|
evilweasel posted:Uugh Garland was the wrong choice. I completely agree with you. I bet Srinivasan didn't want to be considered. Christopher Hayes @chrislhayes 55s55 seconds ago Knee-jerk response to Garland nom is that it's tacit acknowledgment nom prob won't get vote and don't want to damage younger goods.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:I completely agree with you. I bet Srinivasan didn't want to be considered. Even so it should have been Ketanji Brown Jackson unless she removed herself from consideration as well. It's the clear trollbama pick. Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:If we're using as our metric "The choice most likely to move the court left over the next few decades", there was no right choice if you decide the GOP is going full obstructionist. While McMagic's point that the younger people probably don't want to be considered now is a good one, he is bad even if you assume he won't get appointed because he doesn't cause nearly as much political damage as Sri or some of the others, and he's old enough it's a mistake if they do make a surprise capitulation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:While McMagic's point that the younger people probably don't want to be considered now is a good one, he is bad even if you assume he won't get appointed because he doesn't cause nearly as much political damage as Sri or some of the others, and he's old enough it's a mistake if they do make a surprise capitulation. Maybe Garland agreed to fake a heart attack and withdraw if it goes to a vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Sri also could have said no, giving Obama no other choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Maybe Garland agreed to fake a heart attack and withdraw if it goes to a vote. Yeah, what happens if Republicans back down? And I think there is a still a chance of that, especially with Garland. If things start looking like a bloodbath for them in November, they would probably take him. Slate Action posted:Sri also could have said no, giving Obama no other choice. If he had pulled out, I doubt the leaks would have been that he was in the final three.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:Alternately, the hope is that someone who will only serve 15-ish years will have a ghost of a chance more to be voted on than someone who'll serve 30-ish. As was pointed out earlier: It works for popes!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Also, Merrick Garland is easy to pronounce. That's no fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Yeah, what happens if Republicans back down? And I think there is a still a chance of that, especially with Garland. If things start looking like a bloodbath for them in November, they would probably take him. I don't think they can politically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Wait. I may have underestimated trollbama already. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, this past friday: "[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man... 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."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Ugh what a terrible choice. Sometimes I don't get Obama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/710106640419328000
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
I'm hoping this is trollbama and he has a emergency red button to put the kibosh on this if the Republicans call his bluff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm hoping this is trollbama and he has a emergency red button to put the kibosh on this if the Republicans call his bluff. I think he’s confident they can’t.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Is there a scenario here where the GOP quickly capitulates, gets a guy in they like and the democrats don't really like, and completely recover from this whole fiasco by November - and are seen as successful for using tactics to get the president to eliminate every leftist suggestion for the open SCOTUS seat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Another old Harvard white guy will probably be the least costly nominee for the GOP to block. Missed opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
I was hoping for some whining on CSPAN2 but they are talking about GMO labeling
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Wait. I may have underestimated trollbama already. "...and he's better than Scalia!" - Obama, probably Hawkline posted:Is there a scenario here where the GOP quickly capitulates, gets a guy in they like and the democrats don't really like, and completely recover from this whole fiasco by November - and are seen as successful for using tactics to get the president to eliminate every leftist suggestion for the open SCOTUS seat? This is an election that so far on the Republican side has been about anger and bluster. The presidential candidates have all said that they're relying on the senate to block Obama's nominee and McConnell and other republican leadership in the senate have all said that they will block any nominee from Obama. If Obama gets someone through that can only hurt republican turnout for their incumbents. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Hawkline posted:Is there a scenario here where the GOP quickly capitulates, gets a guy in they like and the democrats don't really like, and completely recover from this whole fiasco by November - and are seen as successful for using tactics to get the president to eliminate every leftist suggestion for the open SCOTUS seat? No. According to the last eight years of GOP rhetoric, Obama is a far-left extremist and by definition cannot appoint a good justice. Even when he floated Sandoval, an actual Republican politician, it was treated as the worst thing imaginable. According to the GOP playbook, any choice Obama makes is by definition a bad choice, and merely giving him the opportunity to make that choice in the first place they would be considered failures by their voters. Anyone Obama appoints is a leftist by default, so allowing him to appoint anyone at all would not be perceived as eliminating leftist suggestions. I mean, it's entirely possible that they could appoint someone and everyone would forget about it by November because of the latest Trump rally, but it would never be viewed as an actual success by Republican voters. It would either hurt them or have no effect, there is very little chance of it winning anyone to their side who wasn't already there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
I think the nomination is just fine. Granted, other picks produce better optics throughout the campaign season w/r/t showing the Republicans as being obstructionist. But an empty SCOTUS seat does a lot of that work by itself. Additionally, Obama might not have wanted to (1) make the SCOTUS pick even more blatantly political than it is. and (2) might be, probably correctly, predicting that Hillary wins the White House regardless of the SCOTUS optics. Additionally, the pick is a win-win in another fashion. If the Republicans don't cave and are obstructionist / party vote down any nominee, then you didn't burn your better (younger/more liberal) nominees in a worthless display. If they DO end up caving, that's fine too. Replacing Scalia with anyone moderate/left is a huge change to the court dynamic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Also, Merrick Garland is easy to pronounce. That's no fun. On the other hand, Fox and all their friends have to find a new idiotic complaint other than "what's wrong with white guys?" I'm going to miss that little gem. I would guess that the argument for Garland is that precisely because he's an somewhat moderate old white guy the Senate is going to have a harder time justifying their breath holding than if it was a non-white, woman, or both. I mean, now they're taking jobs away from hard working white dudes, it's free trade all over again! Maybe Trump will wild card and support the Garland nomination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
I don't understand the kneejerk response that Garland won't get to a vote. (Well, I understand it, I should say that I don't agree with it.) The GOP has to blink here, don't they? Surely he'll get a hearing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I don't understand the kneejerk response that Garland won't get to a vote. (Well, I understand it, I should say that I don't agree with it.) I don't know if he will, but I do think there's a much better chance of it than many in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:I think the nomination is just fine. I think you're not really appreciating how relatively unimportant the presidential election is this year compared to the down ballot races. Republicans currently control majorities in the house, senate, governorships, and state assemblies, directly affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people. You don't nominate for optics here just to help Hillary in an election she would probably win anyways. You nominate for optics in order to clear a path for everybody else. Ketanji may not have mattered to Hillary, but it would have mattered to DeRay Mckesson.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
If anything, people seem to be worried he will get a hearing, and might even get confirmed, leading to a 63 year old Justice and a lost opportunity to campaign on the matter. Maybe Obama judged that the potential for votes just isn't there, or he wants to prioritize getting someone he picked on the Court regardless of the election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Is he another loving Kennedy. Ugh
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
According to Nina Totenberg on air a few minutes ago, there was apparently some back channel conversations where republican senators agreed to confirm garland during the lame duck period if a Democrat wins the election. In that context, a nomination of a satisfactory moderate justice makes sense as a hedge against the republicans winning the senate but losing the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Antti posted:If anything, people seem to be worried he will get a hearing, and might even get confirmed, leading to a 63 year old Justice and a lost opportunity to campaign on the matter. Maybe Obama judged that the potential for votes just isn't there, or he wants to prioritize getting someone he picked on the Court regardless of the election. I'm not so worried about his age. For one thing, he appears to be in decent health (read: is not a cigar-smoking, morbidly-obese sack of dog poo poo like Scalia). For another, if he serves 15 years, he'll outlast Thomas, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. We're in a part of the decadal cycle where SCOTUS justices will be dying/retiring at slightly higher rates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm hoping this is trollbama and he has a emergency red button to put the kibosh on this if the Republicans call his bluff. After right-wing media and Trump make Garland to be a Gay Trans Stalin-Hitler Abortionist Christ-Rapist (Bad!) do they have that choice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Is he another loving Kennedy. Ugh Yeah, can anybody fill us in on what we can expect from him?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:I think you're not really appreciating how relatively unimportant the presidential election is this year compared to the down ballot races. It's very true that the down-ballot races are the most important part of this (and really, most) elections. I'm not particularly convinced that the SCOTUS nomination battle will generate that much impetus no matter the nominee, and to the extent it provides any boost I suspect the vacancy is doing the majority of the legwork and the particular nominee matters little. Although I have no data to back that up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
saltylopez posted:Yeah, can anybody fill us in on what we can expect from him? 10 months with no hearings followed by a 1 paragraph obit in on page 50 of the NYT in 8 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
saltylopez posted:Yeah, can anybody fill us in on what we can expect from him? Well-respected moderate justice who would be just fine if he was 10 years younger but will die 10 years earlier than all of the better choices and isn't all that helpful politically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:According to Nina Totenberg on air a few minutes ago, there was apparently some back channel conversations where republican senators agreed to confirm garland during the lame duck period if a Democrat wins the election. That's the worst option though, so if Democrats win, they'll confirm a less than great nominee and if the Republicans win he won't get appointed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:According to Nina Totenberg on air a few minutes ago, there was apparently some back channel conversations where republican senators agreed to confirm garland during the lame duck period if a Democrat wins the election. gently caress that, it's risk free for those cocksuckers, it should be take Garland or Hillary nominates Saul Alinsky. It's bad enough that that the nominee isn't even a liberal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:According to Nina Totenberg on air a few minutes ago, there was apparently some back channel conversations where republican senators agreed to confirm garland during the lame duck period if a Democrat wins the election. This would make some amount of sense, especially since if some of them have already seen themselves as confirming him at some point in the future, they might be persuadable once the primary season is over. But yeah, it's basically offering a win-win to the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
saltylopez posted:Yeah, can anybody fill us in on what we can expect from him? If this article has its facts straight, it's placing him a little to the left of Kagan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:It's very true that the down-ballot races are the most important part of this (and really, most) elections. I'm not particularly convinced that the SCOTUS nomination battle will generate that much impetus no matter the nominee, and to the extent it provides any boost I suspect the vacancy is doing the majority of the legwork and the particular nominee matters little. Although I have no data to back that up. Reforming the criminal justice system is literally the central focus of BLM. Nominating a tough-on-crime old white guy for SCOTUS is beyond tone deaf. Democrats need to stop taking the minority vote for granted if they want to win down-ballot elections, particularly in year without Obama on the ticket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Reforming the criminal justice system is literally the central focus of BLM. Nominating a tough-on-crime old white guy for SCOTUS is beyond tone deaf. Democrats need to stop taking the minority vote for granted if they want to win down-ballot elections, particularly in year without Obama on the ticket. I think you can be "tough" on crime while being in favor of significant CJ reform. I don't know if that describes Garland or not, but at least it doesn't seem like such a clear-cut dichotomy to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:That's the worst option though, so if Democrats win, they'll confirm a less than great nominee and if the Republicans win he won't get appointed. I took that to mean, if the Republican's win they confirm him and the Dem's save themselves from a Trump/Cruz pick. If the Democrats win, the Repubslicans save themselves from Hillary's more progressive pick. And int he event the Dems win (they will), while Garland isn't the best option they are likely to get another 1 or 2 nominations over the next 4 years anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:05
|
|