Merirck Garland

When you try to dig your heels in the sand like McConnell did it only really works if absolutely no one breaks ranks. And that's a pretty tough sell even if you have the majority. McConnell took a gamble. Now he just looks like a fool.

The responsible thing would have been to pull a Bork on Garland. But Bork, as unjustly as he was characterized, at least got the hearing.

 

Bork was rejected for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre. His actions were later judged (in court) to be illegal. It was the epitome of hubris to even nominate that guy, regardless of what one might think about his abilities.

 

The President and his nominee should wait for a reasonable period of time, like through the summer, and the the nominee should--due to the lapse of time--assume the Senate's consent (since they didn't deny the nomination). Grab a robe, take a seat, and begin judgin'. Who's to stop him?

How Merrick Garland can outfox Republican obstructionists.

 

Well, I imagine Congress might sue over it where the matter would be decided by...oh...this could get sticky.

 

This notion was written about by Dahlia Lithwick, so I parroted it here. It won't happen, of course--Merrick isn't going to play those kinds of games, nor is Obama.

The GOP is hoping Obama will retain the nomination after Clinton wins the election and then they can approve him during the lame duck session. That's their way out of the corner they've painted themselves into. Obama will want to go along because he really wants to be the President who changed the balance of the court away from 40 years of conservatism. He really wants his 3rd pick to get in, and is in no way going to leave it to Clinton. The GOP is counting on him to do that so they can save face. If she wins there will be pressure on Obama to withdraw the pick, but he won't. In a way, everyone wins in an otherwise no-win for the GOP.

 

Perhaps. But I don't think she has to disqualify him--or even criticize him at all--to assert that she should be allowed to make the selection. (I don't agree; I think the President should do it and not defer to someone not yet sworn in.)

 

Obama’s Nuclear Option on SCOTUS

Hmm, I don't know about this one:

Obama

I think that if they want to be hard headed about it, Clinton should just pick who she wants when/if she wins the election.

In other related news, Walker picked who he wanted despite this persons questionable record:

Supreme Court Justice Bradley apologizes for calling people ‘queers,’ ‘degenerates’ in college paper | FOX6Now.com

Different court levels of course, but still.

 

I think that even if her reasoning is purely that she should get to make the selection her withdrawal of Garland would be seen as a swipe at Garland. My prediction is that she will leave the nomination in place and pin her hopes on appointing the successor to RBG.

Withdrawing Garland, nominating someone else and dragging out the matter further would be a rocky way to begin a new administration and, frankly, I think Hillary is too savvy for that. Then again, if the Senate shifts back to the Democrats then she can appoint whomever she wants with little difficulty so she just might not care.

 

Obama's term of office ends at noon on 20 January 2017.
The next US senate starts its next term at noon on January 3, 2017.
So if the next senate is controlled by democrats then it is theoretically possible that Garland could be confirmed during that 17 day period.

 

"Then again, if the Senate shifts back to the Democrats then she can appoint whomever she wants with little difficulty so she just might not care."

Yeah, I am thinking HRC should just pick who she really wants when she get elected. The senate is looking to be up for grabs right now as well. If the Dems take the senate as well, they should go for broke and go after things very aggressively. It's time to stop worrying about appearance all the time. Sometimes you have to take what you want. The time has come. Trying to play nice didn't work out so well for Obama, I certainly hope HRC doesn't make the same mistake.

 

Yeah, I am thinking Trump should just pick who he really wants when he gets elected. If the Republicans take the senate as well, they should go for broke and go after things very aggressively. It's time to stop worrying about appearance all the time. Sometimes you have to take what you want. The time has come. Trying to play nice didn't work out so well for Obama, I certainly hope Trump doesn't make the same mistake.


Sounds pretty scary no matter how you slice it, right?

 

We will find out. Luckily, HRC is a very crafty lady. Much more so than little old me. Trump, that is scary because even many in his own party are scared of him. That rascal doesn't even belong in the same conversation as Clinton. He knows nothing about the issues he brings up, he is more interested in little "catch phrases". It's not working out so well now.

Yeah, I think the Dems should go after what they want. Nothing wrong with that. Edit - I should note one thing - being nice did work out well for Obama, his approval ratings are through the roof.

 

I'm not a fan of extremism in any case. By either side of the political isle. I'm no Trump fan, except I will say this. I like that he "scares" Republicans and Democrats. I won't vote for him, I don't think he will be the President. But, and now that you've come out and shown support for Hillary in posts...what do you think of her....shall we say, negatives? Anything at all to what her detractors have to say? I'm asking you, the guy who has probably posted over 20 threads about Trump, what scares you about Hillary?


Anything?

 

Well, HRC is certainly not perfect. She did vote for the Iraq war, which I did not agree with. I do think the email thing was reckless. That's just a few for now. Ultimately, there never seems to be perfect candidates, that's just politics.

 

I realize this wasn't addressed to me. I also appreciate that the Donald scares people. I don't like his message. But I feel that a lot of people have kept a lot of nasty thoughts to themselves for many years. Seeing him come out and say them and for people to support him is revealing. And I think it's something that needs to be seen.

I also appreciated how Bernie Sanders scared people. I think that a lot of people in the U.S. believe in some form of Democratic Socialism but try to rebrand or repackage those ideologies because "socialism" is a dirty word in this country. That he said what he had to say, and a good many people supported it, is revealing. And I think that too is something that needs to be seen.

Who am I voting for? Who cares? My vote doesn't matter. People don't vote for candidates who truly scare them. That's the reason why we elect centrists or, perhaps more accurately, people who talk a centrist game and do whatever the hell they want when they get into office. We get democrats who bail out big banks. We get republicans who expand government and diminish personal liberty. The fix is in. The only winners are the special interests who make billions when it is their turn for their pocket candidate to be sworn in.

 

I actually agree with your entire statement. Even if it's in your typically overly worded style

 

Yeah, I was not big on that whole invade the world Iraq War thing, I'm not big on the other portion of Invite the World either, but that's neither here nor there. I think, depending on what you value, there are positives and negatives to both candidates. I won't demonize either side, as I (like Nehaus eloquently state above) believe that it does not make much difference who we "elect".


We get what we deserve.