Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[StrangeSox]

I'm not dead set on making excuses for the GOP. I'm dead set against both parties changing their tune when the other party is in charge. The Republicans are hypocrites just as much as the Democrats, but you reap what you sow.

 

Obama in 2006: "I am concerned that President Bush has wasted an opportunity to appoint a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor and has instead made a selection to appease the far right-wing of the Republican Party."

 

Obama in 2016: Nominates somebody much farther left than O'Connor. [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/18/upshot/potential-for-the-most-liberal-supreme-court-in-decades.html?_r=0]

 

Obama was against a specific nominee who never faced a real threat to be blocked and was actually confirmed. The GOP Senate is against any possible nominee even getting a hearing. There's no ~both sides~ here.

 

Obama, a Democrat, nominating a moderate liberal is not a shock and it's the norm for liberal Democrat presidents to nominate people inline with their judicial philosophy. Obama picked a candidate that Orin Hatch said would be a reasonable consensus nominee a couple of weeks ago. The court's ideological balance will shift, but it's been conservative for decades and there's no reason it should stay that way.

 

eta: OBama has nominated someone much farther right than RGB. If you want to make a 2006 comparison, you need to take into account that Obama didn't choose a mirror of Alito but more realistically a liberal version of O'Connor.

Edited March 22, 2016 by StrangeSox

[cabiness42]

Obama was against a specific nominee who never faced a real threat to be blocked and was actually confirmed. The GOP Senate is against any possible nominee even getting a hearing. There's no ~both sides~ here.

 

Obama, a Democrat, nominating a moderate liberal is not a shock and it's the norm for liberal Democrat presidents to nominate people inline with their judicial philosophy. Obama picked a candidate that Orin Hatch said would be a reasonable consensus nominee a couple of weeks ago. The court's ideological balance will shift, but it's been conservative for decades and there's no reason it should stay that way.

 

Based on the NY Times chart, Garland is as far from the middle as Alito. I don't agree with the Senate summarily rejecting any nominee, but based on Obama's past words and actions, I think it's reasonable to force him to find a nominee closer to the center.

[NorthSideSox72]

Based on the NY Times chart, Garland is as far from the middle as Alito. I don't agree with the Senate summarily rejecting any nominee, but based on Obama's past words and actions, I think it's reasonable to force him to find a nominee closer to the center.

Alito is a windsock. I was always fine with Roberts, and still am. But Alito is useless. How far he is from center is simply dictated by Republican edict.

 

[StrangeSox]

That's not what that chart shows, and the article describes him as centrist but obviously far too the left of scalia, but so are most judges.

 

As was already pointed out, just a couple of weeks ago Orin Hatch named garland as the type of ideologically moderate justice Obama would never nominate.

 

At least you seem to be dropping the pretense that the cloture votes against a specific nominee who went on to be confirmed anyway are comparable to categorically refusing to consider any possible nominee.

[StrangeSox]

Alito is a windsock. I was always fine with Roberts, and still am. But Alito is useless. How far he is from center is simply dictated by Republican edict.

Exactly. Thomas is really radical, but he's consistent. Roberts is obviously willing to sometimes buck Republican politics in major votes. Kennedy can kinda be a mess, but he stakes out his own positions. Alito just votes the same way Republicans in Congress would vote, and probably shouldn't be on the court. Comparing opposing a guy who has turned out to be a hack to blocking anyone at all is a joke.

[cabiness42]

That's not what that chart shows, and the article describes him as centrist but obviously far too the left of scalia, but so are most judges.

 

As was already pointed out, just a couple of weeks ago Orin Hatch named garland as the type of ideologically moderate justice Obama would never nominate.

 

At least you seem to be dropping the pretense that the cloture votes against a specific nominee who went on to be confirmed anyway are comparable to categorically refusing to consider any possible nominee.

 

People can describe Garland as a centrist all they want. The chart is looking at things analytically, and Garland is as far left of center as Aliso is right of center.

 

The Republicans know they are an underdog to win in November. If they really thought Garland was a lot closer to the center than what they would get from Hilllary, they would confirm him.

[illinilaw08]

Obama was against a specific nominee who never faced a real threat to be blocked and was actually confirmed. The GOP Senate is against any possible nominee even getting a hearing. There's no ~both sides~ here.

 

Obama, a Democrat, nominating a moderate liberal is not a shock and it's the norm for liberal Democrat presidents to nominate people inline with their judicial philosophy. Obama picked a candidate that Orin Hatch said would be a reasonable consensus nominee a couple of weeks ago. The court's ideological balance will shift, but it's been conservative for decades and there's no reason it should stay that way.

 

eta: OBama has nominated someone much farther right than RGB. If you want to make a 2006 comparison, you need to take into account that Obama didn't choose a mirror of Alito but more realistically a liberal version of O'Connor.

 

Yeah, I'm curious about the methodology on that chart and how they arrived at the conclusion that Garland is significantly further to the left than RBG. Nothing I have read about him supports that.

 

Basically, the key to this Scotus fight is that Scalia was a pretty conservative vote on everything. Any replacement by a Democratic President is going to shift the Court further to the left (though not as extreme of a shift as Marshall to Thomas was the other direction).

 

There is no excusing the Republicans' rhetoric on this. There is no "both sides" on this. The Senate needs to do their job, hold hearings with Garland, and vote. McConnell, I suspect, thinks that if Garland actually comes to a vote, R senators up for election might vote for confirmation...

[illinilaw08]

People can describe Garland as a centrist all they want. The chart is looking at things analytically, and Garland is as far left of center as Aliso is right of center.

 

The Republicans know they are an underdog to win in November. If they really thought Garland was a lot closer to the center than what they would get from Hilllary, they would confirm him.

 

Nope. Leaving aside that there is no explanation of the methodology used to score justices in that NYT piece, and leaving aside that the bastion of liberalness that is Orrin Hatch said that Garland would be a great, centrist addition to the Court, the Rs are digging in on this fight because, even with a long shot of winning in November, IF they win, they get to replace Scalia with another Conservative justice and the composition of the Court remains the same. If they lose, so long as the appointment is someone left of Kennedy, the composition of the Court shifts substantially on close votes. So whether Garland is a centrist or the most liberal judge to ever take the bench, McConnell is still going to try to prevent the appointment on the hope that the Republicans win in November.

[CrimsonWeltall]

People can describe Garland as a centrist all they want. The chart is looking at things analytically, and Garland is as far left of center as Aliso is right of center.

 

The Republicans know they are an underdog to win in November. If they really thought Garland was a lot closer to the center than what they would get from Hilllary, they would confirm him.

 

That chart seems pretty wonky. Kennedy is nearly the same as Scalia? Ginsberg nearly the same as O'Connor? Douglas was twice as liberal as anyone on the chart was ever conservative?

[StrangeSox]

People can describe Garland as a centrist all they want. The chart is looking at things analytically, and Garland is as far left of center as Aliso is right of center.

 

The Republicans know they are an underdog to win in November. If they really thought Garland was a lot closer to the center than what they would get from Hilllary, they would confirm him.

 

1. The "chart" shows a big question mark for who the potential nominee would be. I don't know that it necessarily shows what Garland's position would actually be.

 

2. If you go to the paper linked in the article, you'll find that they ranked Roberts to the right of Alito in this 2007 analysis of potential GWB nominees. Based on the actual results (there hasn't been a major conservative opinion that Roberts joined which Alito didn't to my knowledge), I'd say this specific methodology is somewhat questionable. The paper also doesn't even mention Garland or any liberal nominee since it was examining potential GWB judges. I can't find anywhere that's reported a numerical Martin-Quinn score for Merrick Garland. The methodology specifically says it's for SC Justices, so I'm not sure how they measure non-SC Justices.

 

3. We still have Republican Senators praising Merrick Garland as the type of reasonable moderate Obama would never nominate in March 2016.

 

4. Republicans are in a crappy position but politically this is probably their best play. Their crazy base won't punish them for all-out obstructionism but will primary them for any sort of compromise with Obama. If they win the Presidency, great, they're much, much better off. If they lose the Presidency but retain the Senate, they're no worse off. If they lose both, Garland probably still gets confirmed by the next Senate, or someone still pretty ideologically moderate will be confirmed instead because Clinton is pretty centrist herself.

Edited March 22, 2016 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

Pardon if it's already been covered earlier in the thread, but is there anything preventing the GOP-led Congress from stalling indefinitely? Can they wait 4 plus years until Hillary is up for re-election again? This process, or lack thereof, is insane.

[StrangeSox]

It'd provoke a constitutional crisis possibly. They might not hold the Senate though and then it's a moot point. It's just a senate confirmation so you don't need to worry about the house in this case.

[Soxbadger]

Pardon if it's already been covered earlier in the thread, but is there anything preventing the GOP-led Congress from stalling indefinitely? Can they wait 4 plus years until Hillary is up for re-election again? This process, or lack thereof, is insane.

 

Ive talked about this before, but it would lead to some pretty bad results for conservatives. Many of the appellate courts are left leaning, when a case goes to the SC and its a 4-4 tie, the lower court ruling stands. It could embolden appellate courts to become even more liberal knowing that it likely wont get overturned.

[StrangeSox]

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

 

John McCain talking about how if Clinton wins but Republicans keep the Senate, they'll continue to obstruct any possible nominee to the Supreme Court.

[Quin]

John McCain talking about how if Clinton wins but Republicans keep the Senate, they'll continue to obstruct any possible nominee to the Supreme Court.

 

There's being partisan, then there's this petty bulls***.

[CanOfCorn]

There's being partisan, then there's this petty bulls***.

 

Especially since they are on record saying they were going to wait until the new president is in office. They didn't specify which candidate when they announced it.

[bmags]

FYI McCain walked back. He is toeing line trying to gin up support for House/Sen republican races. McCain has done a lot of things I hate, but I'm going to give him some room here because at least he has now disowned the nominee but I don't expect him to also give up on the rest of the party.

 

[StrangeSox]

News from the other AZ Senator

 

Flake says it might be Garland time

 

Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake has maintained for months that Republicans should take up Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination if it looks like the presidential contest is a lost cause for the GOP.

 

I don't think McCain deserves much credit because he's still going along with the BS idea that simply refusing to even consider a President's nominee is okay.

[lostfan]

After this, republicans deserve a 26 year old black transgender female atheist radical intersectional feminist lesbian Planned Parenthood employee who wears an Afro and a Black Lives Matter t-shirt with a picture of Colin Kaepernick on it.

[iamshack]

After this, republicans deserve a 26 year old black transgender female atheist radical intersectional feminist lesbian Planned Parenthood employee who wears an Afro and a Black Lives Matter t-shirt with a picture of Colin Kaepernick on it.

Nah, she needs to be half latino who spent many of her formative years in the middle east.

[bmags]

News from the other AZ Senator

 

Flake says it might be Garland time

 

 

 

I don't think McCain deserves much credit because he's still going along with the BS idea that simply refusing to even consider a President's nominee is okay.

 

I didn't say give him credit, I am advocating giving them room.

 

We all know that republicans pick their candidates based off of democrat feedback, so I'm trying to prevent armageddon again in 2020.

[StrangeSox]

Lol

[StrangeSox]

Dave Weigel ✔ @daveweigel

I asked Cruz if there should be votes on Clinton court nominees if GOP holds Senate. He said there's plenty of precedent for

11:34 AM - 26 Oct 2016

 

Obstruction now, Obstruction forever!

[StrangeSox]

Senator Burr, who is in a tight race in North Carolina, suggests that three supreme court seat should be left open indefinitely if Clinton wins.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/politics/ric...ners/index.html

 

He also joked about shooting Clinton.

[BigSqwert]

I'm guessing no chance that Obama's nominee will get in at this point. We're screwed.