Jump to content
southsider2k5

Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

Recommended Posts

WNDU

1 min ·

 

BREAKING: Congressional sources say President Barack Obama will nominate federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

 

Garland is the chief justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court whose influence over federal policy and national security matters has made it a proving ground for potential Supreme Court justices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seemed like he'd be the compromise choice. Surprised its him out of the bad. Though "Chief Justice of DC Court" is pretty tough to argue against in terms of qualifications. Obviously, it's not about qualifications, but better to get that argument out in open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 09:26 AM)
Seemed like he'd be the compromise choice. Surprised its him out of the bad. Though "Chief Justice of DC Court" is pretty tough to argue against in terms of qualifications. Obviously, it's not about qualifications, but better to get that argument out in open.

 

It'll make the Senate look even worse when they reject it or delay it for 9 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'll make the Senate look even worse when they reject it or delay it for 9 months.

 

The Republicans only need to delay until the last one of them gets past his/her primary, then they can go ahead with the confirmation process without worrying about a challenge from the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not once in history has anyone on the Supreme Court been named Merrick or Garland. This is an unprecedented, extremist move by Obama.

 

The last time someone with the last name Garland left the north side of Chicago it worked out pretty well for Sox fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 10:12 AM)
I was hoping for Srinivasan

 

It will likely be Srinivasan, only under President Clinton.

 

President Trump will get us ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 09:01 AM)
He is very anti-gun, do not confirm.

 

The only record that I can see of Garland on guns is: (1) he voted to rehear Parker v. District of Columbia en banc (meaning with all 10 members of the DC Circuit rather than the panel of 3 that issued the original Parker decision); and (2) he joined in an opinion upholding the FBI's background check system for gun purchases as not violating a federal prohibition on creating a gun registry.

 

Based on the above, I can see why the right might be worried, and in confirmation hearings want to flesh out Garland's position on Heller and other second amendment cases, but I don't see anything in his record that labels him as definitively anti-gun, a threat to overturn Heller, or as a threat to take anyone's guns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 10:29 AM)
The only record that I can see of Garland on guns is: (1) he voted to rehear Parker v. District of Columbia en banc (meaning with all 10 members of the DC Circuit rather than the panel of 3 that issued the original Parker decision); and (2) he joined in an opinion upholding the FBI's background check system for gun purchases as not violating a federal prohibition on creating a gun registry.

 

Based on the above, I can see why the right might be worried, and in confirmation hearings want to flesh out Garland's position on Heller and other second amendment cases, but I don't see anything in his record that labels him as definitively anti-gun, a threat to overturn Heller, or as a threat to take anyone's guns...

 

Agreed. And he has a record as being a fairly tough prosecutor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 09:39 AM)
It'll make the Senate look even worse when they reject it or delay it for 9 months.

 

Obama made a political power play. If this gets dragged out, it only gives the democrats ammo for the general elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 11:43 AM)
Obama made a political power play. If this gets dragged out, it only gives the democrats ammo for the general elections.

I agree. The lame duck argument is lame. He was elected to a 4 year term, not 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my problem with the "next President should nominate" logic. There are also Congressional elections coming up. Why isn't Congress following the same logic and leaving legislating up to the next Congress? Why isn't Mike Pence refusing to sign any bills in the State of Indiana until the next Governor is elected? If you REALLY believe the next President should be making the decisions that shape our country beyond election day, go the whole nine yards, and shut down ALL business that has repercussions beyond November. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

It is also another stupid precedent to set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 01:17 PM)
Here is my problem with the "next President should nominate" logic. There are also Congressional elections coming up. Why isn't Congress following the same logic and leaving legislating up to the next Congress? Why isn't Mike Pence refusing to sign any bills in the State of Indiana until the next Governor is elected? If you REALLY believe the next President should be making the decisions that shape our country beyond election day, go the whole nine yards, and shut down ALL business that has repercussions beyond November. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

It is also another stupid precedent to set.

Because you know it's not about that, it's about the fact that a justice as far right as possible is the one who died and if you replace him with anything other than the most pro-Republican justice imagineable it shifts the balance of power on the court. Even your own party officials have said as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has posted this quote yet in here, but this one is too delicious. Senator Orrin Hatch, last week:

"The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him," Hatch told us.

 

"[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," he told us, referring to the more centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia who was considered and passed over for the two previous high court vacancies.

Latest News Update

 

But, Hatch quickly added, "He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 12:24 PM)
Because you know it's not about that, it's about the fact that a justice as far right as possible is the one who died and if you replace him with anything other than the most pro-Republican justice imagineable it shifts the balance of power on the court. Even your own party officials have said as much.

 

Yes. And we all know we should follow exactly what "our party" leaders tell us to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 01:31 PM)
Yes. And we all know we should follow exactly what "our party" leaders tell us to think.

Then don't pretend you don't know what the real logic is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 12:38 PM)
Then don't pretend you don't know what the real logic is.

 

I know what the "logic" is, and it isn't at all logical unless you are going to apply it evenly. Unlike most, to me it doesn't matter which party is doing it, and which party did it first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily blame the Republicans except that they are saying they won't nominate ANYONE by this president vs just doing what everyone would expect and hear and decline the nomination of individuals.

 

The lifetime appointment makes these far too crucial, but elections matter. The 30 year period where republicans owned the presidency for all but 10 years swung the court in a more conservative direction after the 30 years before that that swung it in a more liberal one.

 

Thems the breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping for Kelly because having the double whammy of criminal defense experience + public defender would have been great to have on the court. Could have helped our major access to justice issues. That said, Garland seems like a very solid choice at first blush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 08:22 PM)
Unfortunately the main criticism I've seen of him from the left is his record on civil liberties and criminal justice.

But he's replacing Scalia, still amazing progress instead of that crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you were worried that the Republicans were obstructing this because they were honestly concerned about voters, they've come out and basically said their strategy would be to not hold a hearing, and if hillary is elected, approve the nomination so that she can't make an alternative pick.

 

Democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case you were worried that the Republicans were obstructing this because they were honestly concerned about voters, they've come out and basically said their strategy would be to not hold a hearing, and if hillary is elected, approve the nomination so that she can't make an alternative pick.

 

Democracy.

 

President can withdraw the nomination, right? I have to figure he does that right before the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×