Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

Watcher

Rising Star
Platinum Member
Let the republican traitorous fuckery begin.

Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

He's by far the least controversial -- and most confirmable -- candidate from the president's short list.
03/16/2016 10:03 am

56e85cdc1500002a000b2235.jpeg

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Always a bridesmaid: This could be Merrick Garland's long-awaited Supreme Court moment.


Settling for a centrist candidate with decades of judicial experience, President Barack Obama will nominate Merrick Garland, a federal appeals judge in Washington, D.C., to the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, according to The Associated Press and congressional sources.

If confirmed, Garland, 63, wouldn't bring diversity to the court as much a lengthy résumé in public service, including stints in the Department of Justice and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he has served since 1997 and is now the chief judge.

An eventual appointment for Garland is also less likely to mark a liberal shift in the Supreme Court. If anything, his contributions -- given his age and his moderate record so far -- are likely to be more pragmatic than path-marking for some of the country's most hotly contested legal issues, such as voting rights, gun control and the scope of presidential powers.

For those very reasons, Garland is the least controversial -- and likely the most confirmable -- of all the candidates who were reportedly considered for the vacancy. It is possible Obama chose him for the post to defuse the confirmation fight that Senate Republicans have promised since the moment Scalia died.

Obama seriously considered Garland in 2010 for the opening created by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. He was ultimately passed over for Elena Kagan, then the president's top lawyer before the Supreme Court.

Garland has some pluses that could serve him well in a polarized environment, including knowing Chief Justice John Roberts -- the two clerked for famed New York judge Henry Friendly and participated in cases together on the D.C. Circuit, when Roberts served there between 2003 and 2005.

An honors graduate of Harvard Law School, Garland is also chief judge of a federal court that's widely regarded as second only to the Supreme Court: The D.C. Circuit is not only a pipeline of sorts for future justices -- Scalia and Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also sat there -- but it also hears major cases on federal regulatory action on net neutrality, health care and the environment.

"Judge Garland's record demonstrates that he is essentially the model, neutral judge," wrote SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein in 2010, when the White House first vetted him for a seat on the high court. "He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements."

Under the Constitution, it is now the Senate's role to consider Obama's nomination, providing the necessary "advice and consent" to decide whether Garland should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Since Scalia's death, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have repeatedly vowed to not even consider anyone the president nominates, arguing that whoever wins the general election in November should name the next justice.

This has enraged Democrats and sparked weeks of political mudslinging, charges of opportunism and accusations that Senate Republicans are refusing to do their jobs.

At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) candidly recognized that his party's obstructionism over the nomination was more about politics than anything else.

In response, the White House and progressive groups are ready for what looks to be a monumental fight to get the nominee confirmed -- setting their sights on Republican incumbents, including Grassley, whose staunch opposition to holding confirmation hearings could backfire at the polls.

Republicans are planning a ground game, too, forming their own "SCOTUS task force" to combat whatever the White House and its allies may have up their sleeves.

"This will be the most comprehensive judicial response effort in our party's history," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus promised in a statement.
 

TheBigOne

Master Tittay Poster
Platinum Member
Timing is good. Maybe the Repubs will reconsider their position if they think that the outcome might be that Donald Trump will appoint the next justice.
 

saundman

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
This pick is to clam the masses.

They can't say they are angry over the pick.

The nerve of him to choose a White Man!!!!!
 

Coldchi

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
i figured he'd pick somebody that would appeal to republicans...
fuck that....he needs to nominate somebody that will flat out piss them the fuck off....
 

snark9

Cantankerous Bastid
BGOL Investor
I guess this pick will either take the piss out of the Republican pledge to not nominate, or show how unreasonable they are.
 

papi68

Rising Star
Platinum Member
From what I understand, why pick the Indian guy or black guy when repugs would definitely deny. It would kill their chances in the future let's say when Hillary is pres and the senate is democratic...makes sense when u look at it that way. I don't know of a nominee that was brought back after being denied.
 

D'Evils

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
They either confirm the moderate or wait til Hillary and possibly a Democrate Senate appoints someone more to the left.

Or prays that Trump falls in line.
 

Coldchi

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Sen. Mitch McConnell - "Senate's constitutional right is to act as check on President, withhold consent."

i see this cac is being a bitch ass already.
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
An eventual appointment for Garland is also less likely to mark a liberal shift in the Supreme Court. If anything, his contributions -- given his age and his moderate record so far -- are likely to be more pragmatic than path-marking for some of the country's most hotly contested legal issues, such as voting rights, gun control and the scope of presidential powers.

Is it a matter of making a difference or just getting a nominee through ?
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
They either confirm the moderate or wait til Hillary and possibly a Democrate Senate appoints someone more to the left.

Or prays that Trump falls in line.

What makes you think Hillary would nominate somebody more to the left ?

Certainly couldn't be her record or her opinions.
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Sen. Mitch McConnell - "Senate's constitutional right is to act as check on President, withhold consent."

i see this cac is being a bitch ass already.


He is right but he also knows he can't control a vote and that is why he is fighting not to conduct hearings at all.

And the senate doesn't have that right....Vote up or down but hold hearings and vote.

But he also doesn't want to vote no only to have another hearing and nominee.....
 

The Technician

Formerly Commandernchief
BGOL Investor
Timing is good. Maybe the Repubs will reconsider their position if they think that the outcome might be that Donald Trump will appoint the next justice.


President Obama should have played that card publicly. I know he couldn't be seen as floating the possibility of Trump beating Hillary (assuming Bernie doesn't get the nomination), but that message needed to be delivered. Confirm the current nominee to the court or take the risk of having Donald Trump make the nomination.
 

Coldchi

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Hillary beats Trump,.....and appoints Obama.
that'll really piss them cacs the fuck off.
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Right, you should waste your time choosing people that won't get confirmed "that'll show 'em".

Why take Lynch out of the mix considering she had just been confirmed and has spent most of her career as a prosecutor?

I don't get the rationale of why not just pick somebody they like cause they won't confirm anybody else.

I asked this question once before in regards to this line of thinking.

If you were on the roof a tall building and somebody was holding a gun to you and told you to jump or they would shoot you.

Would you jump cause they going to kill you anyway?
 

ballscout1

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Hillary beats Trump,.....and appoints Obama.
that'll really piss them cacs the fuck off.

wouldn't work unless they retake the senate

but she don't really like Obama like that..She just hanging on his coattails because he is popular with black folks and liberals ( for the most part)
 
Top