|
evilweasel posted: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. Just to bolster this. Clarence Thomas is only 4 years older than Garland... but Thomas has been influencing SCOTUS for 25 years.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:1. He doesn't really raise the pressure on the GOP to actually confirm him as more as Sri would His name was publicly floated by Orrin Hatch, the most senior republican on the senate judiciary committee as an acceptable candidate. If he is blocked it helps every Democrat in a senate race by making the Republicans look like idiots. If he isn't blocked the Republicans still look like idiots and he's better than Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:His name was publicly floated by Orrin Hatch, the most senior republican on the senate judiciary committee as an acceptable candidate. Hatch isn't running and isn't beatable even if he was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Then he'll get ignored until Trump can nominate a replacement. Or the Senate rushes to confirm him with all of the Democrats and enough of the not-in-Trump's-camp Republicans, which should be enough to break a filibuster, to block a Trump nomination. I agree he's not at all an ideal pick, though, given that my money's still on Clinton to take the general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:His name was publicly floated by Orrin Hatch, the most senior republican on the senate judiciary committee as an acceptable candidate. I view that more as a temporary embarrassment than a useful way of making senators start getting nervous about the political repercussions. Hopefully I'm wrong though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Wait we have it all wrong https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153555432692199&id=200401352198
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Wax Dynasty posted:fifth vote Yes. Wax Dynasty posted:liberal vote Nnno.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I view that more as a temporary embarrassment than a useful way of making senators start getting nervous about the political repercussions. Hopefully I'm wrong though. There is no escaping the optics of 'these assholes already refusing to do their job now won't even have a hearing on a guy one of their most respected peers said 'yea he's a good dude' about. It's not like these guys were in the good graces with a lot of people before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
McConnell just said no vote, again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:McConnell just said no vote, again. "I just nominated the only guy they said was acceptable. This just proves that Republican senators have no intention of governing this country"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Or the Senate rushes to confirm him with all of the Democrats and enough of the not-in-Trump's-camp Republicans, which should be enough to break a filibuster, to block a Trump nomination. I doubt Trump much cares about the Supreme Court, and they'd probably figure they could tell him who to nominate and he'd be like sure, whatever. If he did nominate someone bad, they can always torpedo him like they did with Meiers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:McConnell just said no vote, again. Of course he did. He's Mitch McConnell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"I just nominated the only guy they said was acceptable. This just proves that Republican senators have no intention of governing this country" Lets see if the electorate actually punishes them for it. I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Lets see if the electorate actually punishes them for it. I'm not holding my breath. I don't think "lol nothing matters" will extend from Trump to congressional campaigns but if it does we're hosed anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:McConnell just said no vote, again. Oh look that thing we expected to happened happened, and now in a few days he'll remove his name from the options I bet and we get a fresh session of 'why the gently caress won't you do your jobs'
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't think Senate Republicans have any real fear of who a Trump nominee would be. Certainly not enough to appoint an Obama nominee instead - at worst, a Trump nominee is a Kennedy-like person who isn't doctrinaire conservative. Most of the Senate hate for Trump right now is the (legitimate) fear he'll bomb in the election so hard it affects their races. We already know who Trump nominates
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:There is no escaping the optics of 'these assholes already refusing to do their job now won't even have a hearing on a guy one of their most respected peers said 'yea he's a good dude' about. It's not like these guys were in the good graces with a lot of people before. They all voted to confirm Sri to his current seat three years ago. Like I said, at best he's a wash on that front - except he's an old white guy instead of an Indian immigrant. edit: To be clear, I don't think he makes it significantly harder - just that he offers no advantages on that front better candidates couldn't match.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:"I just nominated the only guy they said was acceptable. This just proves that Republican senators have no intention of governing this country" If I were Obama I'd go on TV tonight and say exactly this. GOP favorability is trending downward, really drive the stake in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted: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. I disagree about Sri. Given the current state of the Republican party, being a minority is more important than his previous confirmation. Confirming him would be rather difficult during the election, as it just gives the crazies more ammunition that the minorities are taking over "their" country. Opposing a bland centrist white guy is way harder for them. Obama's choice seems to be about preserving the confirmation process and not about ideology. He genuinely does't want stonewalling SC picks to become the norm so he's gone as non-controversial as he can. Obama has never been an in-your-face ideologue about anything, so this is right in line with his MO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
I was hoping for Gary Busey or Dennis Rodman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They all voted to confirm Sri to his current seat three years ago. Like I said, at best he's a wash on that front - except he's an old white guy instead of an Indian immigrant. ok so when Sri gets the real nod won't you have people playing the 'he's not liberal enough' card too because he defended corporations and that's apparently a sign of a secret neocon too?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Any word on where Garland might fall on Citizens United? As I understand it, most of his moderate record comes from his rulings on criminal issues. While those things are important to me, there are other issues that are more important to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Yes. Yes, he is, in fact, liberal. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
PPP throwing some shade on Toomey's nonsense tweet. https://twitter.com/SenToomey/status/710127298779942912 https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/710132611046379521
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:ok so when Sri gets the real nod won't you have people playing the 'he's not liberal enough' card too because he defended corporations and that's apparently a sign of a secret neocon too? I am not interested in wrong things that stupid people might say. I view Sri as ideologically pretty similar to Garland - they're both relative moderates, but a relative moderate is fine. I'd prefer a liberal, but any moderate will make vast, vast improvements to the country. I don't think Garland is bad, I just think he's inferior to other nominees under every circumstance. If he gets confirmed before the election, I'll be happy. But I think he's got no better shot than Sri, and would be worse than Kelly (who would be a great Hillary nominee with a friendly senate).
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:PPP throwing some shade on Toomey's nonsense tweet. If this scumbag loses his seat because of this it will make me happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
 ... sorry, all I could think of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I am not interested in wrong things that stupid people might say. I view Sri as ideologically pretty similar to Garland - they're both relative moderates, but a relative moderate is fine. I'd prefer a liberal, but any moderate will make vast, vast improvements to the country. Disregarding the very small likelihood it happens, if the Republican Senate were to give a straight up/down vote and reject a nominee, do you feel that candidate is essentially prevented from being nominated again? I don't actually think they will end up holding hearings, I think they hold out. But it is worth considering that you don't want to 'burn' a nominee by letting them get voted down. Garland is a much better sacrifice. Edit: Although, I agree that is probably the only area in which he is 'best.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:Disregarding the very small likelihood it happens, if the Republican Senate were to give a straight up/down vote and reject a nominee, do you feel that candidate is essentially prevented from being nominated again? Only if the Senate managed to find a disqualifying personal reason to reject them. If they get painted as Bork-level crazy, maybe - but I doubt that Republicans could pull that off. If there's no basis besides "gently caress you, we won't let you nominate someone" then I think there's no risk in nominating them again - but that would be a pretty unique situation that I'm not sure has happened in the modern era.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:
I did too, although I've been playing through FF9 so I thought about this guy first:  ^an underused secondary villain, that one is evilweasel posted:I am not interested in wrong things that stupid people might say. I view Sri as ideologically pretty similar to Garland - they're both relative moderates, but a relative moderate is fine. I'd prefer a liberal, but any moderate will make vast, vast improvements to the country. Exactly. It's important to remember that it's only going to take a relatively small shift in the balance of SCOTUS to make a profound difference. Moderate or liberal, they're still going to be 100% more liberal than Scalia was. Tatum Girlparts posted:I think Garland is being used as a sacrifice option, he's better than the republican to be in the 'well just in case he gets in he won't be BAD' slot, but I think Garland just exists in this process to make the republicans turn down a white dude who got support from a senior republican leader. Once he's done Sri will probably be the guy anyway. \/\/\/ That's kind of my thinking as well. The fact that he's basically the single highest-ranking judge in the U.S. that's not on SCOTUS already means that if he is denied a hearing, Obama has a maximum amount of political hay to make of it.\/\/\/ Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I am not interested in wrong things that stupid people might say. I view Sri as ideologically pretty similar to Garland - they're both relative moderates, but a relative moderate is fine. I'd prefer a liberal, but any moderate will make vast, vast improvements to the country. Fair, I obviously misunderstood you then. I think Garland is being used as a sacrifice option, he's better than the republican to be in the 'well just in case he gets in he won't be BAD' slot, but I think Garland just exists in this process to make the republicans turn down a white dude who got support from a senior republican leader. Once he's done Sri will probably be the guy anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Only if the Senate managed to find a disqualifying personal reason to reject them. If they get painted as Bork-level crazy, maybe - but I doubt that Republicans could pull that off. If there's no basis besides "gently caress you, we won't let you nominate someone" then I think there's no risk in nominating them again - but that would be a pretty unique situation that I'm not sure has happened in the modern era. The nearest situation I can find is Thomas Stanley Matthews in 1881, which is not the modern era. quote:In January 1881, President Rutherford B. Hayes nominated Matthews for a position as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Matthews was a controversial nominee, and as the nomination came near the end of Hayes's term, the Senate did not act on it. Upon succeeding Hayes, incoming President James A. Garfield renominated Matthews in March 1881,[2] and the Senate confirmed him by a vote of 24 to 23, the narrowest confirmation for a successful U.S. Supreme Court nominee in history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Fair, I obviously misunderstood you then. Yeah, my fear is that by simply never scheduling a vote, they then have the option of scheduling one the day after the election if Hillary wins to block Sri from getting nominated. If Garland will withdraw at that point, great. But otherwise the risk is that there's a good chance that the Republicans can delay until after the election, then pocket the compromise nominee anyway even if they lose the Presidency and the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Hehquote:"The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him," Hatch told us. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-gizzi-orrin-hatch-obama-will-nominate/2016/03/13/id/718871/
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Grassley has confirmed he's still blocking any committee hearings. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/grassley-statement-merrick-garland
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Heh https://twitter.com/bridgetbhc/status/710133812483780608 Seems like this is the route they're taking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Mark Kirk just broke ranks with McConnell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Mark Kirk just broke ranks with McConnell. From now on, they’re going to call breaking ranks “ Mirkin’ ”.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:PPP throwing some shade on Toomey's nonsense tweet. The insinuation is that Obama was elected by minorities and young people, who don't really count as people. Let's have a SCOTUS nomination by someone who reflects the will of REAL Americans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Mark Kirk just broke ranks with McConnell. Of course he did. He's facing off against Tammy Duckworth in November and he's in one of the most vulnerable seats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 17:35
|
|
