Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland

"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Comments
-
Sri._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
NPR reporting it will be Merrick Garland:
Post edited by JimmyV on___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
I would have picked someone with a cooler name. Are there no judges with the last name of "Power"? First name "Max"?
Sheesh ...Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
Longer tenure as a fed judge and chief of that court.JimmyV said:NPR reporting it will be Merrick Garland:
Hearing he's a centrist._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Your turn Congress.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
If he is a centrist then the GOP is stuck in a really bad spot with this. Their numbskulls (chill, both sides have numbskulls) won't believe any source that says he is a centrist, he will be a commie to them like everyone else who isn't to the right of Limbaugh.
Moderates across the board, however, will see that Obama did the mature thing and the GOP blocking will be viewed as very childish.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
Lamb at GOP alter0
-
I've long thought that it would be great if all the justices were centrists. Most Americans have a tendency to be more moderate and land somewhere in the middle. This extreme divisiveness between the political parties has created untenable situations in that we see less and less compromise.Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE0 -
On the whole centrist judges I think are more likely to approach each case on the merits rather than using their own ideology as a starting point. Have to question the wisdom of any judge that consistently leans right or left in their decisions. Each case is different, as is every issue.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
Amen to this!riotgrl said:I've long thought that it would be great if all the justices were centrists. Most Americans have a tendency to be more moderate and land somewhere in the middle. This extreme divisiveness between the political parties has created untenable situations in that we see less and less compromise.
0 -
Yep, whether you like Obama or not, this was a brilliant choice from a political point of view.rgambs said:If he is a centrist then the GOP is stuck in a really bad spot with this. Their numbskulls (chill, both sides have numbskulls) won't believe any source that says he is a centrist, he will be a commie to them like everyone else who isn't to the right of Limbaugh.
Moderates across the board, however, will see that Obama did the mature thing and the GOP blocking will be viewed as very childish.0 -
Yes!riotgrl said:I've long thought that it would be great if all the justices were centrists. Most Americans have a tendency to be more moderate and land somewhere in the middle. This extreme divisiveness between the political parties has created untenable situations in that we see less and less compromise.
0 -
Barring any unexpected bombshells from Judge Garland's past, at first glance he seems like a tough nominee to not confirm. "Because Obama" may be a winning argument with the GOP base but it is a loser with independents.
I do expect Hillary to offer some thinly veiled suggestion that Garland is perhaps not liberal enough. Let it be known that you either confirm this nominee or face a much worse (by GOP standards) option in early 2017.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
I wonder how much longer moderate Republicans will tolerate this mentality. Some of my more conservative friends are very frustrated that the name 'conservative' has been linked to the debacle that is the rise of Trump. McConnell isn't stupid and at some point needs to realize that he helped create this divisive situation. Hopefully, the rational Republicans will see that this could be a great compromise that might help them keep their Congressional seats. I can't see Americans standing for getting Trump as president and then allowing some of these guys to keep their seats, especially if his presidency (IF it were to happen) is a disaster (which I believe it would be).JimmyV said:Barring any unexpected bombshells from Judge Garland's past, at first glance he seems like a tough nominee to not confirm. "Because Obama" may be a winning argument with the GOP base but it is a loser with independents.
I do expect Hillary to offer some thinly veiled suggestion that Garland is perhaps not liberal enough. Let it be known that you either confirm this nominee or face a much worse (by GOP standards) option in early 2017.Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE0 -
Meanwhile on the Left...disappointment that Judge Garland is a white man.
http://www.nytimes.com/live/obama-supreme-court-nomination/some-liberals-express-disappointment/
“It’s deeply disappointing that President Obama failed to use this opportunity to add the voice of another progressive woman of color to the Supreme Court, and instead put forward a nominee seemingly designed to appease intransigent Republicans rather than inspire the grass roots he’ll need to get that nominee through the Senate gantlet,” Charles Chamberlain, the executive director of the Democracy for America, said in a statement.
While he said Senate Republicans should give Judge Garland a fair hearing, Mr. Chamberlain argued that Mr. Obama’s choice would “make it harder to excite grass-roots progressives about the slog ahead.”___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
It's a congressional problem. Congress is widely reviled in general but not nearly as many people hate their Representative or Senator in particular. So Mitch McConnell is beholden only to his constituency in Kentucky, Jim Inhofe to his in Oklahoma, etc., while the 65 million Americans who voted for President Obama are largely powerless to do anything about it. That's how I feel here in Massachusetts. We have zero Republican representation in Washington and so my vote counts for absolutely nothing in this process. It is beyond infuriating.riotgrl said:
I wonder how much longer moderate Republicans will tolerate this mentality. Some of my more conservative friends are very frustrated that the name 'conservative' has been linked to the debacle that is the rise of Trump. McConnell isn't stupid and at some point needs to realize that he helped create this divisive situation. Hopefully, the rational Republicans will see that this could be a great compromise that might help them keep their Congressional seats. I can't see Americans standing for getting Trump as president and then allowing some of these guys to keep their seats, especially if his presidency (IF it were to happen) is a disaster (which I believe it would be).JimmyV said:Barring any unexpected bombshells from Judge Garland's past, at first glance he seems like a tough nominee to not confirm. "Because Obama" may be a winning argument with the GOP base but it is a loser with independents.
I do expect Hillary to offer some thinly veiled suggestion that Garland is perhaps not liberal enough. Let it be known that you either confirm this nominee or face a much worse (by GOP standards) option in early 2017.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
It's no secret I lean pretty left, but Obama has to play this one smart. Sure, I would've loved a female of color who isn't Catholic or Jewish and didn't go to Harvard. (More diversity on the SC would be a good thing, I think.) But this guy seems like a good choice.0
-
Agreed. If Congress blocks this one, they'll look like even bigger schmucks.Enkidu said:It's no secret I lean pretty left, but Obama has to play this one smart. Sure, I would've loved a female of color who isn't Catholic or Jewish and didn't go to Harvard. (More diversity on the SC would be a good thing, I think.) But this guy seems like a good choice.
"The stars are all connected to the brain."0 -
Thankfully Obama has more sense and savvy than the author of this piece. Garland should be an acceptable nominee to both dems and reps at a time when things are divisive and deeply divided. Appointing a progressive woman of color just for the sake of getting a progressive woman of color on the court sounds like it would give the reps carte blanche to obstruct, leaving both the Senate and Obama complicit in the game of politics. With Obama's nomination of Garland, the light will be shining solely on the republicans in the Senate. The other issue I have with the author of that silly piece is that her motivation is to inspire the grassroots activists. That isn't what is needed or wanted for making a SCOTUS nomination. I'd rather have a well thought out and considered approach and perhaps some analysis of Garland's qualifications or ability. His gender or pigmentation shouldn't be a factor.JimmyV said:Meanwhile on the Left...disappointment that Judge Garland is a white man.
http://www.nytimes.com/live/obama-supreme-court-nomination/some-liberals-express-disappointment/
“It’s deeply disappointing that President Obama failed to use this opportunity to add the voice of another progressive woman of color to the Supreme Court, and instead put forward a nominee seemingly designed to appease intransigent Republicans rather than inspire the grass roots he’ll need to get that nominee through the Senate gantlet,” Charles Chamberlain, the executive director of the Democracy for America, said in a statement.
While he said Senate Republicans should give Judge Garland a fair hearing, Mr. Chamberlain argued that Mr. Obama’s choice would “make it harder to excite grass-roots progressives about the slog ahead.”"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
"The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.”
-- Mitch McConnell on why the 65 million Americans who already voted for our current President should not have their voices heard in the filling of this vacancy which occurred during the term of our current President.
These congressional Republicans are an embarrassment.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help