|
BobTheJanitor posted:If this article has its facts straight, it's placing him a little to the left of Kagan. That doesn't sound too bad I guess. They can't all be Sotomayor and anything that's not as bad as Scalia is going to unfuck the court a lot.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Isn't the assumption that if Hillary wins, especially if the Dems retake the Senate, Ginsburg retires?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
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. Geez, if that's true it's another case of Obama getting rolled yet again. And a nice way to hose your potentially democratic successor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Radish posted:That doesn't sound too bad I guess. They can't all be Sotomayor and anything that's not as bad as Scalia is going to unfuck the court a lot. Kagan is herself Perfectly Fine. Not particularly exciting in terms of actual jurisprudence but fine, and has a little fun with her opinions sometimes and is generally layman-friendly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
So Garland handled the McVeigh case? So he's for the Death Penalty... Lovely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Geez, if that's true it's another case of Obama getting rolled yet again. And a nice way to hose your potentially democratic successor. Hillary will get to replace RBG and possibly some combination of Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Obama just name dropped Hatch. This is pure Trollbama at its finest
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Garland isn't the best pick, but replacing Scalia with Kagan 2.0 is objectively great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:I took that to mean, if the Republican's win they confirm him and the Dem's save themselves from a Trump/Cruz pick. Except that's insane, there's no way Republicans would agree and there is no way you could trust the Republicans would follow that plan. If Republicans win the Presidency, they keep the Supreme Court. Why would they then give that up?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Isn't the assumption that if Hillary wins, especially if the Dems retake the Senate, Ginsburg retires? Ginsburg has no interest whatsoever in retiring before she's good and ready, or she would have listened to the people calling for her to retire before 2014.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
mdemone posted: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. I mean sure if you want to be pedantic about it, but I think most folks understand that in practice, people who we would normally describe as "tough on crime" as a shorthand don't also generally hold views consistent with BLM advocacy. But let's look at the nuance. Here's Garland's record: quote:The most significant area of the law in which Judge Garland's views obviously differ materially from those of Justice Stevens is criminal law. Judge Garland rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants' appeals of their convictions... Most striking, in ten criminal cases, Judge Garland has disagreed with his more-liberal colleagues; in each, he adopted the position that was more favorable to the government or declined to reach a question on which the majority of the court had adopted a position favorable to a defendant. Because disagreement among panel members on the D.C. Circuit is relatively rare, this substantial body of cases is noteworthy. Does this sound like it could probably be perceived as part of the over-incarceration problem that the BLM and others are trying to address? I would say yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
TheGreyGhost posted:Obama just name dropped Hatch. This is pure Trollbama at its finest Seems like Hatch baited him to the choice, so I'm not sure if this qualifies as trolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:
From the "half glass full" perspective, the Court debating the merits of tenets of BLM is a big step up from debating the merits (and striking down) voting rights. I'm disappointed in this pick, but literally anyone other than Scalia is a vast improvement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Well, dang. That's not great. Guess I'll be hoping for GOP obstructionism (and a Dem win in November). Criminal appeals are a Pretty Important part of the SC (and the thing Alito is obsessively, 100% horrible on, to the point that in his previous judgeships the prosecutors and police departments he was granting vast powers went "whoa, slow down there a bit hoss, that sounds like a bit much").
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Except that's insane, there's no way Republicans would agree and there is no way you could trust the Republicans would follow that plan. If Republicans win the Presidency, they keep the Supreme Court. Why would they then give that up? I have no idea. I agree it sounds insane. I was just commenting that I had a different interpretation of the potential back channel deal. Mine is insane from the Republican side, yours is a terrible deal to take from the Dems side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
So will the GOP rush to confirm him in December or January if Hillary wins the election?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:So Garland handled the McVeigh case? So he's for the Death Penalty... Lovely. Sadly Hillary is pro-death penalty so I don't think that's going away any time soon with her appointments if she wins. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Read something interesting on the Twittersphere. Garland's current job involves resolving Congressional disputes that make it to the courts. He's not exactly someone you'd want to piss off if you're in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Garland isn't the best pick, but replacing Scalia with Kagan 2.0 is objectively great. Honestlyk, I have more of an issue with his age than his record.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Garland isn't the best pick, but replacing Scalia with Kagan 2.0 is objectively great. hes not Kagan 2.0, he's less progressive/liberal than she is. ScotusBlog posted:The point is not that Judge Garland is conservative. None of the candidates under serious consideration is. Rather, there are gradations between the views of the three, and there are questions on which they would disagree. On a number of issues, particularly those related to criminal law, Judge Garland is the least likely to adopt a liberal position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:So will the GOP rush to confirm him in December or January if Hillary wins the election? Of course! If there's one thing we've learned from the Republican Congresses over the last eight years, it's that you can surely take them at their word. Comity and all that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:From the "half glass full" perspective, the Court debating the merits of tenets of BLM is a big step up from debating the merits (and striking down) voting rights. I'm disappointed in this pick, but literally anyone other than Scalia is a vast improvement. Funny you should mention voting rights, because Garland wrote the opinion to prevent the (majority black) residents of Washington DC from being represented in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Read something interesting on the Twittersphere. Garland's current job involves resolving Congressional disputes that make it to the courts. Democrats already have a solid majority on the DC circuit. In fact, it was getting control of the DC circuit that lead to the aboilition of the filibuster on judicial nominees - Republicans refused to confirm anyone for the three vacancies (sound familiar?) because they wanted to keep control of it, and their filibuster on all of the nominees was what finally broke the camel's back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Of course! If there's one thing we've learned from the Republican Congresses over the last eight years, it's that you can surely take them at their word. Comity and all that. Just in terms of the calculation that he would be more conservative than anyone she would nominate...
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:So Garland handled the McVeigh case? So he's for the Death Penalty... Lovely. Yes, its shocking that a deputy attorney general would follow the policy of his administration and the law of the land.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:So will the GOP rush to confirm him in December or January if Hillary wins the election? Yes, no doubt. Which is what makes him such an infuriating choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
I'm not understanding the doom and gloom - he is probably the most liberal judge that has even a remote chance of confirmation. If you're Obama, you don't jump at the chance to lock in that fifth liberal vote? Lots of people in this thread are willing to forgo any chance at hearings just to get a wedge issue nomination, as if voters will need extra motivation when Trump is the GOP candidate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes, no doubt. Which is what makes him such an infuriating choice. Won't they have had to poo poo or get off the pot by then, though? This situation doesn't make it to November, one way or the other, at least IMO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes, no doubt. Which is what makes him such an infuriating choice. And what if Trump wins?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Who should have been nominated? Isn't it likely that if he goes with one of the good, liberal choices that they have no chance of making it? What's the better option?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes, no doubt. Which is what makes him such an infuriating choice. On the other hand, I doubt Hillary's choice would be better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Won't they have had to poo poo or get off the pot by then, though? This situation doesn't make it to November, one way or the other, at least IMO. Yeah, I imagine he'd withdraw his name at some point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Just in terms of the calculation that he would be more conservative than anyone she would nominate... Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, I agree that they will uphold their end if, at that particular point in time, they judge it to be in their best interests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Wax Dynasty posted:I'm not understanding the doom and gloom - he is probably the most liberal judge that has even a remote chance of confirmation. If you're Obama, you don't jump at the chance to lock in that fifth liberal vote? Lots of people in this thread are willing to forgo any chance at hearings just to get a wedge issue nomination, as if voters will need extra motivation when Drumpf is the GOP candidate. as with all things perfect is the enemy of good. He's a solid choice and considering who he's replacing he's a beam of light
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Wax Dynasty posted:I'm not understanding the doom and gloom - he is probably the most liberal judge that has even a remote chance of confirmation. If you're Obama, you don't jump at the chance to lock in that fifth liberal vote? Lots of people in this thread are willing to forgo any chance at hearings just to get a wedge issue nomination, as if voters will need extra motivation when Trump is the GOP candidate. 1. He doesn't really raise the pressure on the GOP to actually confirm him as more as Sri would 2. He's older than Sri 3. He's worse than ideal candidates The doom and gloom is because he brings nothing to the table that other candidates would. He doesn't seem any more likely to get confirmed than Sri. If he does get confirmed, he keeps the seat a decade less than almost any other choice. If Hillary wins, he's a clearly inferior nominee who might get confirmed in the lame-duck session to block an ideal candidate. There's simply no sense in which he's better than the other candidates, regardless of how likely you think it is he'll get confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And what if Trump wins? Then he'll get ignored until Trump can nominate a replacement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:1. He doesn't really raise the pressure on the GOP to actually confirm him as more as Sri would What on earth leads you to 1, 2 is stupid, and 3 is debatable
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:On the other hand, I doubt Hillary's choice would be better. I don't know that Hillary would appoint someone more liberal - though I expect she would, after all Bill's picks were pretty solid as well - but she'd appoint someone who would keep the seat longer. I mean, remember - Clarence Thomas is the same age as Alito and will leave at the same time, except they were appointed by two different Bushes. You get a lot of mileage out of nominating someone younger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
nerve posted:Who should have been nominated? Isn't it likely that if he goes with one of the good, liberal choices that they have no chance of making it? What's the better option? The argument here is that he's not getting confirmed before November no matter what happens. The seat will be empty from now until then whether Obama nominates Garland or Bernie Sanders. The question is what happens after the vote in November. If Hillary wins, the Republicans will rush to confirm Garland so that Hillary doesn't get to appoint a younger and more liberal justice. If Trump wins, the Republicans will still not confirm Garland because they just got the opportunity to appoint one of their own instead. Now look at it from the point of view of appointing a younger, more liberal justice: If Hillary wins, the Republicans refuse to confirm them. The seat stays empty for a couple months until Hillary nominates her own young, liberal pick, who will get confirmed. If Trump wins, the Republicans refuse to confirm them and Trump appoints one of their own. The argument is that neither Garland nor anyone else has a chance of being confirmed between now and November, and as a result it's better not to nominate a compromise candidate because then you're not stuck with a compromise candidate in the one out of four outcomes (albeit the most likely one) where this person ever gets appointed. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:What on earth leads you to 1, 2 is stupid, and 3 is debatable Sri was unanimously approved like three years ago and would galvanize portions of the electorate more than an old white guy. Age s incredibly important: given the importance of Supreme Court justices, you want as many years out of the ones you appoint as possible. Garland's age means that the coming liberal majority is at risk a decade earlier than someone a decade younger. As for that he's not ideal - I mean, he's a compromise moderate. He'll be just as good as anyone else for five years but once the current mess is rolled back he'll be the liberal O'Connor or Kennedy, being the swing vote that blocks further movement beyond a point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:42
|
|