Merirck Garland

Seems like a good choice for the Supreme Court. He is well liked by Republicans. It's a shame he will probably be denied the chance.

Obama nominates Garland to high court, challenging GOP

From the article.

"He quoted past praise for Garland from Chief Justice John Roberts and Sen. Orrin Hatch."

" he's earned a reputation as centrist, and one of the few Democratic-appointed judges Republicans might have a fast-tracked to confirmation — under other circumstances."

"The Republicans who voted in favor of confirmation are Hatch, Sen. Dan Coats, Sen. Thad Cochran, Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Pat Roberts in the past".

It is a shame he won't at least be given a chance because of the current political climate. He seems like a nice guy, and a fair unbiased individual. His credentials are impeccable.

 

So he wimped out and tried to pick someone Republicans would like. He keeps pre-negotiating like this. It probably won't matter. Republicans are likely to obstruct despite getting this good a deal. I expect Bernie or Hillary won't pick anyone they like at all.

 

They should really take the deal. See comment below:

"On the other side, liberal contributor Julie Roginsky, describing Garland as a “moderate” justice in the mold of Anthony Kennedy, said Republicans “better be darn sure that Donald Trump will win and that they’re going to hold their Senate majority.” Because if Hillary Clinton becomes president and the Senate flips, she will appoint a younger, more openly liberal justice and the GOP will be “begging” for Garland back".

Fox News Warns GOP: Merrick Garland Is a

 

Here's the thing, I don't want a Justice to either be left or right. I want centrists. it means that the person isn't always ruling the way you would like but that's generally because they are focused on the law and the arguments presented rather than appeasing someone.

This is the sort of person I would like to see replace Scalia.

 

It's not "wimping out" at all. By picking a moderate, he has the opportunity to undercut accusations of partisanship and, by doing so, to make the GOP Senators look even more partisan and obstructionist.

That being said, I agree with the rest of your post. I doubt anyone will be confirmed to the seat until next year.

 

I think that Scalia had a brilliant legal mind. And if I had to criticize him, it would be that I think that his brilliant legal mind was so focused on the principle that you just mentioned that it had the potential to blind him.

It's true; the constitution says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. However, one of the central reasons we have a SCOTUS is to try to interpret the applicability of a very old document in light of modern day problems.

What the founders may, or may not, have intended probably should be considered when we look at issues of law. And I, personally, feel that the decisions he made which I disagree with were born of such a narrow focus that they went from the reasoning of a brilliant legal mind to a stubborn refusal to follow the spirit of that legal document over the letter of it.

That said, my differences with Scalia were largely philosophical. I don't think he was the Great Satan. And I really wish I had the opportunity during his lifetime to have dinner with the man. I hear he was an absolute riot. And the fact that he befriended both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagen (someone he hoped would be appointed to the bench despite their very obvious political and social differences) is a brilliant illustration in how you can respect a person even when you don't agree with them.

But, we're in a very bashy mood when it comes to SCOTUS with both sides crapping all over respected men and women who have the audacity to rule according to their incredibly educated reviews of the law rather than according to popularity.

So I don't mean to say that Merrick Garland should replace Scalia because Scalia was a bad Justice. I simply mean that Merrick Garland is a centrist with impeccable credentials and the sort of person who both parties can agree to. And, regardless of who is in power, that's the sort of person we should be appointing rather than someone we know to be a "safe" vote for our agenda whatever that may be.

 

Summed put quite nicely

No matter what one thinks of Al Franken, he brought up some good points:

Sen. Al Franken calls out GOP over SCOTUS nom | MSNBC

 

I agree. He didn't really say anything new, but I think what he demonstrated on camera for the world to see, is that the GOP didn't really have any cogent answers to his questions (and the questions of many), and frankly, they didn't come off looking to good. I think the GOP have painted themselves in to a corner on this one.

 

The simplest explanation is probably the best: Obama nominated this guy because he was the one with the best chance at getting appointed. He won't, which brings the other aspects of this into play, namely that the GOP will look even more awkward by blocking him. That's not Obama's purpose, but it's an added feature.

I think Obama expects Clinton to be elected. The GOP-controlled Senate will then take up this nomination in the lame-duck session. Even more likely if the Democrats win back control of the Senate. They'll approve the nomination as the best-case scenario. If the GOP candidate wins, of course, the Senate won't take it up until the next President is sworn in, no matter who will control the Senate in 2017. (If it's the Dems controlling the Senate and GOP nominee winning the Presidency--not likely--then you might see the Dems block the new President's choice. Not by filibustering or ignoring the nominee--like the GOP is doing now--but by giving him/her a hearing and then voting him/her down.

I really think Obama knows the Senate will not hear his nominee until the lame-duck, then will rush him through before President H. Clinton takes office. Obama, for his part, won't pull the nomination in favor of a choice by Clinton. He really wants this third nomination on his record, as well as being known as the President who engineered the first philosophical shift in the SCOTS in 4 decades.

(BTW, I know the Senate has the legal right to ignore the nominee, but they shouldn't. I wonder how much the voters will punish them for it.)

 

C'mon. He's both. He nominated this guy knowing the GOP-controlled Senate wouldn't consider him...until the lame-duck. If Clinton wins, the GOP-controlled Senate will rapidly approve this candidate. Obama is most interested in his legacy at this point, and appointing a jurist that moves the SCOTUS to more progressive decisions would be something Obama would be proud of.

I predict Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. She will win the Presidency. Obama will retain his nominee (instead of pulling him in favor of her choice). The GOP-dominated Senate will approve him (rather than being faced with a Clinton nominee). Obama wins (as usual).

 

Obama started out naive regarding the GOP. He ends his term quite the opposite, schooling them each and every time. His opponents have not changed, however, so we see the result.

 

Why even bother?

This Mitch McConnel and this guy have a agreed to meet with Garland, but have no plans to move forward from there.

But in a statement Wednesday, Toomey said he agreed to do so following the White House’s request “out of courtesy and respect for both the president and the judge.” Still, he stressed that he would not support moving forward with the rest of the confirmation process until after November.

Pat Toomey agrees to Merrick Garland meeting - POLITICO

Out of respect for the President and the judge. Yeah right. As if they suddenly respect the President.

 

Fact is, Garland is a good choice. And the GOP knows it. And they know it will get a lot worse when Hillary wins, withdraws Garland and nominates a spite Justice. Not to mention, she likely won't forget it when RBG either dies or retires and yet another seat opens up...

 

Illinois senator Kirk the first to break with GOP, will meet with high court nominee

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/03/25/Illinois-senator-Kirk-the-first-to-break-with-GOP-will-meet-with-high-court-nominee-Garland-next-week/4911458937152/

From the article:

" Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk will be the first Republican to break party ranks and meet with U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, the lawmaker's office said Friday".

"A handful of GOP lawmakers, though, have indicated in recent weeks that they might deviate from the Republicans' path and give Garland a fair shake at the high court post -- including Sens. Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Susan Collins, R-Me., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz".

"Kirk has scheduled a meeting with Garland for Tuesday, his office and the White House each confirmed Friday, and previously told a Chicago radio station that his GOP colleagues should "man up and cast a vote."

"Kirk's scheduling the meeting probably isn't surprising. Last month, he stated publicly that Obama has a right to nominate a justice to fill Scalia's seat on the bench because that's what the Constitution allows for".

 

Over 25% of Republican Senators want to move forward

Supreme Court Fight: Quarter of Republican Senators Now Back Meetings for Merrick Garland - NBC News