|
The president has the explicit power to nominate a candidate, but does that also include the implicit power to withdraw the nomination? Could the GOP controlled lame duck senate claim no take backs and confirm Garland? Has the act of "withdrawing" a nomination been people behaving civilly and just acknowledging the president's request by not continuing with the advice and consent phase?
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
At this point Congress has the power to do whatever it can get away with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
DARPA posted:The president has the explicit power to nominate a candidate, but does that also include the implicit power to withdraw the nomination? Could the GOP controlled lame duck senate claim no take backs and confirm Garland? Has the act of "withdrawing" a nomination been people behaving civilly and just acknowledging the president's request by not continuing with the advice and consent phase? Well, they could try, but if Garland refused to serve there wouldn't be a lot they could do. Or he could "resign" instantly after they approve him, creating a new vacancy. It's not an actual problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
colonel_korn posted:Apologies if this is a naive question, but could the Obama administration actually ask the (8-member) Supreme Court to rule on whether the constitution requires the Senate to give a hearing to their nominee? And if so, would the court be likely to rule in their favour? No.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
It occurred to me today that the GOP committing a series of blatant, nakedly political acts under the guise of following the Constitution is perhaps the most appropriate way they could honor Scalia's memory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Beforehand posted:Can someone elaborate on Justice O'Connor being hostile to Justice Thomas? I can imagine reasons why, but would like to know what they actually were. She basically never joined an opinion of his. She would write a concurring opinion when he wrote for a majority she wanted to be in, and didn't join his dissents when they were both outside the majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
climboutonalimb posted:I really want the "people speaking" in November to be voting all these shitbird senators out of office; however, I know that won't happen. Be careful what you wish for. I felt compelled to go vote in a republican primary for Thad Cochran not too long ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
DARPA posted:The president has the explicit power to nominate a candidate, but does that also include the implicit power to withdraw the nomination? Could the GOP controlled lame duck senate claim no take backs and confirm Garland? Has the act of "withdrawing" a nomination been people behaving civilly and just acknowledging the president's request by not continuing with the advice and consent phase? 1. President nominates 2. Senate consents 3. President appoints Normally the third part is considered a formality because of course the president would want their nominee on the court, but technically he could decide not to make the appointment even after the Senate approves it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I hope that Garland understands that him getting appointed during the lame duck period would be terrible and shouldn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
If I was Merrick garland, a good and not terribly ideological judge, I would probably rather not forego a seat on the Supreme Court just because that would be good for people who don't actually see the world or law the way I do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:If I was Merrick garland, a good and not terribly ideological judge, I would probably rather not forego a seat on the Supreme Court just because that would be good for people who don't actually see the world or law the way I do. gently caress him. When he croaks in ten years, the world will be glad President Clinton appointed a 50-year-old justice instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Chamale posted:gently caress him. When he croaks in ten years, the world will be glad President Clinton appointed a 50-year-old justice instead. http://www.theonion.com/article/merrick-garland-kind-uncomfortable-political-analy-52579
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I hope that Garland understands that him getting appointed during the lame duck period would be terrible and shouldn't happen. Why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
loving lol at hatch saying one thing and then when franken calls him on it he's just like "no you see actually what i meant to say was this completely different other thing" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVW8zQM7oe4
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
I am constantly astounded by how partisan and utterly ridiculous US politics currently is, how incredibly dull and uninteresting all the debate and discussion is. Everyone sounds bored. The only attempts to inject interest I've seen have been childish props. Edit: Ok I just got to 'The President serves a 4 year term. Scientists tell us that he has approximately 10 months left in his term.' Not entirely boring. MrNemo fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Chamale posted:gently caress him. When he croaks in ten years, the world will be glad President Clinton appointed a 50-year-old justice instead. It's not like Garland's a walking corpse. I expect 20 years instead of 30.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:It's not like Garland's a walking corpse. I expect 20 years instead of 30. According to some bullshit life expectancy counter I just plugged his info into, you'd expect a healthy white male of his age and income to live to 89. Even if that's optimistic, I don't think 63 is old enough to say that his age is a bad reason for the pick. I'd be more worried about what he'd do on the bench if actually confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Agronox posted:I'd be more worried about what he'd do on the bench if actually confirmed. Why? What specific issues are you worried about? What do you base this view on?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
At some point humans are going to live to 150+ years and we'll need to really seriously re-evaluate lifetime supreme court nominations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Remember who he's replacing. If Moderate Merrick Garland becomes the swing vote in the Supreme Court instead of Libertarian Anthony Kennedy, there will be a hell of a lot more 5-4 decisions in favour of the forces of good than there were before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Why? What specific issues are you worried about? What do you base this view on? He is mediocre on criminal appeals. Tends to side against the convicted a slightly worrying proportion of the time. Other than that he's pretty good, but he is definitely on the lawnorder end of the spectrum. Still a massive improvement on Scalia unless you really care a LOT about rights re police searches, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
The criminal justice piece is noteworthy, as Scalia was decent in fourth amendment stuff in particular. But all in all he's a very good judge and would probably make liberals happy more often than not. Also worth noting that to whatever extent he's 'robotic' in applying the law, as described above, maybe that changes on the Supreme Court. It's possible he would be a little more flexible with precedent when there isn't a higher court handing it down to him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Even if that's optimistic, I don't think 63 is old enough to say that his age is a bad reason for the pick. I'd be more worried about what he'd do on the bench if actually confirmed. I'm fine with him if he gets confirmed between now and November, but if the Dems win the election, the Repubs will be rushing to confirm Garland because he is their best-case scenario. If we reach that situation, I don't want to give the Republicans the best supreme court justice they could possibly get at that time just to preserve one man's feelings. I hope that Obama explained the deal to Garland before going ahead with the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I'm fine with him if he gets confirmed between now and November, but if the Dems win the election, the Repubs will be rushing to confirm Garland because he is their best-case scenario. If we reach that situation, I don't want to give the Republicans the best supreme court justice they could possibly get at that time just to preserve one man's feelings. I hope that Obama explained the deal to Garland before going ahead with the nomination. It's okay, Nina Pillard is there for when the next old fart croaks or retires. She's basically the Crown RBG, but I'd bet on Kennedy or Breyer leaving the bench before her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I am constantly astounded by how partisan and utterly ridiculous US politics currently is, how incredibly dull and uninteresting all the debate and discussion is. Everyone sounds bored. The only attempts to inject interest I've seen have been childish props. You need a dose of roll call http://youtu.be/lIVDWZpj8i0
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I hope that Obama explained the deal to Garland before going ahead with the nomination. I get why everyone wants a younger more liberal nominee, especially if the Dems take the senate. And I understand the political situation re: the election and the republican senate influences who can get confirmed, but is there any particular reason to believe that Obama wants a significantly more liberal nominee? Why is everyone starting from the assumption that Garland isn't just straight-up the person Obama wants to see on the court?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I'm fine with him if he gets confirmed between now and November, but if the Dems win the election, the Repubs will be rushing to confirm Garland because he is their best-case scenario. If we reach that situation, I don't want to give the Republicans the best supreme court justice they could possibly get at that time just to preserve one man's feelings. I hope that Obama explained the deal to Garland before going ahead with the nomination. So...spite?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Doesn't this ultimately make Chief Justice a good guy in a sense? "This helps people, so it must be allowed to stand" could not have been Roberts' thinking. It'd be too alien for him. Maybe he has a family member who simply needs the ACA or something and that's why he did it. Or maybe he simply knows that overturning the ACA would cause a horrific amount of damage to the US on multiple levels. GoutPatrol posted:It's not like Garland's a walking corpse. I expect 20 years instead of 30. Some people are bemoaning that he might 'only' serve 20-30 years instead of 40+ not realizing that a couple decades is still a really loving long time (especially when most people complaining are probably 30 or less years old).
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:
Such is the power of Obamaschloss over the mind of many American progressives. Either that or he's just too willing to capitulate, because they're stuck groundhog day style somewhere in 2011.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:So...spite? Wanting a stronger pick after Hillary takes POTUS and presumably the Dems retake the Senate instead of letting the GOP have its cake and eat it too is not spite
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Garland's appointment would pull the court further left than it's been in nearly half a century. "But it could be slightly more liberal!" is not a good reason to pull the nomination of an incredibly accomplished and well-respected jurist. I'm not seeing anything to suggest that Garland is some sort of sleeper-conservative, either. He seems pretty in-line with Kagan and Breyer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:So...spite? To put it more bluntly, if the Democrats are spineless, then the GOP is right to walk all over them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If you don't do that, or threaten to do that, and if the GOP knows it, then there is no downside to the stupid game they are playing. No risk. Obama puts forward a centrist compromise nominee and the Senate shuts down the confirmations on the off chance that Literally Hitler wins the election this year and they can approve Sarah Palin instead. Then, if Literally Hitler isn't elected, they still get the compromise candidate anyway. If that's the calculus the GOP makes, and if Obama and the Democrats give them no reason to think it won't work, then in fact what they're doing makes perfect sense and is totally rational. Usually, you don't want to give assholes good reasons to continue to be assholes, if you can help it. Ignorant and petulant, a winning combination. Weren't you the idiot trying to pretend the Senate's silence=consent?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Magres posted:Wanting a stronger pick after Hillary takes POTUS and presumably the Dems retake the Senate instead of letting the GOP have its cake and eat it too is not spite It's also not what he said.  Edit: I was responding to him in particular, not the entire collection of posters who've expressed unhappiness with Garland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
farraday posted:Ignorant and petulant, a winning combination. Weren't you the idiot trying to pretend the Senate's silence=consent?  But sure, go ahead and continue to explain how endless compromise with intransigent assholes strengthens your own hand. Surely you can point to the last 20 years of Democratic politics as proof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
farraday posted:Ignorant and petulant, a winning combination. Weren't you the idiot trying to pretend the Senate's silence=consent? Excuse me, but Squizzle posted:I kind of want the President to surf the edge of a constitutional crisis by citing the "shall" thing, and saying that the Senate will be assumed to consent in this case unless they vote specifically to say that they do not consent. It's me, I'm the original idiot. Do not steal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:I get why everyone wants a younger more liberal nominee, especially if the Dems take the senate. And I understand the political situation re: the election and the republican senate influences who can get confirmed, but is there any particular reason to believe that Obama wants a significantly more liberal nominee? He passed over him twice, for starters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:Excuse me, but No it wasn't he beat you by a month. Kilroy posted:The Constitution doesn't really define "consent" though. What is consent? Are we talking about affirmative consent, or what? And now he's trying to pretend his repeated attempts to justify it were tongue in cheek because that sounds better than being an equivocating rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Yeah I said that poo poo a long time ago. I also said this:Kilroy posted:You have some reason to believe they will reverse course once there is a nominee?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah I said that poo poo a long time ago. I also said this: I'm far from convinced. Perhaps you'd care to gently caress off with me?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:51
|
|