Obama nominates Merrick Garland to SCOTUS
Here’s William Jacobson on the subject of Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland. It’s a canny move by Obama, and an expected one—to nominate a “moderate” and to dare the GOP to oppose him.
How the GOP reacts depends on their bet about the 2016 election: will it be Trump vs. Hillary or Cruz vs. Hillary, and who is likely to win in the general? If Clinton is the most likely 2016 president, she would no doubt appoint someone worse than Garland, probably much worse. And yet if GOP approves Garland and a Republican wins the election, they will be hated even more than they are now, if such a thing be possible.
What’s more, if they wait till after the 2016 election and try to squeeze in a Garland approval before the inauguration if Clinton wins the election, the Democrats will filibuster the approval.
Remember, also, the general rule that most moderate justices seem to become more liberal in office over time. So even a moderate often ends up not so moderate after a while, sometimes rather a short while.
Talk about dilemmas. And an awful lot is riding on this.
McConnell is holding firm; Garland will not get a hearing.
If Congressional Republicans support Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, then everyone will assume that the GOP leadership thinks that neither Trump nor Cruz can defeat Hillary. Even a tacit public admission would be an impossible position.
Worse yet, many of Trump’s supporters believe absolutely in his upcoming victory. They would interpret GOP support of Obama’s nominee as a perfidious effort to block Trump’s righteous authority.
Even if the GOP leadership has hired the world’s best fortune teller, who’s told them that Hillary will win and will nominate a Communist to the Court, the GOP is cornered by circumstances. They can do nothing but oppose Obama’s nominee.
I agree with Cornflour, opposition is the only choice.
I think they should stick to their guns. If they can’t, someone should full on Bork the guy and give dems a taste of their own medicine. They could do it on his 2nd amendment decisions alone.
Absent Obama’s appointing a judge that agrees with Scalia’s thinking, JUST SAY NO.
A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee, but a successful filibuster threat could add the requirement of a supermajority of 60 needed in favor of cloture, which would allow debate to end and force a final vote on confirmation.
So as Reid did, change the dang rules to benefit the GOP this time. Make cloture a simple majority. But as most Republicans feel, the GOP is gutless.
If McConnell keeps his powder dry and sticks to his promise, Trump has a great opportunity to come out in support. He has said he’d appoint someone as close to Scalia as he could find.
Beautiful Cornflour…
May i add that what makes Cornflour analysis so excellent is his consideration of time and how the remembered past would affect the future, even if another answer would have been the “right” one as viewed in some distant hindsight. Hindsight is not 20/20 anymore.
This is actually a good opportunity: the very next time President Obama says the Senate should do their job, they should reply, “Do your job, and have the Justice Department indict Hillary Clinton for her criminal wrong-doing with her private e-mail server. Do your job, Mr. Obama.”
Moderate? Garland is a flaming liberal gun grabber. As an appeals court judge, he voted (in 2007) to reverse a D.C. Circuit Court decision that struck down Washington’s handgun ban as unconstitutional.
Don’t care. No need for explanations, Obama gets no nominees…because elections have consequences.
Only one nominee Obama could make whom I would call on the Senate to consider: Ted Cruz. That would be a devious but clever move by Obama, as the Senate would be glad to consider him and it would clear the field for a Trump nomination, whom Hillary would beat. I think Obama missed his best choice.
Don’t settle for anyone if they aren’t an Originalist like Scalia. That’s the order – server it as ordered.
Speaking of Hillary, besides the dilemma above there is another interesting dilemma for the FBI. they are talking about indicting Hillary on violations of the Espionage act. its an interesting pickle
to be an honest fbi (given the most serious evidence), they would have to charge her, but if they charge her, people will think the fbi dishonest in fixing the election
however, if they try to avoid that end, they would have to be dishonest and not charge her, to which another side will think they are fixing the election by not charging and taking her as is proper (and so deny the title to who remains)
actually given the outcome its mortons fork, not a dilemma, in either case the FBI will appear to be fixing the election.
veddy interesting…
Great comment Yankee.
But the elephant in the room must not be acknowledged.
If the media did its constitutional duty the only thing she would have been questioned on in those fake debates was her private server. Twenty hard questions; not one softball.
On another blog a Lib asserted to me that this email thing is just a bureaucratic screwup. No lie. The Chinese and Russians are laughing at us.
If the GOP was smart it would start a “do your job” meme on Obama.
Do your job and stop illegal immigration.
Protect our secrets.
Destroy ISIS.
Fix the VA. Etc.
The details are irrelevant.
No leftist, moderate or not is a fit replacement for an historic conservative Justice who changed everyone’s perspective on the Constitution and its interpretation.
#NeverGarland
It was a smart move by Obama, which is why it is surprising. The Republicans will slow walk the nomination and wait to see if they have a chance to win in November.
A filibuster will not be needed by the Democrats if the Republicans lose in November and then try to approve Garland in the lame duck session- Obama will simply withdraw the nomination and put up his real choice, or let the new President Clinton do so. If Republicans are going to take “lesser of two evils” approach, they will would have to approve Garland before November, but after they are convinced they are going to lose. I think the smartest move of all is to simply wait it out. Like Neo, I think Garland will eventually prove to be a total lock on the liberal side- I don’t really believe him to be a moderate at all, so there isn’t all that much to lose by denying him confirmation or even a hearing.
Only the Left considers him ‘moderate.’
Remember that Al Franken and Barry Soetoro both think that they are centrists, hence moderates.
Franken even stated so in his book.
A change story!!
a last minute change story!!!
[for insight, not persuasion]
Why I Voted For Trump… a last minute decision…
Kasich speech in front of congress… Free
Kasich Video of driving… Free
Kasich Speech Merged with Video driving… Priceless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=80&v=nTf_qyRXhxk
Hillary’s not going to win.
Trump is very very likely to win AZ next week. How much longer is Cruz going to drag this on?
The last poll out of Arizona from March 10 (MBQF):
Trump 37%
Cruz 23%
Kasich 15%
Trump also had a larger lead of 41%-24% among early voters
K-E:
Citing that poll in order to suggest Cruz should drop out soon is so fascinating of you. First of all, no helpful link. Why not? But even without a link, I would hope people can do math. Those numbers add up to 75%. Where is the missing mass, as it were?
Rubio voters, and undecideds. Here’s a link.
Now, there’s no question that Trump could win Arizona, and win it all. But there’s also no question that Cruz shouldn’t drop out, because it remains to be seen how he’d do with Rubio gone and he could do quite well. And citing incomplete statistics from polls won’t fly here.
Why do you feel the need to urge that Cruz should drop out, or at least to imply it? I believe you mean well and are acting in good faith here (and in good faith in your support of Trump, too), but that just doesn’t make sense.
Fred:
I have removed your completely off-topic comments. Quit spamming the threads.
“OBAMA NOMINATES STEALTH LEFTIST FOR THE SUPREME COURT“
“How Judge Garland’s deciding vote would reverse key decisions protecting Americans’ constitutional freedoms.”
Garland’s record makes a compelling case that he is indeed an activist liberal judge.
Artfl, once again you are positive in your opinions but wrong on your facts. The FBI does not indict anybody. The FBI makes a criminal referral to the Justice Department. The Justice Department, i.e., Loretta Lynch, determines whether to convene a grand jury to indict.
A grand jury may have been convened; it is unusual, but not unheard of, for immunity to be granted without one, but that doesn’t mean DOJ will have the grand jury indict.
It all comes down to politics. If Trump gets the nomination, the Evil Empress will be indicted. If the FBI Director tells Lynch that he and dozens, perhaps hundreds, of agents will resign, the Evil Empress will be indicted. If Lynch and the Onederboy succeed in cowing Comey and the rest of the FBI and IC into silence, she won’t be indicted.
Get it?
Artful, honestly. If Trump were to get elected, which is dubious (chances are, he’s only here because he’s the only person that could possibly have gotten involved in the race that his friend Hillary could beat) at best he is going to be a one-term failure that will embarrass actual Republicans (if our party still exists) for years.
He shows no real ability to do anything other than rabble-rouse crowds at the lowest-common-denominator level. His ideas are puerile and delivered as if by a man who really has no idea whatsoever what he’s doing here. I disrespect him as a human for his repeated displays of boorish, aggressive and patently offensive behavior and as I noted on a different forum, given that his specialty seems to be making a small fortune from a large one, I don’t greatly respect him as anything other than a self-hyped and overhyped brand when it comes to business.
Your attempts to attack Trump’s opposition by any tinfoil hat thing you can find make you sound like a democrat troll and had I not seen you here for years, that’s what I would assume you are. Here, I can only presume that not only have you drunk the Trump Koolaid, you’ve invested your life savings in it.
I used to do a lot of debating in a certain sports field, and the Trump backers remind me of the subset of the population which obsesses on newcomers and dismisses those with any sort of real established record, even if it’s good. They’re not looking for good, they’re looking for an Epic Hero; and once something is demonstrated to be merely good, it can never be an Epic Hero. But anyone with no record at all still could be The One.
News flash: Trump is not The One, anymore than Obama was.
Garland a moderate? A moderate! “Thou are neither hot nor cold… And I will spew thee out of my mouth.” Garland well knows the lay of the land at this time and he is a committed-enough Leftist to allow Obama to cynically use him as a political toy boy in hopes of baiting the Republicans. What more need be said.
From yesterday’s WSJ on Judge Garland:
“law professor Clare Huntington, who clerked for Judge Garland during his first year on the D.C. Circuit, described him as “deeply involved in the minutiae” of legal reasoning, sweating the details of each case rather than promoting a broader philosophical agenda. In addition to criminal law, Judge Garland has a special expertise in administrative law–“the bread and butter of the D.C. Circuit,” which handles many cases involving federal agencies, Ms. Huntington said.”
In other words, Garland pursues trivia; he is a judicial mouse, the 180 degree opposite of Scalia. As an expert in administrative law, he manifestly likes to deal with Federal bureaucrats and their bureaucracies.
Garland is a sweaty wee little man, exactly the kind of guy to take orders from Great Leaders like BHO and Hillary.
He is also very opposed to the 2nd Amendment.
The notion that his nomination should be kept open until after the election, so that he could be Senate-confirmed before Hillary takes office to nominate someone worse is a quite nutty idea. If Hillary wins and Dems retake the Senate, BHO just withdraws Garland’s nomination in November, in order for fire to rain down from Democratic heaven come 2017.
Kyndyll G’s analysis above of Donald Trump is spot on.
Trump is a shameless self-promoter that lacks any substance and covers it will bullying bluster. He appears to be a pathetic person who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, especially our Constitution.
Garland would certainly be the fifth certain vote on the liberal side of the Supreme Court and the GOP should make that clear to the public without entertaining any hearings.
Artfldgr:
I think you are wrong about Justice Roberts and Cruz.
That is, Justice Roberts WAS a good appointment at the time. But, something happened to him between his first draft of the first SCOTUS opinion in the 2012 case NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS and his final draft.
See,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/#5c31bfc27c4c
I don’t know what it was, but I suspect it was not something good.
Whatever it was, it was not something that Cruz or most other people could anticipate.
Trump will be no worse than Arnold in CA – blustering and egotistical, Arnauld was a faux republican who created years of deadlock, which is the best that can happen, especially compared to Hillary.
Those who say Trump will result in anything but gridlock are just tin hat lunatics. His executive orders won’t increase immigration, and his staff will include Christie, Carson and other “real” republicans so the rank and file will swing things right at least the lower level.
Those who are “never trump” are as much enemies as the left since they don’t know how government operates.
neo-neocon
I did not in any way prosperously tried or trying spamming your post.
My apologies, however its your space and you’r free to do what you like.
thanks
“prosperously” should be purposely