You're exactly right. The next nominees will be more progressive.
Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court
- Thread starter Watcher
- Start date
You're exactly right. The next nominees will be more progressive.
Republicans have 4-5 senators in swing states (see Kelly Ayotte) Dems can run on her being obstructionist, considering some of those states actually vote for Obama.
If the Dems can pick up 2-3 of those seats, it will help.
My understanding is that they need 9 to take control.
I'm so tired of watching the media let Republicans get away with saying "let the American people decide". The American people did decide and Obama is not a lame duck. Lame duck describes the time after November election until the new President is sworn in.
If a republican every gets the Presidency again and wins re-election I hope the democrats call them a lame duck the day after re-election. And oppose to bring up any nominations for 4 years.
If a republican every gets the Presidency again and wins re-election I hope the democrats call them a lame duck the day after re-election. And oppose to bring up any nominations for 4 years.
I believe we all see the logic and reasoning behind the pick. What I am sick of is WHATS THE FUCKING POINT?!?!?!?!?!?
Anybody with half a brain knows the repugs have been shiting on Obama and he has been trying to appease them and back door get shit done...AND THEY STILL KEEP SHITTING ON HIM!!!
Its just frustrating to keep seeing this I'm a good nigah act/approach when NO REPUG and most CAC's will NEVER respect him.
For ME Its hard to see an ass hat idiot like GW push all the bullshit he did with a fucking even split senate for the most part. Than when BO Takes Office with 57 dem senators in his pocket and all we heard was he couldn't do shit cause he did not have a super majority
Actually they weren't all in his pocket and he needed a super majority (60 votes) to get things done and only had that for short time. Which was not enough time do much of anything. Harry Reid was not very helpful unlike Nancy Pelosi.I believe we all see the logic and reasoning behind the pick. What I am sick of is WHATS THE FUCKING POINT?!?!?!?!?!?
Anybody with half a brain knows the repugs have been shiting on Obama and he has been trying to appease them and back door get shit done...AND THEY STILL KEEP SHITTING ON HIM!!!
Its just frustrating to keep seeing this I'm a good nigah act/approach when NO REPUG and most CAC's will NEVER respect him.
For ME Its hard to see an ass hat idiot like GW push all the bullshit he did with a fucking even split senate for the most part. Than when BO Takes Office with 57 dem senators in his pocket and all we heard was he couldn't do shit cause he did not have a super majority
Last edited:
The current U.S. Senate has 54 Republicans and 45 Democrats (including one independent). The 2016 Senate election takes place on November 8, 2016. There are 34 seats up in 2016, of which 24 are held by Republicans. Democrats will need to gain 4 or 5 seats to take control.
This 3-part Senate map lets you view the current Senate, make a forecast for the 2016 Senate elections, and see the composition of the 2017 Senate based on those predictions. Use the buttons below the map to share it on social media or embed it into a web page. Send us feedback on this new Senate map.
Map Features
http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/
you have a typo.....super majority is 60...
and Reid could have taken the senate back to a simple majority but he is pussy and was afraid that when they lost they wouldn't be able to obstruct.
he could have also taken the filibuster back to making them stand and talk instead of just calling filibuster and going home
The media is owned by republican voters...
Shit if it wasn't for SiriusXm radio many areas of the country would not even have anything close to progressive or liberal talk radio stations
But every area has multiple right wing selections
This is why Obama is the coolest prez ever.
He is only doing what the constitution says he is required to do. These hateful ass CAC rethugliklansmen refuse to do what the constitution says it must do whether it is the congress(legislative) or senate(judicial). Obama's only crime is that he is not euro looking. The Congress and Senate refuse to do their job. The President and his Cabinet(executive) was the only part that was working and that is unacceptable for a so called democracy with checks and balances.
He is only doing what the constitution says he is required to do. These hateful ass CAC rethugliklansmen refuse to do what the constitution says it must do whether it is the congress(legislative) or senate(judicial). Obama's only crime is that he is not euro looking. The Congress and Senate refuse to do their job. The President and his Cabinet(executive) was the only part that was working and that is unacceptable for a so called democracy with checks and balances.
Lol...He is who I thought he was...
Cherry picking
Despite his vote with the majority in a key case that opened the door for super PACs, the 63-year-old federal judge whom President Barack Obama nominated to the Supreme Court today has a record that suggests he’d favor more regulation of money in politics, some campaign finance reformers say.
In the years since the Supreme Court cleared the way for political donors to give unlimited sums to third party groups with its landmark 2010 Citizens United decision, reform groups have explored the various ways in which the ruling could be undone. A constitutional amendment to overturn the decision became one popular route, endorsed by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
But a constitutional amendment was always a long shot. Now, with an open seat on the court, another alternative has emerged: The high court could reverse itself. Should Garland manage to make it through the Senate, there’s a possibility the Supreme Court would do exactly that.
Garland has a pretty good record on campaign finance-related issues in the eyes of campaign finance reformers. Last year, in Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, he authored a unanimous decision to uphold a ban on government contractors making political contributions, and in 2008 joined a unanimous decision saying that the FEC wasn’t doing enough to implement the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. In 2009, he authored a decision upholding lobbying disclosure in which he noted that, “More than 50 years ago, the Supreme Court held that the public disclosure of ‘who is being hired, who is putting up the money, and how much’ they are spending to influence legislation is ‘a vital national interest.'”
Garland has also upheld limits on corporations’ First Amendment rights in, among others, a decision that said it was acceptable for government agencies to require corporations to disclose where their food was sourced from, and another that prevented corporations from saying a product cured diseases without a trial to prove it.
These cases, all covering different legal terrain, give us a sense how Garland might treat a challenge to Citizens United, says Scott Greytak, counsel for the reform group Free Speech for People. “With Citizens United, you think about a double helix in DNA: It wraps up corporate constitutional rights and also the idea of money in politics.”
There is one very important case on Garland’s record, however, that gives reformers pause: SpeechNow vs. FEC, a decision that, along with Citizens United, made possible the current proliferation of super PACs. Citizens United did away with limits on how much third party groups could spend, so long as they didn’t coordinate with campaigns. SpeechNow allowed donors to give as much as they wanted to political action committees — again, so long as those groups didn’t coordinate with campaigns. The decisions, both decided in 2010, were two sides of the same coin. Garland joined the unanimous decision on SpeechNow written by Judge David B. Sentelle.
But Garland’s decision on SpeechNow does not necessarily indicate how he would vote on a case seeking to reverse Citizens United, should one reach the bench, reformers believe. “We personally think that there’s a lot of daylight between Citizens United and SpeechNow,” said Greytak.
Stephen Spaulding, senior policy counsel and legal director at Common Cause, argued that Garland’s ruling could be explained by the fact that federal appeals court judges are bound by Supreme Court precedent. The year SpeechNow came before the DC Circuit, the justices already, through Citizens United, were sending a pretty clear message about how the high court felt about super PAC spending. UC-Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen explains:
When SpeechNow got to the DC Circuit, the Supreme Court’s signal was clear: the logic was that if independent spending can never corrupt (as the Supreme Court held in Citizens United), then contributions to fund independent spending by a PAC cannot corrupt. The Citizens United case is cited 26 times(!) in SpeechNow. Look, if I were a judge on the DC Circuit having to follow Supreme Court precedent I would have voted the same way in SpeechNow, despite the fact that I think Citizens United (and Buckley) should be overruled. That’s not the job of a Circuit Court judge.
On the Supreme Court, Garland would be in a position to overturn past Supreme Court rulings in a way that he could not while on the DC Circuit Court.
To be sure, even if Garland would, in theory, vote to reverse Citizens United, the path to get such a case before the Supreme Court is a long one. A city or state government would have to put in place a law that conflicted with Citizens United — for instance, capping election spending by third party groups. That law would then be challenged in court, and, through appeals, make its way through the legal system, reaching a federal court and then ending up before the Supreme Court. Reformers would have to pick their fight carefully, making sure the case originated somewhere where the federal court might vote in their favor.
And, record aside, no one except, perhaps, Merrick Garland knows how Merrick Garland might ultimately vote in a scenario in which Citizens United came before the court. Good-government groups are calling on the Republicans who control the Senate to allow Merrick a confirmation hearing, hoping to hear his views on these issues and others.
In the hours after Obama’s Rose Garden announcement, his pick was winning praise from across the ideological spectrum. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a hero to the Democratic left, praised the president’s choice. So did conservative icon Kenneth Starr, the former prosecutor of President Bill Clinton who now heads Baylor University. Even so, Senate Republicans have promised not to act on the president’s nomination — at least, not until after the November election.
Source?
Somewhere, Sen Orrin Hatch is somewhere piping hot.
------
Hatch told Newsmax on Sunday that Garland would not be Obama’s pick:
“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.
“[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” he told us, referring to the more centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia who was considered and passed over for the two previous high court vacancies.
But, Hatch quickly added, “He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”
-----
Obama called his bluff. But now he can't go back on his word that he will not support confirming anyone no matter who it is.
------
Hatch told Newsmax on Sunday that Garland would not be Obama’s pick:
“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.
“[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” he told us, referring to the more centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia who was considered and passed over for the two previous high court vacancies.
But, Hatch quickly added, “He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”
-----
Obama called his bluff. But now he can't go back on his word that he will not support confirming anyone no matter who it is.
So all of that says it doesn't matter how he decided a similar issue nobody knows how he would decide a similar issue.
What we do know is that he has a history of siding with law enforcement and against those convicted seeking legal recourse.
Does that mean he would side with the decisions of the right thinking justices who have always increased police power and lessens citizens rights ?
I would prefer and would hope that BeatDowns narrative was correct and this nomination was made to be denied showing that the GOP won't confirm a right leaning nominee.
I am not buying that he is a good choice to actually serve because he doesn't seem the least interested in social justice.
Even Fox News exposed this dude.
I was looking to see if Clarence Thomas was always right leaning or turned that way after Reagon appointed him.....fuck what happened to this man to turn him.
Clarence Thomas was born in 1948 in Pin Point, Georgia, a small, predominantly black community near Savannah founded by freedmen after the American Civil War. He was the second of three children born to M.C. Thomas, a farm worker, and Leola Williams, a domestic worker. They were descendants of American slaves, and the family spoke Gullah as a first language. Thomas' earliest-known ancestors were slaves named Sandy and Peggy who were born around the end of the 18th century and owned by wealthy Liberty County, Georgia planter Josiah Wilson. M.C. left his family when Thomas was two years old. Thomas' mother worked hard but was sometimes paid only pennies per day. She had difficulty putting food on the table and was forced to rely on charity. After a house fire left them homeless, Thomas and his younger brother Myers were taken to live with his mother's parents in Savannah, Georgia. Thomas was seven when the family moved in with his maternal grandfather, Myers Anderson, and Anderson's wife, Christine (née Hargrove), in Savannah.
Living with his grandparents, Thomas enjoyed amenities such as indoor plumbing and regular meals for the first time in his life. His grandfather Myers Anderson had little formal education, but had built a thriving fuel oil business that also sold ice. Thomas calls his grandfather "the greatest man I have ever known."When Thomas was 10, Anderson started taking the family to help at a farm every day from sunrise to sunset. His grandfather believed in hard work and self-reliance; he would counsel Thomas to "never let the sun catch you in bed." Thomas' grandfather also impressed upon his grandsons the importance of getting a good education.
Thomas was the only black person at his high school in Savannah, where he was an honor student. He was raised Roman Catholic. He considered entering the priesthood at the age of 16, and became the first black student to attend St. John Vianney's Minor Seminary (Savannah) on the Isle of Hope. He also briefly attended Conception Seminary College, a Roman Catholic seminary in Missouri. No one in Thomas's family had attended college. Thomas has said that during his first year in seminary, he was one of only "three or four" blacks attending the school. In a number of interviews, Thomas stated that he left the seminary in the aftermath of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. He had overheard another student say after the shooting, "Good, I hope the son of a bitch died." He did not think the church did enough to combat racism.
Thomas attended the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. While there, Thomas helped found the Black Student Union. Once he walked out after an incident in which black students were punished while white students went undisciplined for committing the same violation, and some of the priests negotiated with the protesting black students to re-enter the school.
I read an interview with him once and they asked him was he involved with the civil rights movement... He said no that isn't how his family was
He was raised as a good negro that didn't make waves and didn't look white folk in the eye..
Although he got into law school because of afirmative action he felt that it cheapened his degree..
Wow it took Fox News to call republicans on their bullshit.
What's going on? Did I go into a coma and it isn't 2016 ?
ANS: He married a fat white lady.
No doubt the racist pussy played a role.
So tell me again why he couldnt nominate someone that leans more toward the left?
Then they would have their excuse to do what they are doing.
With the Garland pick their rhetoric is being shot to pieces even by Fox News.
Because the GOP would have had a legitimate reason to block it. Replacing a far right justice with a liberal is a legitimate reason for them to just block it. A liberal justice in this environment stands zero chance of getting approved. And if Obama nominated one, it would have done nothing to show just how unreasonable they are.
Now, this is a win-win situation.
If they deny the nom, it illustrates they are obvious obstructionists and Obama makes it a campaign issue to drive more dems to the ballot. (which means the dems win more seats on the downticket)
If they don't even consider it, same as above.
Also, if they reject it, they'll likely end up getting a more liberal judge anyway because Hillary will likely have a majority and the GOP won't have the power to control it.
If they accept it, you've just replaced these most conservative judge in decades with a moderate. And moderates always end up becoming more liberal over time. There have been studies that prove this.
And that's why the liberal candidates were dropping out... they didn't want to be the sacrificial lamb because they knew a liberal candidate stood no chance..and being rejected is bad for your future chances.
It's the right move.
but will it stop them from doing what they are doing ?
seems to be like the numerous threads started here that show the differences between how white people are treated by the police and how black people are treated.
all it does is say see look at this but it doesn't change anything.
Now the bigger play would be if Hillary wins the election, along with enough senators to push through a nomination. He drops out and she nominates a liberal black woman.
Now the bigger play would be if Hillary wins the election, along with enough senators to push through a nomination. He drops out and she nominates a liberal black woman.
That won't happen because she will be nominating a feminist.
Besides he wouldn't have to drop out because he is not her nominee. He will either be confirmed before that or denied before that. In any event he will not be in play after the election
My point is that if she wins. The republicans will be scrambling to appoint him. If that happens and he drops out...she then replaces him with a liberal black woman when she becomes president.
That fuck up by the republicans would go down as one of the biggest blunders in history. They would have gambled and totally lost.