|
I ask this question every time this comes up and I never get an answer, but why would Garland turn down a coveted appointment to his dream job at the very pinnacle of his life's work and career because he would apparently prefer Hillary to appoint someone "more liberal". If Garland thought a "more liberal" philosophy was the correct one, he would be that more liberal judge! It's not like he insulted Athena's lawyering skills or something and she cursed him to always pen centrist opinions while pining for more liberal ones that his arm refuses to write.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
Because he’s not selfish? Garland knows as well as anyone that he’s on the older end of the scale. A younger justice with a somewhat‐less‐perfect judicial philosophy (in his view) might accomplish more. He surely would have welcomed a confirmation in the past few months, but would he not feel guilty gaining his dream job via a spiteful midnight appointment by a lame‐duck Congress? That’s got to be bittersweet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
You could tell me I'm being appointed to my dream job because the previous incumbent and his entire family were murdered by a deranged serial killer, and I'm still going to take the job. I don't think Garland is going to let perfect be the enemy of good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
PredictIt traders currently see Garland as about 40% likely to be confirmed during Obama’s term, 60% confirmed next justice under any president. I’m not saying that they’re always right (if they were I wouldn’t be making a killing on PI), and that probability also includes the scenario where Garland’s name isn’t withdrawn but the Senate still doesn’t vote on him, but I don’t think I’m alone in thinking withdrawal is a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You could tell me I'm being appointed to my dream job because the previous incumbent and his entire family were murdered by a deranged serial killer, and I'm still going to take the job. Okay, but what if the serial killer told the press that he murdered the incumbent and family specifically to open the job for you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
I'm pretty confident Garland and Obama are smarter than the people trying to play 3048374th chess ITT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
If Garland wanted a younger judge on the court why would he have accepted the nomination at all. Did he still have 8 months to go before the little red light on his hand started blinking or what. "He might have accepted because he knew he was a compromise candidate," you say. Okay if the Republicans had confirmed him, do you think he would be planning to resign in January so Clinton could appoint the youngest judge ever? Seems unlikely. E: Platystemon posted:Okay, but what if the serial killer told the press that he murdered the incumbent and family specifically to open the job for you? If I were a federal court judge? Even if I investigated and discovered proof that it was I who unknowingly murdered the previous Supreme Court Justice in my sleep I would still take the job, come on. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Okay, but what if the serial killer told the press that he murdered the incumbent and family specifically to open the job for you? Rygar201 posted:You don't need an amendment or a law to require votes on nominees, just a Senate rule. The chambers set their own rules on administrative matters guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:PredictIt traders currently see Garland as about 40% likely to be confirmed during Obama’s term, 60% confirmed next justice under any president. he's not going to withdraw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:Don't care, still taking it. If we were approaching a full on constitutional crisis where we barely had enough justices for a quorum would the president suing the Senate for not doing their job be an option?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
Garland is not going to withdraw and Obama is not withdrawing him; also consider that if the Dems nakedly use a SCOTUS nomination as a political football, liberal judges are less likely to want to go through the wringer of a SCOTUS nomination in the first place. There's no reason to burn that bridge. Sure, you might say, "well the Republicans do it all the time and conservative judges have no compunctions about that sort of thing" and you'd be right, but you have to work with the judges you have and want on the bench, not any dream judge who is okay with getting thrown to the wolves and then withdrawn a year later for opportunist reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:If we were approaching a full on constitutional crisis where we barely had enough justices for a quorum would the president suing the Senate for not doing their job be an option? Recess appointments would probably fill the gap until elections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I'm still not sure why people are so insistent that Garland should be withdrawn and the immortal ghost of Communism be nominated. Because the only thing the Republicans understand is fear, and they need to be punished or we will end up in a situation where they simply refuse to confirm Democratic nominees - a scenario they are already seriously considering adopting as policy, apparently. That said, I don't think Garland withdrawing or Obama withdrawing Garland are at all likely. I think the outcome where the Republicans never confirm another Democratic appointee to anything is more likely than that. They can rely on the Democrats to be sane and moderate, and thus have full license to continue doing whatever horrible self serving things they want, and thus continue to win politically even if the Democrats are ahead of them in the electorate. But the Democrats giving up sanity to put the fear of god into them is hardly going to have a better outcome here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Is a failed toxx a ban or perma ban? I'm about this close to toxxing for Justice Garland, hah
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Because he’s not selfish? This is ridiculous. It's not selfish from his perspective because 1) if he takes the seat he knows exactly who will be making decisions instead of trusting that a future president will nominate someone he agrees with, 2) he doesn't know that someone younger will be nominated or confirmed, 3) even if someone younger is confirmed they could die in an accident at any moment, 4) even if he serves a decade less than some theoretical younger nominee the president who nominates his replacement could easily be just as in line with his judicial philosophy as Clinton or Obama. People suggesting he withdraw are basically asking him to trade guaranteed returns for some theoretical better that depends on a hundred unpredictable factors. It's absurd fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Is a failed toxx a ban or perma ban? I'm about this close to toxxing for Justice Garland, hah Just a ban. Go for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
I'll toxx that Garland will be confirmed in the lame duck if Clinton is elected. I really think it happens before the end of November, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I'll toxx that Garland will be confirmed in the lame duck if Clinton is elected. I really think it happens before the end of November, honestly. Seconded. Judge Garland will be be conformed in the lame duck session 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:If we were approaching a full on constitutional crisis where we barely had enough justices for a quorum would the president suing the Senate for not doing their job be an option?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
I'll for Justice Garland in the lame duck as well, with the addendum that MPR played a great Q&A with Justice Sotomayor at the U of M law school today and I think she's got the best stage presence
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
A President suing Congress instead of just acting and having Congress sue the President is losing the battle before it even begins. What I'm saying is that a President would likely take one of those crazy "silence is consent therefore my nominee is now a Justice" theories and let the Senate bring suit rather than going to court complaining about the mean ole Congress not doing its job (met with a insta-kick on political question).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
A presidential lawsuit claiming silence is consent would be downright hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Trillary Flinton posted:I'll I hope she really enjoyed the shithole basement of Mondale Hall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I hope she really enjoyed the shithole basement of Mondale Hall. She was a goddamn student bar bouncer in her college days, I can only assume it brought back fond memories. The only reason that Sotomayor is not the best is that Notorious RBG exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
McCain walks back pledge to block Clinton supreme court nomineesquote:“Senator McCain believes you can only judge people by their record, and Hillary Clinton has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees,” spokeswoman Rachel Dean said. “That being said, Senator McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
He probably doesn't want his last words on the matter to be clear grounds for a dereliction of duty suit. They'll still stonewall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Seconded. Judge Garland will be be conformed in the lame duck session Yeah i will 30 day prob toxx garland getting in
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:She was a goddamn student bar bouncer in her college days, I can only assume it brought back fond memories. I have a hunch that a good number of the "party line" majority opinions of the next court are going to be a bunch of concurrences seeing who can drop the sickest proseburn on the assholes in the minority. Like Breyer would write the opinion but then you'd have Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan (when her purgatory ends and all the cases she argued as solicitor get bled out of the docket) writing separate slam concurrence poetry all busting different dance moves on Scalia's grave just to try making Alito cry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Confirming garland is a no-brainer and I don't know why anyone would expect Clinton to start nominating extremely leftist judges when some of the most common complaints against Clinton from the left is that she's got blue-dog tendencies/isn't a true leftist. e: additionally Clinton can expect to be able to nominate 1-2 judges of her own choosing in addition to garland over the next four years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:Confirming garland is a no-brainer and I don't know why anyone would expect Clinton to start nominating extremely leftist judges when some of the most common complaints against Clinton from the left is that she's got blue-dog tendencies/isn't a true leftist. The semi-conventional wisdom of some on the left that she's going to choose blue dog and centrist judges is flying in the face of the actual record.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
I fully expect Hillary to pick the judges that will piss the right off the most. Whether this is because they are liberal as hell or because Hillary Clinton picked them is up for some debate, of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
I fully expect Hillary to choose Supreme Court Justices on the basis of their qualifications first and foremost, and their politics second. That is how it should be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 05:08
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Potato Salad posted:He probably doesn't want his last words on the matter to be clear grounds for a dereliction of duty suit. They'll still stonewall. Now that Trump's defeat is clear, he's hijacking the "vote Trump to prevent Hillary from appointing liberal SC judges" line and using a slightly modified version of it to try to motivate GOP voters to show up to the polls anyway and support downballot Republicans by saying that even if Hillary wins, Republicans can still control SC appointments as long as they hold the Senate. He probably didn't intend to be making any promises on SC nominees, which is why he walked it back so quickly - he was just trying to repurpose and retarget existing rhetoric to drive voter enthusiasm among the hardcore conservatives, and somehow managed to gently caress it up really badly
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I fully expect Hillary to choose Supreme Court Justices on the basis of their qualifications first and foremost, and their politics second. That is how it should be. That tends to piss off the right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:McCain walks back pledge to block Clinton supreme court nominees McCain getting out ahead of the pack and just calling it for Hillary. Or just saying the Senate in their hands will be all no all the time regardless of who becomes President.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:I fully expect Hillary to choose Supreme Court Justices on the basis of their qualifications first and foremost, and their politics second. That is how it should be. Is that before or after the tea party with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? She's going to select based on payouts from the finance industry foremost and by record of supporting government authority second.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
Zoran posted:A presidential lawsuit claiming silence is consent would be downright hilarious. Boy oh boy you'd get to see some hot takes on rape from the usual corners if that happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I fully expect Hillary to pick the judges that will piss the right off the most. So you're saying there's still a chance of Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Diane Reamed posted:So you're saying there's still a chance of Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama Maybe! Sri Srinivasan would be my choice. A Hindu on the supreme Court would drive the right crazy
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
Diane Reamed posted:So you're saying there's still a chance of Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama There is no way that would happen. Michelle wouldn't let it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:38
|
|
