running for the seat filled by Elena Kagan in 2010


However, his long career includes brushes with political topics such as gun control, including calling for a review of his fellow DC judges’ ruling against the Washington DC handgun ban.


Garland did not make a ruling based on the merits of the ban, though some have suggested that his decades on the bench would have opponents poring over his history to find reasons to oppose him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They better get one in before Hillary nominated Obama

Obama absolutely does not want to be a supreme. His reaction when Bill Simmons asked him this question last month spoke volumes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paging Tom Ray, guns and SCOTUS in isle 5......

 

"But Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms."

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

 

Mind you, that's National Review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paging Tom Ray, guns and SCOTUS in isle 5......

 

"But Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalias most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms."

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

 

Mind you, that's National Review

Stick a fork in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paging Tom Ray, guns and SCOTUS in isle 5......

 

"But Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms."

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

 

Mind you, that's National Review

 

He seems qualified and a reasonable choice to me. I'm not at all surprised that Obama would nominate someone hostile to the Heller and MacDonald decisions.

 

There are other areas of concern to me

 

Garland’s nomination is likely to come as a disappointment to many progressives. While Garland is undoubtedly a legal liberal, his record reflects a version of legal liberalism that tends to line up in favor of broad judicial deference to law enforcement and wartime executive power.

In the area of criminal law, for example, Garland’s votes have frequently come down on the side of prosecutors and police. In 2010, when Garland was reported to be under consideration to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein observed that “Judge Garland rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants' appeals of their convictions.”

 

Likewise, Garland voted in support of the George W. Bush administration’s controversial war on terrorism policies in the Guantanamo detainee case Al Odah v. United States, in which Garland joined the majority opinion holding that enemy combatants held as detainees at the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay were not entitled to habeus corpus protections. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overruled that decision, holding in the landmark case Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees do enjoy habeus corpus rights.

 

 

Count me among those "many progressives" mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Merrick Garland

Srinivasan’s chief judge on the DC appeals circuit is the other reported final candidate to move up from the second highest court in the land.

Merrick Garland, 63, was appointed to his current role in 2013, but has served in the same court since 1997, when he was appointed by Bill Clinton.

In what could be foreshadowing of his treatment by the 2016 Senate, the Harvard undergrad and law school alum had his nomination to the DC circuit stalled by Republicans debating whether another judge was needed on the court.

The Chicago native, who is considered a moderate, was confirmed after being nominated by Clinton a second time.

Before donning his robes, Garland clerked for liberal stalwart Justice William Brennan, worked at private firm Arnold & Porter and held various roles in the Attorney General’s Office.

Two of his prominent cases in the 1990s were the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers and Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

SCOTUS Blog says that his record as a judge shows he “is essentially the model, neutral judge. He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements.”

He is also reportedly well-respected among the Supreme Court’s conservative judges, and was thought to be in the running for the seat filled by Elena Kagan in 2010

However, his long career includes brushes with political topics such as gun control, including calling for a review of his fellow DC judges’ ruling against the Washington DC handgun ban.

Garland did not make a ruling based on the merits of the ban, though some have suggested that his decades on the bench would have opponents poring over his history to find reasons to oppose him.

 

 

That's gotta be a disqualifier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone nominated runs the risk of a stalled process killing their chance of ever being confirmed, now or at a later date.

 

I wonder if Garland factored that his age window of being appointed is rapidly closing in accepting the nomination. He may have figured even if he is a long shot to be confirmed this was his last chance at the SCOTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be difficult to drum up oppositional indignation for an old white guy that is imminently qualified. Doing so might make the Senate look bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They better get one in before Hillary nominated Obama

They didn't teach tense at your school did they Gouv.
I hate typos too

 

No way Hillary will

Nominate Obama but if, before Jan 20, the Republicans do not approve a centrist Obama nomination, they will be paid back with a very liberal Clinton nomination which will be quickly approved by the Democrat controlled Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will he ever see the inside of a hearing room? Mitch has a call to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were Mitch I'd drag it out. See how the General Election is playing out. If Hillary is looking to win hold a vote and confirm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were Mitch I'd drag it out. See how the General Election is playing out. If Hillary is looking to win hold a vote and confirm.

 

Why is no one, who remembers your BUSH SUPPORTER sock puppet posts, surprised that your always prioritize your POLITICAL PARTY in front of our COUNTRY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They better get one in before Hillary nominated Obama

They didn't teach tense at your school did they Gouv.
I hate typos too

 

No way Hillary will

Nominate Obama but if, before Jan 20, the Republicans do not approve a centrist Obama nomination, they will be paid back with a very liberal Clinton nomination which will be quickly approved by the Democrat controlled Senate.

 

it takes 60 to approve, so it will not be quite as easy as you seem to suggest

 

The R's need to let this come to a vote, anything less is putting party above country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your two links are a perfect illustration of the political gamesmanship McConnell is playing and how he has no interest in fulfilling his Constitutional obligation. He is only concerned with blocking Obama and not concerned with doing his job.

 

If, as your first link claims, he is objectionable because of his stance on "gun rights", that is cool. Hold a hearing and vote him down for that, or any other, reason. That would fulfill the directive to "advise". They do not have to be a rubber stamp and automatically "consent".

 

But, McConnell is holding hostage the process as outlined in the Constitution. What he is doing is "obstruct".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first glance, he looks like the kind of candidate president Obama would nominate not the kind one would have hoped candidate Obama would nominate. Instead of being hostile to a handful of rights, he is hostile to most of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the unified revolt over considering a nominee is breaking down and falling apart. I guess the negative impact on their own elections has taken a toll. As of this morning, Kelly Ayotte, Rob Portman, Jim Inhofe, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Mark Kirk and Orrin Hatch have said they would meet with the designated nominee. Pat Toomey said he would meet with Garland if the next president nominated him, Orrin Hatch said he would consider a lame duck session confirmation. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/republicans-scotus-nom-flake-inhofe-kirk-ayotte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical Obama pick. Solid, well respected jurist. Why does the Kenyan hate America so much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If I were Mitch I'd drag it out. See how the General Election is playing out. If Hillary is looking to win hold a vote and confirm.

Why is no one, who remembers your BUSH SUPPORTER sock puppet posts, surprised that your always prioritize your POLITICAL PARTY in front of our COUNTRY.

Why is no one surprised that you are reverting slowly, but surely back your stalker personality.

 

It is just as easy to justify Delaying a confirmation, as in the best interest of the country.

 

I'm on record early on that this should be an Obamas pick. I was simply explaining a political strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical Obama pick. Solid, well respected jurist. Why does the Kenyan hate America so much?

 

There is nothing "respectable" about wanting to gut the 2A. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I was simply explaining a political strategy.

The trouble is that McConnell went all in with this strategy within an hour of the announcement of Scalia's death. When you're at the table, you can't go all in pre-flop and then take half of your stack out after a few bad cards drop. People notice stuff like that. For instance, you'd notice stuff like that.

 

The weakness of McConnell's strategy is the Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Senate races. In particular, the New Hampshire (Ayotte), Illinois (Kirk) and Wisconsin (Johnson) races are iffy Republican incumbents.

 

But McConnell went all in in an hour. Clearly he'd gamed this out ahead of time but he still threw away any flexibility, any timing. He went all in.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/president-obama-to-announce-supreme-court-nominee-at-11-am-et.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... I was simply explaining a political strategy.

The trouble is that McConnell went all in with this strategy within an hour of the announcement of Scalia's death. When you're at the table, you can't go all in pre-flop and then take half of your stack out after a few bad cards drop. People notice stuff like that. For instance, you'd notice stuff like that.

 

The weakness of McConnell's strategy is the Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Senate races. In particular, the New Hampshire (Ayotte), Illinois (Kirk) and Wisconsin (Johnson) races are iffy Republican incumbents.

 

But McConnell went all in in an hour. Clearly he'd gamed this out ahead of time but he still threw away any flexibility, any timing. He went all in.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/president-obama-to-announce-supreme-court-nominee-at-11-am-et.html

agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If I were Mitch I'd drag it out. See how the General Election is playing out. If Hillary is looking to win hold a vote and confirm.

Why is no one, who remembers your BUSH SUPPORTER sock puppet posts, surprised that your always prioritize your POLITICAL PARTY in front of our COUNTRY.

Why is no one surprised that you are reverting slowly, but surely back your stalker personality.

 

It is just as easy to justify Delaying a confirmation, as in the best interest of the country.

 

I'm on record early on that this should be an Obamas pick. I was simply explaining a political strategy.

 

 

Would you classify McConnell's promise to not even hold a hearing as "Delaying"?

 

You may. I would say it goes beyond "Delay" and enters the realm of "obstruct".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do your job

 

hold hearings, hold a vote. If it's a no, so be it.

 

do you job

 

 

why is that so hard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you classify McConnell's promise to not even hold a hearing as "Delaying"?

 

You may. I would say it goes beyond "Delay" and enters the realm of "obstruct".

 

Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

I was at a legal seminar that was a combination of a lawyer pitching his skills to tech industry types and CLE credit for other lawyers. It was about 4 hours long in the evening with a snack provided. Two hours in and the lawyer says Pizza delayed is pizza denied. Half of the audience groaned and the other half looked puzzled. The one half explained it to the other half with a business card attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do your job

 

hold hearings, hold a vote. If it's a no, so be it.

 

do you job

 

 

why is that so hard?

Raz'r is right here. Republicans should respect the process. To do otherwise is a corruption of the system.

What's next... shutting down Democratic party campaign events?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do your job

 

hold hearings, hold a vote. If it's a no, so be it.

 

do you job

 

why is that so hard?

It is politically hard because the republicans dont want to have to defend or explain their votes. Without a united front though it will be harder for McConnell and his cohorts to pretend that it is a principled stand for voters rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do your job

 

hold hearings, hold a vote. If it's a no, so be it.

 

do you job

 

 

why is that so hard?

Yep. Fulfill their constitutional obligations. Hold hearings debate it and vote. I don't care what "issues" are perceived as at risk. The process is pretty straight forward. Blocking cuz your guy died at the wrong moment and you hope the xenophobic bully will actually get elected is just plain wrong.

 

The ironic thing is Trump will get the nomination, Hillary will win the general and choose a FAR less balanced appointee than this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

do your job

 

hold hearings, hold a vote. If it's a no, so be it.

 

do you job

 

why is that so hard?

It is politically hard because the republicans dont want to have to defend or explain their votes. Without a united front though it will be harder for McConnell and his cohorts to pretend that it is a principled stand for voters rights.

They still have to defend their non-votes and non-consideration which, given Obama's solid nominee, is even tougher. It's a gambit but McConnell hasn't shown skill at gambits: evaluating risks and unknowns. He's better at cutting a deal when a deal has to be made: making tradeoffs.

 

By itself this strategy is risky. With Trump as a backdrop this is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

do your job

 

hold hearings, hold a vote. If it's a no, so be it.

 

do you job

 

why is that so hard?

It is politically hard because the republicans dont want to have to defend or explain their votes. Without a united front though it will be harder for McConnell and his cohorts to pretend that it is a principled stand for voters rights.

They still have to defend their non-votes and non-consideration which, given Obama's solid nominee, is even tougher. It's a gambit but McConnell hasn't shown skill at gambits: evaluating risks and unknowns. He's better at cutting a deal when a deal has to be made: making tradeoffs.

By itself this strategy is risky. With Trump as a backdrop this is stupid.

I agree that McConnell is playing a risky gambit without a track record for success. Scalia screwed his party big time by dying when he did. It put them in an impossible position to look good with their constituents. I think McConnell should have played for the best outcome but instead he went for broke and now will have to pay for his foolishness. I am not sure if there was a plan in place in case a SCOTUS seat opened up and McConnell followed the playbook or if he panicked and went rogue in his announcement one hour after Scalia's death was made public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There absolutely had to be a plan. Mitch McConnell didn't become majority leader by winging it. That doesn't mean it was a good plan but Scalia was 79. Kennedy is 79 and RBG is 83.

 

McConnell had a plan and Obama has a short list. But I don't think McConnell's plan took Trump and a Republican meltdown into consideration. I really don't think it is a good plan. Really bad downside risks. We'll see.

 

BTW, I think McConnell's strategy has been to get nothing done. Evidently you can't be held accountable for nothing. Instead always be in opposition even when you have a majority. But McConnell can be held accountable for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there was a plan too. It is however a little hard to believe that sitting down and thinking it over ahead of time that having McConnell blurt out, "we are going to do nothing," within an hour of the announcement of Scalia's death was the best option they could come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought indefinite detention of enemy combatants was a bad idea at the time. Are any of my fellow progressives troubled by this judge's support of that misguided W policy? I thought Obama was elected to close Gitmo and quit acting like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I think this was a bad idea.

Bad idea, bad precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought indefinite detention of enemy combatants was a bad idea at the time. Are any of my fellow progressives troubled by this judge's support of that misguided W policy? I thought Obama was elected to close Gitmo and quit acting like that?

 

I consider this moot as I'm in favor of closing Gitmo entirely and giving the land back to the Cubans. Whether the President has the power that was in question before Garland is an entirely separate question. I don't doubt that he does. However, the Kenyan wants to close Gitmo. He hasn't sent anyone there. He has sent them elsewhere. And Congress (Republicans really) want to keep it open. And my guess is that the Kenyan will close Gitmo anyway. So your concern is misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought indefinite detention of enemy combatants was a bad idea at the time. Are any of my fellow progressives troubled by this judge's support of that misguided W policy? I thought Obama was elected to close Gitmo and quit acting like that?

 

I consider this moot as I'm in favor of closing Gitmo entirely and giving the land back to the Cubans. Whether the President has the power that was in question before Garland is an entirely separate question. I don't doubt that he does. ..

 

I doubt that the President has that power because the Supreme Court said he did not. Mentioned above:

 

Garland voted in support of the George W. Bush administration’s controversial war on terrorism policies in the Guantanamo detainee case Al Odah v. United States, in which Garland joined the majority opinion holding that enemy combatants held as detainees at the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay were not entitled to habeus corpus protections. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overruled that decision, holding in the landmark case Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees do enjoy habeus corpus rights.

 

 

I thought Obama was elected to be the anti-Bush, close Gitmo, and stop with the idea that we can detain anyone forever based on secret evidence. But I guess giving the President that kind of power was only a bad idea when he had an R by his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wish to talk about other things with other people then you may talk about other things with other other people. Just not with me. I'm interested in Garland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wish to talk about other things with other people then you may talk about other things with other other people. Just not with me. I'm interested in Garland.

 

Does it bother you that he's essentially nominated ANOTHER of the traditional academic elite to a position of power? Simply put, if your not part of the chosen 'beautiful people', you're not going to be a supreme court justice. In my opinion, that's what this represents. Yet another piece of evidence supporting the two america theory. You're with the beautiful people or you're not with the beautiful people. I had hoped for something more. Srinivasan was at least a CHANCE of being something different - not that Stanford is much different than Harvard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Typical Obama pick. Solid, well respected jurist. Why does the Kenyan hate America so much?

 

There is nothing "respectable" about wanting to gut the 2A. Sorry.

 

There is nothing in the guy's rulings or opinions would suggest that. What do you got to support that idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you wish to talk about other things with other people then you may talk about other things with other other people. Just not with me. I'm interested in Garland.

 

Does it bother you that he's essentially nominated ANOTHER of the traditional academic elite to a position of power? Simply put, if your not part of the chosen 'beautiful people', you're not going to be a supreme court justice. In my opinion, that's what this represents. Yet another piece of evidence supporting the two america theory. You're with the beautiful people or you're not with the beautiful people. I had hoped for something more. Srinivasan was at least a CHANCE of being something different - not that Stanford is much better than Harvard in terms of beautiful people.

 

 

You would rather see someone like Saul Goodman be nominated? While I agree with you that some diversity from Harvard Law would be nice there is a track to the SCOTUS and it generally begins with the brightest and most motivated students starting off at the top universities and law schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you wish to talk about other things with other people then you may talk about other things with other other people. Just not with me. I'm interested in Garland.

Does it bother you that he's essentially nominated ANOTHER of the traditional academic elite to a position of power? Simply put, if your not part of the chosen 'beautiful people', you're not going to be a supreme court justice. In my opinion, that's what this represents. Yet another piece of evidence supporting the two america theory. You're with the beautiful people or you're not with the beautiful people. I had hoped for something more. Srinivasan was at least a CHANCE of being something different - not that Stanford is much different than Harvard.

What, you want some sort of Afirmative Action for judges? What if he happens to be the best choice on the merits? Disqualified because he's Ivy League?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Stanfurd thing was a deal killer for me with Srinivasan. As for diversity, I agree with you BUT the Supreme Court is NOT an entry level job. Lifetime tenure. More diversity at the District level. Best available athlete at the Supreme Court level.

 

What I've read of Garland he does not disappoint me. I'm well left of him but he's well left of Scalia. Still, Republicans are plain nutty to oppose him.

 

BTW, I'm kidding about the Furd. It's a great school for a different kind of student that I definitely wasn't. I've spent a lot of time on its campus at EE380 seminars, .... They are insanely wealthy. They approach startups essentially as an incubator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Law is one of those professions where the best students go to a few schools, get the best clerkships, get the best partner tracks at the best firms or run for DA.

 

I'd be shocked if a nominee for the Supremes wasn't one with that background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you wish to talk about other things with other people then you may talk about other things with other other people. Just not with me. I'm interested in Garland.

 

Oh.

 

You mean this Garland?

 

Garland voted in support of the George W. Bush administration’s controversial war on terrorism policies in the Guantanamo detainee case Al Odah v. United States, in which Garland joined the majority opinion holding that enemy combatants held as detainees at the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay were not entitled to habeus corpus protections. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overruled that decision, holding in the landmark case Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees do enjoy habeus corpus rights.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it's about diversity in thought, not diversity in skin color or some other politically correct grouping.

 

Read what people like Elena Kagan and Ginsberg said about Scalia.. he made them better judges by challenging THEIR orthodoxy. At the end of the day, they may have disagreed with every single point he ever made but he made THEM better judges by forcing them to actually defend their point of view against an actual opponent, not just someone cranked out from the same thought factory. That's THEIR conclusion. Not mine.

 

THAT is my problem. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, even Stanford, are all echo chambers. It's the same people reading the same stuff spewing the same mantra as if repeating something often enough must make it true. Even groups like Scientific American have started pointing out the hegemony problem - students arent' being taught to think - they're being taught to repeat. And it's coming from the professors and institutions.

 

OF COURSE Harvard law professor Obama nominated Harvard Law Professor Garland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you might be a great attorney from Golden Gate School of Law but that won't get you to the supremes. You have to have a life of high achievement. No one said its fair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it's about diversity in thought, not diversity in skin color or some other politically correct grouping.

 

Read what people like Elena Kagan and Ginsberg said about Scalia.. he made them better judges by challenging THEIR orthodoxy. At the end of the day, they may have disagreed with every single point he ever made but he made THEM better judges by forcing them to actually defend their point of view against an actual opponent, not just someone cranked out from the same thought factory. That's THEIR conclusion. Not mine.

 

THAT is my problem. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, even Stanford, are all echo chambers. It's the same people reading the same stuff spewing the same mantra as if repeating something often enough must make it true. Even groups like Scientific American have started pointing out the hegemony problem - students arent' being taught to think - they're being taught to repeat. And it's coming from the professors and institutions.

 

OF COURSE Harvard law professor Obama nominated Harvard Law Professor Garland.

 

Don't you think the fact that Scalia was a Harvard Law grad torpedos the point you are trying to make?

 

Edit: Obama is a Harvard Law grad he taught law at University of Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

do your job

 

hold hearings, hold a vote. If it's a no, so be it.

 

do you job

 

 

why is that so hard?

Yep. Fulfill their constitutional obligations. Hold hearings debate it and vote. I don't care what "issues" are perceived as at risk. The process is pretty straight forward. Blocking cuz your guy died at the wrong moment and you hope the xenophobic bully will actually get elected is just plain wrong.

 

The ironic thing is Trump will get the nomination, Hillary will win the general and choose a FAR less balanced appointee than this one.

 

 

The D's might be the majority in the Senate too. McConnell and Grassley's ODS may have painted them into a corner. What the hell are they thinking??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always admired Nina Totenburg, she just detailed an Obama agreement with Senate Republicans over his Supreme Court pick.

 

 

According to Nina Totenberg, NPR's Legal Correspondent appearing on the Rachel Maddow Show tonight Obama has made a deal with the Repubs that goes like this: The Repugs will still not consider or do anything with Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court until after the election in November. Then, if the Democrats win the Repugs will approve Garland for the Supreme Court. Totenberg stresses that this is in line with Obama's judicial philosophy of wanting judges (or Justices) who defer to the Legislature and the Executive.

 

But after reading this, I'm disturbed that politics in Washington is so creepy that an agreement can be made eight months ahead of an election, while we the public participate in a phony back and forth to determine the election when elements have already been decided.

 

This is a good example why Washington needs to be cleaned up, we have zero influence on political outcomes. It is pure Kabuki and the legitimate voter has lost their say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda really skeptical of this story. Totenberg is very well connected on the Court. I doubt she's connected at all to Obama and Obama pretty much doesn't bluff. What is the exchange in this non-deal deal? What's in it for either side? Democrats are going to campaign against the Republicans on this issue.

 

I don't even understand this story. The deference line is simply batty:

 

Totenberg stresses that this is in line with Obama's judicial philosophy of wanting judges (or Justices) who defer to the Legislature and the Executive.

 

What does that even mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda really skeptical of this story. Totenberg is very well connected on the Court. I doubt she's connected at all to Obama and Obama pretty much doesn't bluff. What is the exchange in this non-deal deal? What's in it for either side? Democrats are going to campaign against the Republicans on this issue.

 

I don't even understand this story. The deference line is simply batty:

 

Totenberg stresses that this is in line with Obama's judicial philosophy of wanting judges (or Justices) who defer to the Legislature and the Executive.

 

What does that even mean?

 

It is disturbing and the fact that Totenburg is completely trustworthy is driving me mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she is very well connected on the Court. But this deal makes no sense and Obama is pretty straightforward about this stuff. I don't even understand what the 'deal' is (the quid that's getting pro quo'd) let alone the logic of the deal. Makes no sense to me. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she is very well connected on the Court. But this deal makes no sense and Obama is pretty straightforward about this stuff. I don't even understand what the 'deal' is (the quid that's getting pro quo'd) let alone the logic of the deal. Makes no sense to me. We'll see. I think she's getting played by her sources.

 

I don't see much for Obama to gain from this deal.

 

What he could gain, nationally, is watching Harry Reid screwing the Republican leadership (someplace uncomfortable...like the backseat of a volkswagon) on C-Span with this nomination for the next eight months every time they go on record for Obstruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is the deal: if the Kenyan nominates someone minimally acceptable to the Republicans but they won't consider him until after the election. If the Dems win, they'll confirm him in the lame duck session. As consideration for this deal, the Kenyan gets to be President.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/republicans-pushed-merric-garland

 

However, notice that she doesn't say she has White House confirming sources. This is spin.

By all accounts, Merrick Garland is a solid choice who was already on everyone's SC short list:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/supreme-court-nominee-shortlist/

 

Well, I don't think Garland is on Tom's shortlist. That'd be Joe down at the bait shop.

Joe is very solid on the 2A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends of course on how well Trump is doing, but Obama has the option of withdrawing the nomination in early to middle October and telling Senate Republicans he will now consult with Hillary and Sanders on a new pick. That may cause panic in Republican ranks guaranteeing a Garland confirmation. Obama can have great fun with this before it's over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think she is very well connected on the Court. But this deal makes no sense and Obama is pretty straightforward about this stuff. I don't even understand what the 'deal' is (the quid that's getting pro quo'd) let alone the logic of the deal. Makes no sense to me. We'll see. I think she's getting played by her sources.

 

I don't see much for Obama to gain from this deal.

 

What he could gain, nationally, is watching Harry Reid screwing the Republican leadership (someplace uncomfortable...like the backseat of a volkswagon) on C-Span with this nomination for the next eight months every time they go on record for Obstruction.

 

 

Some use the word "deal" for "explanation", as in "What's the deal with this?" Her usage of "...the deal between" implies bargain but she may have simply been sloppy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends of course on how well Trump is doing, but Obama has the option of withdrawing the nomination in early to middle October and telling Senate Republicans he will now consult with Hillary and Sanders on a new pick. That may cause panic in Republican ranks guaranteeing a Garland confirmation. Obama can have great fun with this before it's over.

 

What is very hard is also very brittle. Watch the definition of a lame duck from "Someone who should not be making long-term decisions for America" shatter into "People who are experienced and wise" come Nov 8, should the Dems win both the WH and the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

By all accounts, Merrick Garland is a solid choice who was already on everyone's SC short list:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/supreme-court-nominee-shortlist/

 

Well, I don't think Garland is on Tom's shortlist. That'd be Joe down at the bait shop.

Joe is very solid on the 2A.

 

Kozinski from down at the 9th is on my short list. But I would be very surprised if Obama appointed someone who was not hostile to the second amendment.

 

He already did it twice. Both times, I said the nominee should be confirmed. Now he has done it again and I said the same thing again.

 

I'm more interested in how my fellow progressives feel about Garland's views on indefinite detention and other executive powers of the Security State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit interested in when in US history the relationship between the exec and legislative branches has been so nasty, that one group picks up their toys and goes home almost a year before the next inauguration.

 

Now, pre-term limits on Prez, the prez could make the case they would be around, right? Although there weren't many (any) 3 termers before Roosevelt.

 

So - one time that comes to mind is right before the Civil War - that's an obvious one.

 

How about the end of Wilson's term? Was pretty rocky if I recall my history class.

 

Other times that were similar to now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got an email forwarded from a Progressive friend urging me to sign the Petition of Boldpac to tell the Republicans to "Do Their Job!!" Like my signature on a petition is going to affect Old Mitch!! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 30s come to mind.

 

the 30s right after FDR was elected? I do recall he had some pretty tough congresses to work with, and got a might bit dictatorial in response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1938 conservatives controlled Congress (c Dems + Rs) and yeah, accused FDR of aiming at dictatorship.

They certainly fought the New Deal and they also instituted the Neutrality Acts.

They've been chipping away at the New Deal ever since.

 

It's interesting to compare Conservapedia and Wikipedia on the Neutrality Acts:

 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Neutrality_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_1930s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Ted will endorse Trump in exchange for a SC appointment? I'm laughing already at the explosion that would generate from the progressives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Mitch & the "Good ol' boys will fold, & as always, BO will get his way with this nomination or the next.

The Republican "Establishment" don't understand the Democrat's "Kill or be killed" motto.

 

All the R's have to do is hold the hearings, then "Ready, aim, fire".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Ted will endorse Trump in exchange for a SC appointment? I'm laughing already at the explosion that would generate from the progressives.

 

That's amusing but if you think of how deeply Ted Cruz is beloved by his fellow Senators

you'll quickly realize that Harriet Miers stood a better chance at getting confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Ted will endorse Trump in exchange for a SC appointment? I'm laughing already at the explosion that would generate from the progressives.

 

If Amerika elects Trump, we deserve everything we get.

 

DC will become a real-life version of the dystopia of the Capitol in the Hunger Games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Maybe Ted will endorse Trump in exchange for a SC appointment? I'm laughing already at the explosion that would generate from the progressives.

 

If Amerika elects Trump, we deserve everything we get.

 

DC will become a real-life version of the dystopia of the Capitol in the Hunger Games.

 

Just Imagine

 

The candidate has a head start on the hair piece, and his speech style is already aligned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a fun scenario for you - Dems take back the senate, take office Jan 3rd, shitcan the filibuster and consent to Obama's pick while he's still in office. I know, fantasy, but it could happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe Ted will endorse Trump in exchange for a SC appointment? I'm laughing already at the explosion that would generate from the progressives.

 

If Amerika elects Trump, we deserve everything we get.

 

DC will become a real-life version of the dystopia of the Capitol in the Hunger Games.

 

 

You haven't been out her for a while, have ya? In some ways - we're already there. Zone 12 is right across the eastern ridge of the Blue Ridge mountains. I think Anacostia is its own special case, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Here's a fun scenario for you - Dems take back the senate, take office Jan 3rd, shitcan the filibuster and consent to Obama's pick while he's still in office. I know, fantasy, but it could happen.

 

Ah yes, anything can happen. Not sure if the Dems will take back the Senate, I think most Trump supporters will

vote for a Republican Senator, & they seem to be somewhat energized. In the last general election, the Reps

gained about 10 Senate seats, IIRC. Not sure that should change much?

 

In any event, the Reps have two options:

 

1. Reject all of BO's nominations, hoping for a Republican President

 

2. When Hillary is elected, apply gun barrel to forehead & squeeze trigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a fun scenario for you - Dems take back the senate, take office Jan 3rd, shitcan the filibuster and consent to Obama's pick while he's still in office. I know, fantasy, but it could happen.

 

If Hillary is going to have a Dem majority in the Senate this Senate is likely to confirm Obama's pick during the lame-duck period. It is unlikely Hillary will pick a moderate. "Let the people have a voice" will suddenly change to mean the people who elected an R majority in the Senate in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary may well nominate someone left of Garland. She would certainly nominate someone younger. Republicans are being very dumb with this knee jerk opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got an email forwarded from a Progressive friend urging me to sign the Petition of Boldpac to tell the Republicans to "Do Their Job!!" Like my signature on a petition is going to affect Old Mitch!! LOL

 

Like he's gonna care about you. McConnell doesn't give a shit about his actual constituents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Hillary may well nominate someone left of Garland. She would certainly nominate someone younger. Republicans are being very dumb with this knee jerk opposition.

 

Agree, I don't see any benefit in not having hearings. When Hillary is leading in the polls by mid October, & if it looks

like they are going to lose the Senate, the Reps should just take the least liberal nominee BO puts up. Then

kiss your guns goodby.

 

I think BO putting up Garland, at his age, is just a trial balloon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one of import wants your guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hillary may well nominate someone left of Garland. She would certainly nominate someone younger. Republicans are being very dumb with this knee jerk opposition.

 

Agree, I don't see any benefit in not having hearings. When Hillary is leading in the polls by mid October, & if it looks

like they are going to lose the Senate, the Reps should just take the least liberal nominee BO puts up. Then

kiss your guns goodby.

 

I think BO putting up Garland, at his age, is just a trial balloon.

Garland probably is the least liberal O' would put up. If Mitch keeps this up Obama may well withdraw the nomination before the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say goodbye to your babies too. It's all but certain Hillary's supreme court nominee will legalize the institution of mandatory partial birth abortions and we can't rule out those being performed retroactively, if the parents so request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

No one of import wants your guns.

 

Well, Hillary said she supports the Australian gun confiscation plan, where over 700,000 guns were destroyed.

She may not want our guns, but she would likely want to see them confiscated & then destroyed. With a liberal

majority on the Supreme Court, it could be done, on an incremental basis, of course.

 

With Hillary as Pres, & the Court liberal, it is likely that many, many anti gun Dems, who have been relatively silent,

will jump on the anti gun wagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

Hillary may well nominate someone left of Garland. She would certainly nominate someone younger. Republicans are being very dumb with this knee jerk opposition.

Agree, I don't see any benefit in not having hearings. When Hillary is leading in the polls by mid October, & if it looks

like they are going to lose the Senate, the Reps should just take the least liberal nominee BO puts up. Then

kiss your guns goodby.

 

I think BO putting up Garland, at his age, is just a trial balloon.

Garland probably is the least liberal O' would put up. If Mitch keeps this up Obama may well withdraw the nomination before the election.

 

 

It is likely BO will put up more liberal candidates, & say "Take mine, you don't want to see who Hillary puts up."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is amusing. I peg Hillary as right of Obama.

Clearly she is. She is a typical, mainstream Wall Street candidate. Change the letter behind her name and she'd be a Messiah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change the letter and she'd be a FiCon. On social issues she's moderate but would never expend an ounce of political capital (unlike Obama). On FP I don't agree on the Neocon label; but if she had an R, our starboard friends would be crowing about an American Thatcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change the letter and she'd be a FiCon. On social issues she's moderate but would never expend an ounce of political capital (unlike Obama). On FP I don't agree on the Neocon label; but if she had an R, our starboard friends would be crowing about an American Thatcher.

 

I would tend to agree on both points but I think she's a bit more Neocon than you give her credit for being.

 

From what I've read, she and susan rice were really the architects of Libya and that whole strategy - from backing the rebels to fire now and clean up the mess later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites