Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland

JimmyV

President Obama to announce his nominee at 11am.

mickeyrat

Sri.

JimmyV

NPR reporting it will be Merrick Garland:

https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/710103702955302912?s=09

Jason P

I would have picked someone with a cooler name. Are there no judges with the last name of "Power"? First name "Max"?

Sheesh ...

mickeyrat

JimmyV said:

NPR reporting it will be Merrick Garland:

https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/710103702955302912?s=09

Longer tenure as a fed judge and chief of that court.
Hearing he's a centrist.

JimmyV

Your turn Congress.

rgambs

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.

JC29856

Lamb at GOP alter

riotgrl

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.

JimmyV

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.

hedonist

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.

Amen to this!

ckravitz

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.

Yep, whether you like Obama or not, this was a brilliant choice from a political point of view.

ckravitz

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.

Yes!

JimmyV

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.

riotgrl

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 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

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.”

JimmyV

riotgrl said:

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 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).

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.

Enkidu

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.

Who Princess

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.

Agreed. If Congress blocks this one, they'll look like even bigger schmucks.

jeffbr

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.”

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

"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.