HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » BREAKING: Obama to Nomina...

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:59 AM

BREAKING: Obama to Nominate Merrick Garland for Supreme Court, AP Reports

Source: Associated Press

Obama Said to Choose Garland to Replace Scalia on Supreme Court

Greg Stohr
Mike Dorning
Steven T. Dennis
March 16, 2016 — 10:05 AM EDT Updated on March 16, 2016 — 10:30 AM EDT

President Barack Obama plans to nominate Merrick Garland, chief judge of the federal appeals court in Washington and one of the most respected jurists in the country, to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat opened by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, according to a White House official and other people familiar with the matter.

Republicans have vowed to obstruct any Obama nominee for Scalia’s seat. The president plans to announce the nomination at 11 a.m. Washington time in the White House Rose Garden. The people who identified Garland requested anonymity ahead of the president’s announcement.

In a statement earlier Wednesday, Obama said his nominee will be "eminently qualified" to join the nation’s highest court, has an "unquestionable mastery of law" and "unimpeachable credentials." He asked for a fair hearing and up-or-down vote in the Senate.

"That is what the Constitution dictates, and that’s what the American people expect and deserve," the president said.
Garland will be an ideologically moderate nominee who in other contexts would have broad bipartisan appeal. When Obama considered Garland for a high court vacancy in 2010, Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, called the judge "terrific" and said he could be confirmed to the Supreme Court "virtually unanimously."

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-03-16/obama-to-nominate-merrick-garland-for-supreme-court-ap-reports-iluwzj0o

74 replies, 7604 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 74 replies Author Time Post
Reply BREAKING: Obama to Nominate Merrick Garland for Supreme Court, AP Reports (Original post)
Hissyspit Mar 2016 OP
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #1
houston16revival Mar 2016 #2
Firebrand Gary Mar 2016 #3
FBaggins Mar 2016 #17
former9thward Mar 2016 #21
Firebrand Gary Mar 2016 #23
Rosco T. Mar 2016 #25
Chan790 Mar 2016 #42
karynnj Mar 2016 #26
former9thward Mar 2016 #68
Reter Mar 2016 #72
Firebrand Gary Mar 2016 #4
apnu Mar 2016 #6
houston16revival Mar 2016 #8
iandhr Mar 2016 #9
Firebrand Gary Mar 2016 #12
L. Coyote Mar 2016 #20
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #13
cstanleytech Mar 2016 #14
The Green Manalishi Mar 2016 #19
Botany Mar 2016 #5
Arkana Mar 2016 #38
salinsky Mar 2016 #7
Sunsky Mar 2016 #11
potone Mar 2016 #15
Fast Walker 52 Mar 2016 #27
salinsky Mar 2016 #43
Chan790 Mar 2016 #47
billhicks76 Mar 2016 #64
beac Mar 2016 #40
Babel_17 Mar 2016 #10
houston16revival Mar 2016 #16
Chan790 Mar 2016 #49
mahatmakanejeeves Mar 2016 #18
SHRED Mar 2016 #22
CrispyQ Mar 2016 #34
Le Taz Hot Mar 2016 #36
cstanleytech Mar 2016 #48
Myrina Mar 2016 #53
salinsky Mar 2016 #58
billhicks76 Mar 2016 #65
Doctor_J Mar 2016 #61
progressoid Mar 2016 #63
cstanleytech Mar 2016 #69
Skittles Mar 2016 #73
cstanleytech Mar 2016 #74
The Blue Flower Mar 2016 #24
Else You Are Mad Mar 2016 #28
Blasphemer Mar 2016 #29
iandhr Mar 2016 #30
Blasphemer Mar 2016 #31
iandhr Mar 2016 #33
houston16revival Mar 2016 #32
Punx Mar 2016 #51
Johnny2X2X Mar 2016 #35
Arkana Mar 2016 #39
yellowcanine Mar 2016 #37
salinsky Mar 2016 #41
RobinA Mar 2016 #44
sulphurdunn Mar 2016 #45
Crepuscular Mar 2016 #46
lark Mar 2016 #50
billhicks76 Mar 2016 #66
Myrina Mar 2016 #52
wiggs Mar 2016 #54
Sunlei Mar 2016 #55
SHRED Mar 2016 #57
salinsky Mar 2016 #56
Doctor_J Mar 2016 #59
Doctor_J Mar 2016 #60
Name removed Mar 2016 #62
billhicks76 Mar 2016 #67
Odin2005 Mar 2016 #70
romanic Mar 2016 #71

Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:01 AM

1. I'm a bit surprised at that. I thought he'd nominate the person that was confirmed 97-0.

Garland was confirmed 76-23. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:01 AM

2. Thought so

slightly older than the rest of the floated names

so it's now or never for him

Obama a pragmatist

really shines the light on Senate Obstructionista

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:11 AM

3. Let's hope that President Obama now Nominates Srinivasan to Chief Justice AND Ketanji Brown Jackson

To associate Justice to the DC court of appeals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:59 AM

17. He probably can't do that

There isn't a vacancy unless/until this nomination goes through. I doubt that he'll resign the seat first - knowing that he's almost certainly a sacrificial lamb for the Republican Senate to either ignore or turn down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:19 AM

21. The Chief Judge is not nominated by the President.

The judge with the most seniority is the Chief Judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:28 AM

23. Noted, thank you for the clarification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:31 AM

25. Unless you are Shrub

Ie Roberts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosco T. (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:30 PM

42. SCOTUS is different from the federal bench in that respect.

 

Chief Justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President; in lower federal courts, it's automatically the judge with the most seniority on that bench...even if that judge was appointed by a President of the other party and/or the current President doesn't want them to be. It's entirely procedural in the lower federal courts, unlike SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:33 AM

26. Roberts joined the court and soon became the Chief Justice

He had been nominated by Bush as associate Supreme Court Justice replacing O'Connor who had said she wanted to retire. When Rehnquist, who was Supreme Court Justice died, Bush changed to nominating him as the Chief Justice.

It is not seniority, but the President can not take the position away once it is given. Roberst will likely be Chief Justice for a long long time as he was pretty young when he joined the SC as its chief justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #26)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 03:11 PM

68. No and no.

The poster I was replying to was talking about the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals is determined by seniority. The President is not involved. The President nominates a Chief Justice of the SC only when a Chief Justice leaves the scene.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #21)


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:14 AM

4. Let me add so that I don't have to edit my original OP.

The Republicans are FUCKED on this nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:16 AM

6. Break that down for me.

Garland seems bland and centrist, he's the safest of safe picks. How fucked do you think the Republicans are with this pick?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:19 AM

8. In the long scheme of things

If you've replaced Scalia with a moderate like Judge Garland

and skewered Senate Republicans with a centrist pick

they ignore at their own political peril

It's a pragmatic deal that you got mileage from

It could go either way ... if the GOP Senate takes up the pick
and approves him, their standing rises for November

He could also be and must realize in this environment he could be a
sacrificial lamb

His age says he would not be nominated by subsequent presidents

and it would be wrong to sacrifice younger brilliant legal scholars on this opening

Plus he's from Chicago ... Obama has been a bit of a home town boy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:25 AM

9. Very simple

If we win the election and take back the Senate the new POTUS will nominate a younger and more progressive candidate. Then they would have wished they went for the bland centrist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:30 AM

12. It just cost them the Senate majority.

These seats are all in play now.

Chuck Grassley
John McCain
Mark Kirk
Indiana Open Seat
Kelly Ayotte
Rob Portman
Patrick Toomey
Ron Johnson

I also think that this is particularly harmful to John Boozman in Arkansas.

Edited to add: Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma is going to have a very hard time explaining to the people of his state that he thought the judge who tried the Oklahoma city bomber Timothy McVeigh is unqualified. Senator Lankford does not currently have a challenger, does he get one now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:15 AM

20. The Senate majority was lost before Scalia died, simple demographics.

Their Supreme Court debacle was a ploy to get Obama to nominate the most bland centrist possible, they just may have accomplished their goal, now on the the next non-crisis they will generate to try to control the psyche of American politics and manipulate Obama and all Dem officeholders, and especially the people they still haven't stopped from voting. Expect a lot more fear and loathing, and hate. It is going to require a ton of that shit to turn the herd by Nov. They have known all along that this year they lose the Senate otherwise.

You are assuming their talking point is true = they can hold the Senate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:36 AM

13. I think the presumption is that the Republicans won't hold hearings and it will cost them

politically (enabling the Democrats to retake the Senate). Otherwise I would think that if a Democrat is elected President
in 2016 a more liberal nominee could make it though confirmation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:39 AM

14. Because the varies republican senators painted themselves into a corner and point blank said

they would refuse to hear any nomination that Obama would make and he nominated a Jewish moderate one so now they either eat crow and give the guy a fair hearing or they go forward with their promise to prevent the president from exercising his constitutionally obligation and be tar and feathered as antisemite and obstructionists to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:09 AM

19. It might force them to hold hearings

Thus, even if they decline to confirm, they have already caved in somewhat. Follow with potentially another 'sacrificial' pick and then the third nomination might be somebody actually liberal by which time the Senate will both have completely quashed any pretense of not holding hearings AND be at severe risk for appearing obstructionist if they oppose three nominations. And as others have said, dangling out there the fact that you can take a moderate now or risk a Clinton/Sanders appointment with a Democratic Senate next year....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:14 AM

5. From wiki / BTW please republicans try to block this guy

Early life, education and legal training[edit]
Garland was born in Chicago, Illinois. His mother, Shirley (née Horwitz), was a director of volunteer services, and his father, Cyril Garland, headed Garland Advertising in Chicago.[2][3] His father comes from a Protestant family, while Merrick was raised in his mother's religion, Judiasm. Garland grew up in Lincolnwood, Illinois, graduated eighth grade from Lincoln Hall Middle School, and graduated high-school from Niles West High School in Skokie, Illinois, in 1970. He was named one of 119 members of the Presidential Scholars Program by the Commission on Presidential Scholars, and he came with that group to the White House on June 4, 1970 to listen to a special address in the East Room of the White House to the group by President Richard Nixon. Garland also was named a National Merit Scholar.[4][5]

Garland graduated valedictorian from Harvard College with an A.B. summa cum laude in social studies in 1974 and then graduated from Harvard Law School with a J.D. magna cum laude in 1977.[6] During law school, Garland was a member of the Harvard Law Review and served as articles editor from 1976 to 1977. Following graduation, he clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1977 to 1978, and then clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. from 1978 to 1979.

Professional career[edit]
Garland was Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States from 1979 to 1981. He then joined the law firm of Arnold & Porter, where he was a partner from 1985 to 1989 and from 1992 to 1993.[7] He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1989 to 1992, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1993 to 1994. From 1994 until his appointment as U.S. Circuit Judge, Judge Garland served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, where his responsibilities included the supervision of the Oklahoma City bombing and UNABOM prosecutions. One of Garland's mentors, according to a July 6, 1995 Los Angeles Times article, was then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick.

Garland has taught antitrust law at Harvard Law School and has served as co-chair of the administrative law section of the District of Columbia Bar. On March 16, 2016 Garland was nominated by President Barack Obama to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's vacant seat in the Supreme Court


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland

*****

Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices.

"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:09 PM

38. That's quite the resume.

Sure can't say he isn't qualified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:18 AM

7. check ...

... and mate.

Well played, Mr. President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:27 AM

11. Exactly

Great move...expose these obstructionist, who can't seem to do their job. Then let's take back the Senate, so we can get to work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:41 AM

15. Yes, indeed.

This strikes me as a brilliant move. It seems that there is nothing to object to in his record, and refusing to hold hearings on him will hurt the Republicans. It also is brave of him to be willing to be nominated under these conditions. I like the guy already! (I hope I won't regret saying that.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:36 AM

27. unless this is exactly what the GOP wanted all along

 

so we cave into them, and they approve him and look reasonable after all. And everyone forgets how obstructive the GOP was come November.

Who won again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:34 PM

43. You haven't been paying attention ...

... that's not how the Repukes operate.

Job one is to obstruct anything and everything that Obama proposes.

No way they allow a vote on, much less approve an Obama nominee.

The base would have a collective aneurysm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:42 PM

47. In that case, we still win.

 

We replaced an extreme ideological conservative Scalia with a Justice that is, at-worst, another Kennedy deciding cases on their merits rather than ideology grounds. Even if Garland ends up being not as liberal as we would have liked, we've substantially moved SCOTUS back towards the center.

More than that, Garland is considered one of the foremost administrative law jurists alive today and a staunch defender of legal precedent and proper procedure...it's likely that he will have a lot of sway with Roberts who constantly makes comments about wanting to make the court more legalistic and less partisan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 02:26 PM

64. Exactly

 

Foolish Dems. We get a republican-Lite guy. One who supported mass incarceration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:23 PM

40. I'm not so sure...

Old'ish, white, male moderate with credentials that SHOULD make him a shoe-in. However, the Republicans in the Senate have promised their base to block any Obama appointee.

I think there's a chance he's the sacrificial lamb and the person Obama will appoint after him is the "real" appointee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:25 AM

10. Might not be the number one choice?

Could be a tactical pick. The odds against any appointee might be unfairly stacked, so why "use up"* a top nominee who can get appointed later? As he's older than than some others on the list, if he does get appointed now then the timing is pretty good. The younger prospects can get appointed down the road.

*If the Republicans have united in blocking anyone then they might feel compelled to go after whoever President Obama nominates. Having done that, they might be reluctant to later on approve the candidate if our next President put him up as a nominee again.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:44 AM

16. If Republicans don't approve this centrist

they might well see more liberal and younger picks in 2017

unless they keep the Senate and win the White House

Who would Trump nominate?

Judge Judy? Howard Stern?

As someone posted weeks ago, and I've reiterated before

I would not want to play chess or poker with Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to houston16revival (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:47 PM

49. Trump would almost certainly nominate his sister.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryanne_Trump_Barry

Her credentials to a nomination are legitimate...she's an outstanding jurist and well-respected. She's also unfortunately extremely conservative...and fortunately she'd also be 79 by the time she was confirmed so her seat would be a short-held one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:07 AM

18. Live video

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:25 AM

22. Let's all cheer a moderate rather than a Progressive

 

Because of what it will do to the GOP.

Yeah...that's The ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:50 AM

34. Right?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:56 AM

36. They're fine with the status quo.

Milquetoast is now the new goal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:42 PM

48. A moderate would still be an improvement considering its a replacement for Scalia

who was on the far end of right wing nuttery as you could get and not leave the wing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:04 PM

53. +1

Indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:21 PM

58. It's called a tactical move ...

... by nominating a moderate, he's allowing the Repukes to be hoisted on their own petard.

But, far better to nominate a progressive so that the Repukes can wallow in their righteous indignation.

And, who needs the Senate anyway?

Amirite???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Reply #58)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 02:29 PM

65. Obama Playing Chess Argument Again?

 

Lol. People never learn. Corporations win again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:56 PM

61. Especially since it won't do ANYTHING to the GOP

 

The DINOS live in some sort of impenetrable black hole of denial where every lurch to the right is announced as this century's NEW Deal and Great Society all rolled into one.

How in the world does getting a conservative nominated to the court adversely effect the republicans? Where is the reality here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 02:08 PM

63. Yep. Moderate usually means the little guy gets screwed.

Would like to know what his stance is on anti-trust law. Apparently he taught it and wrote a book about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #63)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 03:42 PM

69. If he isnt as extreme as Scalia its a step in the right direction imo.

Hopefully Bernie or Hillary will win and then we have the potential to see some more change as the odds are atleast one or two of the more liberal justices will be retiring which means we need to replace them.
Not to mention Thomas is getting pretty long in the tooth and he could retire especially now that he wont have Scalia there to tell him what his opinion should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #69)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:15 PM

73. a step in the RIGHT directon is the problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #73)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:22 AM

74. If the nominee was someone like Janice Rogers Brown yes, it would be to the right

however this judge seems somewhat more to left than she appears to be or that Scalia ever was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:30 AM

24. Watching Judge Garland's speech now: a very good nominee

Good move by our President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:37 AM

28. Could it be that...

The Senate GOP's plan from the beginning with the obstructionist stance was to get Obama to nominate the most moderate justice possible in order to temper the court before either Clinton/Sanders would skew the court too far left post 2016? If so, then they will approve this pick & get to save face by saying that it was costitutional to do so.

Just a thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:43 AM

29. Obama had to know Garland's gun record would not shift the GOP stance at all

So this must be a tactical choice. I also think that Obama wants his SCOTUS legacy to be increased diversity so I imagine, under different circumstances, his choice would be a woman and/or person of color.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blasphemer (Reply #29)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:46 AM

30. Well he did in his previous picks. Two women




I remind you he picked Sonia Sotomayor first hispanic and Elena Kagan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #30)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:48 AM

31. Right... I think he would have continued making similar picks... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blasphemer (Reply #31)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:50 AM

33. Well the SCOTUS is the only branch of the US government with no WASPS.

This keeps that going. Garland is Jewish. So if he gets on the court there will be 5 catholics and 4 Jews.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:48 AM

32. Senate Republicans

on apoplexy watch

Judge Garland likes hiking and skiing and his daughter is hiking in the
mountains he says

That means he might like federal lands and national parks

Republicans prefer someone who worships concrete sidewalks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to houston16revival (Reply #32)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:53 PM

51. And oil wells and strip mines

...likes Hiking and Skiing

Well both then, and especially the later may mean that he appreciates nature and would support global warming and environmental laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:53 AM

35. This is a good pick

Not because it hamstrings the GOP, but because it's good for the country. This is a centrist that Obama nominated because he realized he needed to nominate exactly this person in order to have the best chance to continue to have a functioning 1/3 branch of the federal Government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny2X2X (Reply #35)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:10 PM

39. And the court is still more liberal than it was with Scalia on the bench.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:07 PM

37. Please proceed, Senator Hatch!

When Obama considered Garland for a high court vacancy in 2010, Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, called the judge "terrific" and said he could be confirmed to the Supreme Court "virtually unanimously."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:24 PM

41. Hatch has already said ...

... that he will not meet with Garland.

Brilliant move, Mr. President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Reply #41)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:35 PM

44. I Can't Believe

they'd be that dumb. It's like they've lost even their survival instinct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:36 PM

45. Republicans nominate

 

rightists, who are overwhelmingly acceptable to democrats. Democrats nominate "moderates" who are barely acceptable to republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:39 PM

46. Sacrificial lamb

Remains to be seen whether the Senate will decline to hold hearings or not but there is no way that Garland will ever be confirmed for the S.C., at least under this Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 12:49 PM

50. Obama disappoints again (and again).

He knows his nominee isn't going to get a break so why didn't he at least appoint someone who'd move the chains instead of a maybe Kennedy clone. Is TPP that important that he'd sell out to get someone who would support it no matter what in place? Sure he couldn't think this would make a difference to Repugs? I know he's smarter than that.

Once again we see the Trojan Horse President in action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #50)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 02:29 PM

66. Agreed

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:03 PM

52. Goody, another old white guy from Harvard ...

.... by way of Chicago and the GOP.

POTUS never ceases to underwhelm me. Sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:07 PM

54. dem pundits, leaders should make hay out of this and the 7 years of

obstructionism, even of republican ideas, that the country has endured. It's not just that Obama has endured their low tactics....it's the country that suffers. 24/7 pressure starting once they have a nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:12 PM

55. Excellent choice, Garland is "one of the most respected jurists in the country".

Even Republicans have said so many times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:13 PM

56. Obama:

"And this record on the bench speaks, I believe, to Judge Garland's fundamental temperament. his insistence that all views deserve a respectful hearing, his habit, to borrow a phrase from former Justice John Paul Stevens, of understanding before disagreeing and then disagreeing without being disagreeable."


Wait a minute ...

... "temperament"??, "respectful"??, "disagreeing without being disagreeable"???

If he's replacing Scalia, shouldn't this guy be a bigoted, rageaholic, fuckstick??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:50 PM

59. Another old, white, conservative male on the court! Woo-hoo!

 



3D Chess wins again!



The government now officially offers nothing to progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 01:52 PM

60. If Orrin Hatch likes him that's good enough for me!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #62)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 02:31 PM

67. Hillary And Orin Hatch

 

Hatch is evil. And Hillary loves it. We are so fucked. Time to find change somewhere else besides party politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 04:44 PM

70. Ugh, not progressive enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 05:11 PM

71. Never heard of him.

:/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread