HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » I'd love it if Obama and ...

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 08:46 AM

 

I'd love it if Obama and Clinton collaborated on a more liberal USSC pick and BO pulled Garland....

If the senate looks as good as it does now in two weeks.
Why settle for anyone less liberal than we deserve?

41 replies, 2624 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 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply I'd love it if Obama and Clinton collaborated on a more liberal USSC pick and BO pulled Garland.... (Original post)
bettyellen Oct 2016 OP
Bad Thoughts Oct 2016 #1
bettyellen Oct 2016 #7
unblock Oct 2016 #2
woolldog Oct 2016 #3
unblock Oct 2016 #5
leftynyc Oct 2016 #4
bettyellen Oct 2016 #10
leftynyc Oct 2016 #12
bettyellen Oct 2016 #13
leftynyc Oct 2016 #18
okaawhatever Oct 2016 #20
spooky3 Oct 2016 #36
OnDoutside Oct 2016 #17
dsc Oct 2016 #23
LeftRant Oct 2016 #25
athena Oct 2016 #26
JRLeft Oct 2016 #40
vdogg Oct 2016 #6
yellowcanine Oct 2016 #8
bettyellen Oct 2016 #14
DCBob Oct 2016 #9
StevieM Oct 2016 #11
bettyellen Oct 2016 #15
Sunlei Oct 2016 #16
NewJeffCT Oct 2016 #19
Sunlei Oct 2016 #22
bettyellen Oct 2016 #30
NewJeffCT Oct 2016 #33
bettyellen Oct 2016 #34
NewJeffCT Oct 2016 #21
MyNameIsKhan Oct 2016 #24
exboyfil Oct 2016 #27
GulfCoast66 Oct 2016 #28
bettyellen Oct 2016 #31
GulfCoast66 Oct 2016 #32
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Oct 2016 #39
DonCoquixote Oct 2016 #29
lastlib Oct 2016 #35
bettyellen Oct 2016 #37
geek tragedy Oct 2016 #38
onenote Oct 2016 #41

Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 08:52 AM

1. Why not let Obama have his own picks?

If there is still the vacancy when Clinton and the Senate Majority Democrats come into office, it will be their vacancy to fill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bad Thoughts (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 09:23 AM

7. Because Garland was less liberal than desired to get past the senate- new circumstances ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 08:52 AM

2. If we were purely party strategists, sure

But that would be cruel to garland, and I can't see Obama doing that.

I can see the republican senate, who claimed a "principle" of letting the electorate have a say, then denying the winner of the election having a say by confirming garland after all.

Because republicans are all about principle....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 08:59 AM

3. Why allow the Republicans to benefit from their intransigence?

 

By keeping Garland and letting the GOP confirm him after seeing who's going to win the election you are rewarding their strategy. And ensuring that they will do it again when they have the chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woolldog (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 09:06 AM

5. I agree from a party strategy point of view

I just don't think Obama will give up his own choice.

An interesting thought, though, is that democrats could filibuster until the new senate comes in, and either obama or Hillary could nominate someone more liberal....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 09:02 AM

4. Because Garland isn't some

 

piece of furniture. He's a real live human being who has been waiting for a vote for a very long time. It would be nothing short of disgustingly insulting to pull his nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #4)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 11:53 AM

10. Meh,it's an important job. And the landscape has changed from the one where he was chosen....

 

I'd work out a way to make it up to him, because the circumstances within which he was nominated have changed greatly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #10)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 12:14 PM

12. Couldn't possibly disagree more

 

Garland has behaved with nothing but dignity through this disgusting display of partisanship. He deserves a vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 02:48 PM

13. I think the president could now make a better choice due to extraordinary circumstances...

 

And it would be in the best interests of the nation of he did choose someone else. It's not personal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #13)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 02:56 PM

18. I would lose a mountain of respect

 

for the President if he pulled the nomination. It would be unforgivable. That said, I very much doubt this President would do something so disgustingly tacky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #18)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 03:07 PM

20. Agreed. I doubt that Garland would have even started the process without that guarantee. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 08:37 AM

36. I speculate that Garland and Obama had

A very frank conversation before Obama nominated. They likely discussed how the Senate would obstruct and it's possible Garland believed he would never be appointed and was willing to be nominated as a placeholder if a Dem won in service to the country of to democratic ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 02:55 PM

17. Well said, leftynyc, let's not descend to the level of the Repubs. He seems a decent man, and is

eminently qualified for the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #4)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 05:28 PM

23. There should have been a deadline on this

approve him in time for this session or he gets withdrawn. He does have a pretty good gig even without getting the supreme court slot. He is, as chief of the DC circuit, the most powerful judge not on the supreme court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #4)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 05:41 PM

25. The only "disgustingly insulting" behavior was done by the GOP, sitting on the nom all this time.

The disingenuous thing would be them confirming him after Nov. 8 if she wins. We have no obligation to allow that.

Obama has every right to pull the nomination and let the next president pick. That's a completely valid move. It's a concession that Congress sucks and is only interested in the political games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #4)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 05:46 PM

26. I agree with you.

He may not be as liberal as one would like, but he is not a conservative, and he is President Obama's choice. In any case, if we GOTV, President Hillary Rodham Clinton will probably have at least two chances to nominate more liberal justices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 09:32 AM

40. Republicans liked him until there base acted a fool. You do not want this man on the court. It's OK

 

disagree with Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 09:19 AM

6. I've they were to do such a thing it won't happen till after the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 09:27 AM

8. Obama is not going to throw Garland under the bus.

Garland accepted the nomination knowing that it was going to be a reach given Mitch's stonewalling. To dump him now would be disloyal. And as for Hillary, I suspect that if he is still in limbo come January I suspect that he will offer to withdraw but Hillary should NOT accept that but instead resubmit his nomination. The Republicans have gamed the process and Hillary should not enable them by conceding the point. I know the arguments about getting a younger nominee etc. But Garland is very qualified and should have been given a vote. Do not compound the injustice for political reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 02:52 PM

14. Oh hell no. She gets to nominate whoever she thinks best. It's thhe GOP

 

Who set up the screwed up circumstances. And I think whoever is POTUS at the moment has to do the best they can for the country at that moment- instead of making a point. If they wanted to make a point- they could withdraw Garland and put up someone more liberal of we make great gains in the senate. The possibilities have changed, so should the nominee. Garland is a stale nomination, made a long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 09:35 AM

9. I think the GOP plans to block Hillary's SC appointments for the next 4 years.

If they control the Senate... big if though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 11:57 AM

11. I expect that the lame duck congress will quickly confirm Merrick Garland in December.

The GOP isn't going to miss their chance to confirm an older justice who will be on the court for a shorter amount of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #11)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 02:53 PM

15. I agree- which is why he should withdraw right after the election if we have a good majority.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 02:54 PM

16. I think President O can appoint Garland without Republicans approval? lets see after the election.

After the elections when the really good stuff can happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #16)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 03:04 PM

19. Eisenhower used a recess appointment

to appoint William Brennan to the Supreme Court only weeks before the presidential election of 1956. He was later fully confirmed right after Ike was inaugurated for his second term (in a 2 for 1 after another justice passed away after the election)

However, the politics have changed since then - there was very little RW hate radio, no Fox News, etc. to generate the outrage and hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #19)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 03:18 PM

22. Republicans have had many opportunities, plenty of time to interview him and asked to vote.

I don't think Obama would pause just because of RW hate from their 100s of Republican hate radio and their fox TV. They'll never love him.

We'll have to see what happens after the election. I think Obama will remain busy at work right up to the day he turns over the keys to Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #19)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 07:53 PM

30. I forgot he could do that. I'm fine with that. I'd like a strong and principled response to their o

 

Obstruction. If it's a more liberal Judge I'm fine with that too. That's what they deserve at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #30)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 08:25 AM

33. The only problem is, though

The Senate has not technically gone into recess in a few years now - they always have somebody there to show up and do whatever is legally required to have the Senate stay in sessions. (This is per the SCotUS ruling a few years ago regarding recess appointments - Obama could do the recess appointments, but the senate decides when it is in recess.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 08:32 AM

34. I can't imagine they'd do that this year. I am kind of surprised people

 

Are reacting as if this would be a huge insult to Garland. Maybe I just competed for too many jobs, I couldn't afford to take shit personally when it falls through.
It just feels like really different circumstances and the consequences last a generation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 03:10 PM

21. I agree that Obama should have nominated somebody more liberal

Say, Goodwin Liu, who is 46 years old now. He could have served a good 40 years on the court.

However, I think it would look bad if Obama or Clinton asked Garland to step aside, and I don't think Obama would ask that, or even pull a House of Cards like stunt where he hints at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #21)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 05:38 PM

24. Justice Garland is fine nomination and he will be there for 20 years

HRC will get two opportunities in first two years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 05:51 PM

27. I wish Grassley was up in two years

Instead of now. The hypocrisy that he will show advancing this nomination could be an effective club in two years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 05:52 PM

28. Because Obama is not a dick

And doing that to Garland would be a dickish move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #28)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 07:55 PM

31. Interesting people think his feelings are more important than getting the best justice that

 

Circumstances would allow. I'd rather have bruised feelings and a more liberal judge. Because we could have them for a generation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #31)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 08:08 PM

32. It is not his feelings

It is the President's legacy I am worried about. He is a decent man and decent men do not do things like that.

In a way you are agreeing with the republicans in that the new president gets to make the pick and President Obama does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #31)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 08:59 AM

39. The President doesn't view Garland as a prop.

Why don't you trust the President to see that his first choice is confirmed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Thu Oct 20, 2016, 07:20 PM

29. If Garland is beaten, it will give the GOP a victory,

One more bit of sand thrown into the face of the black president, which is one more bit of encouragement for 2018 congressional election, and 2020.

Clinton will have a chance to pick another nominee as frankly, the GOP is drooling at the thought of Ginsburg dying. We will need several picks to undo the damage Scalia did, and Hillary will come at just the right time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 08:37 AM

35. MCCain has already said that the GOPee would oppose....

ANY nominee by Clinton. Reflexively. Unmitigated obstructionism has already begun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #35)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 08:44 AM

37. Am speaking about if we get the senate majority, and plan to end the filibuster

 

They'd know they are forced in a position to accept HRCs nominee. Who would likely be more liberal than Garland. So why not push that person forward after reflection day? I think the GOP will want to jump on Garland adapt if they lose the majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 08:56 AM

38. We're going to have at best a small majority in the Senate

 

There's no guarantee that someone much more liberal than Garland would get through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Original post)

Fri Oct 21, 2016, 09:37 AM

41. Highly Unlikely to Happen

If Garland is pulled and replaced with a new nominee, the repubs will have an excuse to drag out the confirmation process and even filibuster the nominee in the hope that they will regain the Senate in 2018. They won't do that to Garland. It's important that the Court be restored to full strength sooner rather than later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread