|
Gyges posted:While possible, it's pretty unlikely. Garland is clearly the choice for holding up Republican intransigence to the light during the election. The only way I see Obama/Garland pulling the nomination is if the plan is for a string of acceptable nominees to be thrown to the wolves for electoral spectacle, which would rely on all those sacrificial nominees to be in on it. Which seems unlikely. This sort of political coordination isn't that unusual, particularly for Obama's use of media coverage to make legislature republicans look bad. That said, if anyone pulls the nom, it'll officially be Garland. This is the normal process for making the Rs look bad. Give them enough time to refuse to vote or attack the nominee during hearings (which won't happen in this case), then the nominee withdraws themselves because they need to concentrate on their current work and the media coverage/hearings are a "distraction". Obama made a selection he'd be comfortable with on the bench if actually selected, but that gives R intransigence maximum coverage and can be withdrawn if needed. This is how the Obama appointment process normally works, and he has it down to a science at this point- particularly re: washington post coverage.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
I'd put money on Garland being renominated by President Hillary Clinton, especially if RBG makes noises about retiring again. It will obviously depend on if Democrats actually fail to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and if they do somehow recapture a Senate majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:McConnell ruled out any movement on Garland during the Lame Duck session, citing NRA opposition to Garland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:So Merrick Garland is just another ideological extremist like Robert Bork? That's too bad. I guess Obama just doesn't care about compromise. It's been framed differently for history's sake - as an executive disclosure issue to conservatives and as a competency issue to liberals - but make no mistake, Harriet Miers was absolutely blocked due to ideology. By her own party! And if you believe Jeff Toobin and others, they were wrong and she was a far-right reactionary, perhaps even better for the cause than Alito. The Senate is probably going to end up having to confirm Garland at some point or another, but McConnell is facing a populist revolt in an ongoing presidential primary, one where the widely disliked senator that McConnell hasn't been able to wrangle isn't even the party's biggest problem. Mitch is basically stuck until there's a presidential nominee, and he has to maintain the idea that he has control of a unified caucus on this in the meantime. Obama in his nomination speech even subtly recognized this by asking for a schedule to confirm Garland by the beginning of OT 2016, which gives McConnell, Grassley, et al. around six months to organize a surrender if the political conditions are such to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I'd put money on Garland being renominated by President Hillary Clinton, especially if RBG makes noises about retiring again. No way a Democrat replaces RBG with Garland. Garland is only getting appointed if the Republicans blink or President Clinton goes with him as the nominee for Scalia's replacement. Which is fairly likely since they're probably going to run at least part of the focus in the election on how it's a travesty Garland isn't getting a hearing. Of course if Obama goes with the strategy of several qualified, centrist, praised by Republican, nominees then Hillary probably goes with her own liberal choice if the Senate doesn't vote up whoever the last nominee in the string of Obama nominees is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Nice to know the GOP kowtows to the NRA. Voice of the people, you say??? It's funny in a bad way how consistently McConnell contradicts himself. I guess he's saying Garland wouldn't get a hearing even if hrc appoints him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:Garland is right in line with President Obama, i can see the confusion with '08 campaign Obama though. This being an election year and all. For real. I thought all the retards who've been jerking off about three dimensional chess had committed seppuku out of shame years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It's funny in a bad way how consistently McConnell contradicts himself. He won't have to worry about it when he's senate minority leader and the democrats change the rules of the senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Conceding that Garland is fairly left-leaning, he's still 63 years old. That's two years older than Roberts is now and 11 years older than Thomas was when he was appointed. Think of all the awful poo poo that Thomas has done, and he's only 4 years older than Garland now. Age definitely needs to be a factor when choosing a Justice, for the same reasoning my previous post laid out. The regressive shitheads have and will continue to nominate people as young as possible to that they can be a drag on the country for as long as possible. Progressives should advocate for the same thing, or we'll lose ground over the long haul. Alito, Thomas, and Roberts will each rack up three decades plus of sharting all over everything- we can't afford to nominate people who might go 20 years before croaking or retiring. Sri would give 14 more years of service on the Court (assuming the same life expectancy). That's a huge deal in today's world of the Court being an openly partisan body. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Quick question: can McConnell et al be impeached (or something) for refusing to do their constitutional duty and confirm Garland? Or do we basically have to wait until 2018 and hope that they lose their seats?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Quick question: can McConnell et al be impeached (or something) for refusing to do their constitutional duty and confirm Garland? Or do we basically have to wait until 2018 and hope that they lose their seats? The mechanism for expelling a Senator, for any reason, requires aye votes from two thirds of the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
That seems really exploitable from a majority senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
If you have a Senate super-duper majority, why would you need to abuse the rules to expel anyone. 67 votes is already enough to do whatever you want, if you can convince 67 people to expel someone so they can't vote against what you want, then you have the votes to just pass what you want over their dissenting vote anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you have a Senate super-duper majority, why would you need to abuse the rules to expel anyone. Well not whatever you want. You still may not have Unanimous Consent 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Conceding that Garland is fairly left-leaning, he's still 63 years old. That's two years older than Roberts is now and 11 years older than Thomas was when he was appointed. Think of all the awful poo poo that Thomas has done, and he's only 4 years older than Garland now. 20 years older than Thomas when he was appointed. Thomas was born in 1948 and appointed in 1991, making him 43 at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Quick question: can McConnell et al be impeached (or something) for refusing to do their constitutional duty and confirm Garland? Or do we basically have to wait until 2018 and hope that they lose their seats? What he's doing isn't illegal or unlawful in any way. It's blatantly partisan and putting his party's goals before the needs of the country, but if you impeached politicians for that you'd have impeachment proceedings running 'round the clock. It's up to the voters to decide if that's what they want from their elected officials. I'm gonna guess the voters of Kentucky aren't all that bothered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Age definitely needs to be a factor when choosing a Justice
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:What he's doing isn't illegal or unlawful in any way. It's blatantly partisan and putting his party's goals before the needs of the country, but if you impeached politicians for that you'd have impeachment proceedings running 'round the clock. Yeah, there's probably a nothing-says-a-dog-cant-play-basketball thing around not carrying out constitutional duties. Sure if you infringe on
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Hawkline posted:After what's been posted on the past week's worth of posts in this thread, what's the point of bringing up more points that only apply in a vacuum? Anything about age/ideology/demographics completely ignore the political climate that this is occurring in. No one is going to disagree with a point like this without pointing out Obama's game theory or making another another goddamned reference to 12d chess. Wasn't meaning to have my post be a challenge or anything - mainly addressing a counter to my previous post that corrected me by stating that Garland is fairly left-leaning, which he is. I'd just add that the "political climate" in reality equals "no one he nominates will be confirmed" by the Senate so if Garland is truly his choice, it's a bad one because we're losing out on 14 years worth of service that Sri would give us. 14 years is forever in Court years. (and thanks for the correction above regarding Thomas's confirmation age - having him confirmed was one of the biggest victories of the modern GOP)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Garland is absolutely Obama's choice since, you know, he nominated him for the position. He's not playing some kind of third dimensional chess. He picked someone he wants on the court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
In 20 years, we are going to see replacements for Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy. Probably Thomas as well. Kennedy is turning 80 this year, Breyer is 78, and Thomas is hitting 68 this year. RBG is 83 as of last week. It isn't like there's no other opportunity to lock in progress on the court within the lifetime of Garland if he's confirmed. As you can guess from their ages, most of those being replaced are probably going to be replaced within the next 10-15 years and that's being generous. Garland's main blemish is his "tough on crime" record, and having the most reformist of CJ reformists isn't going to swing the court with one pick. His biggest benefits seem to be his views on campaign finance and the intersection of 1A and public welfare, which are going to be a big fight as more and more political campaigns become multi-year affairs, and more and more damage is done by climate change (big tobacco-style suits against companies stalling carbon mitigation efforts).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Garland is absolutely Obama's choice since, you know, he nominated him for the position. This is far too simple for the people slashing their wrists with occam's razor while trying to concoct elaborate scenarios of how Obama is going to pull the rug out on the man who openly wept while accepting the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
10 days before Scalia died http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/us/politics/john-roberts-criticized-supreme-court-confirmation-process-before-there-was-a-vacancy.htmlquote:WASHINGTON — Last month, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. delivered some blunt remarks about the Supreme Court confirmation process. The Senate should ensure that nominees are qualified, he said, and leave politics out of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:10 days before Scalia died http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/us/politics/john-roberts-criticized-supreme-court-confirmation-process-before-there-was-a-vacancy.html If the Supreme Court really does release a statement chastising the Senate for its treatment of nominees, I don't know how I'll contain my amusement. I still doubt it will though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Justices won't hear Nebraska, Oklahoma marijuana dispute with Coloradoquote:WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to referee a simmering dispute between Colorado and two neighboring states over the cross-border impact of marijuana legalization, heartening legalization advocates who feared the high court could have rolled back their gains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
How was Scalia on marijuana? Is this another day to be happy he is dead? (I know it doesn't really matter since you need four to hear a case)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Radish posted:Is this another day to be happy he is dead?  is this a serious question?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Radish posted:How was Scalia on marijuana? Is this another day to be happy he is dead? He hated marijuana enough that he was perfectly happy to compromise his originalism and go "no, see, marijuana is so bad that this time I am firmly in favor of rampant abuse of the Commerce Clause to meddle in intra-California matters." It's one of the more popular citations for Thomas being way more consistent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
quote:Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doubled down on his insistence that Republicans would not consider President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court this year. Even if it seems that the next president could pick someone the Republicans would like even less, McConnell is adamant his fellow party members won’t budge on Merrick Garland. "I can't imagine that a Republican-majority Congress, in a lame-duck session, after the American people have spoken would want to confirm a nominee opposed by the NRA, the NFIB and that the New York Times says would move the court dramatically to the left," McConnell told CNN. Be honest McConnell, you just don't want the black guy picking a Supreme Court Justice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
RACHET posted:He won't have to worry about it when he's senate minority leader and the democrats change the rules of the senate. They won't need to. Gaining the majority gives them the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee which means that they can start the confirmation process. Once out of the committee (likely on a party line vote) there are enough GOP members in the Senate who will eventually vote for cloture even if they vote against the actual nomination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Gyges posted:No way a Democrat replaces RBG with Garland. Garland is only getting appointed if the Republicans blink or President Clinton goes with him as the nominee for Scalia's replacement. Which is fairly likely since they're probably going to run at least part of the focus in the election on how it's a travesty Garland isn't getting a hearing. Uh, no, my point was that if Republicans actually do go through with their petulant gay baby "NO NOMINEE  " plan, they'll see Garland renominated as Scalia's replacement, then Hillary will get to pick another one when RBG retires.
Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Wasn't meaning to have my post be a challenge or anything - mainly addressing a counter to my previous post that corrected me by stating that Garland is fairly left-leaning, which he is. I'd just add that the "political climate" in reality equals "no one he nominates will be confirmed" by the Senate so if Garland is truly his choice, it's a bad one because we're losing out on 14 years worth of service that Sri would give us. 14 years is forever in Court years. Merrick is the same but slightly different election tactic of holding Republicans' feet to the fire over refusing to nominate. I mean, sure on an actuarial table Sri probably serves a few more years on the bench but we're still taking some fairly long term betting. Either one could have a sudden aneurism or get hit by falling space debris. Considering Merrick is the exception to the current trend on both sides of nominating people in their 50s to the court, it's a little premature to complain about how the Left is letting the Right stack the court because they won't nominate young enough people to the bench. Sotomayor was 54 and Kagan was 50. Obama likes Garland and has decided that he wants to play look at the Senate snub a universally respected white guy instead of look at the Senate snub a unanimously confirmed Southeast Asian guy this summer. Complaining about 13 years when you're shifting the fulcrum point of the court ideological leagues seems a little silly. It's not like Garland is on his deathbed here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Radish posted:How was Scalia on marijuana? Is this another day to be happy he is dead? (I know it doesn't really matter since you need four to hear a case) He believed that it was an interstate commercial activity and as such fell within the federal commerce clause purview, even when grown at home for personal use in accordance with state and/or local laws. (Gonzales v Raich) This is one of those things that is typically brought up in juxtaposition with US v Lopez (Guns on the other hand are not part of interstate commerce and can't be subject to federal laws regarding school zones) as an example of how Scalia just gave no fucks about consistency. His views about the 4th amendment protections are similarly scattered but I guess they generally lean toward the restraint of law enforcement (there was a somewhat recent case about mobile phones if I recall) but I am on my phone and am not sure how he opined regarding 4A rights for marijuana users, gay people, and/or people of the wrong religious bent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:
May sound kinda ghoulish, but lifetime appointments mean there's only one way we were ever going to celebrate Scalia leaving the bench during a Democrat's term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:
I can't tell if you mean this question in terms of it's ghoulish to be glad a human is dead or if it's the spirit of "there is never a day we shouldn't be happy he is dead." eviltastic posted:May sound kinda ghoulish, but lifetime appointments mean there's only one way we were ever going to celebrate Scalia leaving the bench during a Democrat's term. Yeah this. Like I'd rather he just left the bench and lived out his days riding elephants and watching operas but lifetime appointments mean that isn't likely. It's not surprising that Scalia is once again hypocritical on something. VV I was hoping someone would make that joke. 
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Radish posted:How was Scalia on marijuana? Is this another day to be happy he is dead? Not great, to be honest. Paranoid as hell and had a bad habit of eating everything within eyesight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Agronox posted:Not great, to be honest. Paranoid as hell and had a bad habit of eating everything within eyesight. With an odd preference for pure applesauce.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:With an odd preference for pure applesauce. A+
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:With an odd preference for pure applesauce. I am happy to have set up this joke, which was much better than mine. Well done!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
Procedurally, does it make sense to say that the lower courts have to consider this first? I thought state vs. state conflicts were the only ones that went direct to the Supremes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 18:25
|
|
