Obama nominates Merrick Garland for Supreme Court

[barahona44]

President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to fill Antonin Scalia's seat on the Court.He is currently an appeals judge on the Washington DC federal court and has been described as a centrist with some rightist leanings.He was a former U.S. attorney in Bush 41 administration and was nominated for a federal judge ship by Clinton.However, the Republicans sat on his nomination for several months because they doubted the need for another judge.Interesting how this plays out as Obama didn't nominate some lefty loony but someone who is the most conservative choice by a Democrat president in many decades.

Let the catfights begin!

[johnhannibalsmith]

Republicans walking into a trap of their own making once again. Good job Mr. President. Now they get to either hang their heads and go along with someone that they really have no reason to fight or they can dig in their heels to make sure that the candidate that none of them support can make his endorsement. Politics played to perfection, especially the timing.

[Secondbest]

The only way to see if he's left or right or middle is to read his opinions and see how he voted on various cases.Since most of us won't do that we have to rely on the schmucks on TV. To give us their biased opinions.

[Rookies]

VERY clever! Someone, who could actually fall either way on a specific issue.

Now, I will freely admit that this guy can't match up to Scalia's acumen (notwithstanding, that I likely disagreed on every important choice he ever made, especially Peoples/ 2nd. Amendment), but what % of prospective candidates would be able to do so? Less than 1?

So, let's see what McConnell and his Republican cabal put up as a negative response! And maybe, someone might want to ask Commander in Chief of Riots & Bad things Drumpf... his opinion?

Hmmmm?

[Nutz and Boltz]

Garland has quite some resume'. This is the type of man this country could use as President!

[barahona44]

Originally Posted by Rookies

VERY clever! Someone, who could actually fall either way on a specific issue.

Now, I will freely admit that this guy can't match up to Scalia's acumen (notwithstanding, that I likely disagreed on every important choice he ever made, especially Peoples/ 2nd. Amendment), but what % of prospective candidates would be able to do so? Less than 1?

So, let's see what McConnell and his Republican cabal put up as a negative response! And maybe, someone might want to ask Commander in Chief of Riots & Bad things Drumpf... his opinion?[
Hmmmm?

I'll take a shot in the dark and say that The Donald was not consulted on this nominee.

[GameTheory]

Obama had to nominate someone, but he probably thinks that there is a 50-50 chance at best that his nominee will be confirmed, so probably didn't want to "waste" a good liberal choice. (Anybody nominated and rejected now, even unfairly, will probably never get another shot later.) But they MIGHT be confirmed, so he is throwing someone out there that probably really isn't someone he'd really like, but someone he can live with. The other option would have been to nominate a highly controversial super-lefty that just wouldn't get confirmed anyway even in a non-election year (as a sacrificial lamb). Whereas Garland is sort of take-him or don't-take-him I don't care, but you're forced to look foolish if you grandstand about election years, etc. And Garland has been shown his due respect even though as a centrist probably neither party as they are currently operating really wants him. And the smart choice would be to go ahead and confirm him...

[Rookies]

Originally Posted by barahona44

I'll take a shot in the dark and say that The Donald was not consulted on this nominee.

NO.

I'm suggesting that he be asked about it specifically. Which will happen, today. Let's see if he knows anything about this dude and/or can comment on what should be done, under the circumstances.

No more puffball, meet & greets, waxing your Poll number beans & throwing out protestors. Answer some questions about issues that arise.

[Nutz and Boltz]

If this were the real America, the opposition would supply a list to the Oval Office of their acceptable candidates for the position. but this isn't the American system , this is the system of politics .

I hate Politcians!

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Rookies

No more puffball, meet & greets, waxing your Poll number beans & throwing out protestors. Answer some questions about issues that arise.

You got to dance with the one that brought you. That isn't how he got where he is today.

[Tom]

Garland?
Loved her in Wizard of Oz.
Good choice.




Seriously, the repubs should initiate hearings on him, then drag out until after the election. If they lose, put him in. If the win, go for someone better.

[Tom]

No more puffball, meet & greets, waxing your Poll number beans & throwing out protestors. Answer some questions about issues that arise.

Why should do what his supporters are not demanding? To satisfy on outsider?

[Rookies]

Fireball, fellow travelling, Bernie Commie, Orrin Hatch opined very recently:

"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R.-Utah, considered one of the U.S. Senate’s foremost scholars of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, told Newsmax Friday he felt President Obama would nominate a decidedly liberal candidate to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

"The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him,".

"[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," 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. "..."

CHECKMATE!

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm sure they will confirm him if he is indeed the kind of judge as has already been stated here (centrist-right).

Why risk losing in November and having Hillary nominate a left-leaner? Or worse (in their minds), win in November and wonder who the hell Trump might nominate?

After some initial posturing, they will confirm this guy if nothing outrageous comes to light about him during the inquiry.

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I'm sure they will confirm him if he is indeed the kind of judge as has already been stated here (centrist-right).

Why risk losing in November and having Hillary nominate a left-leaner? Or worse (in their minds), win in November and wonder who the hell Trump might nominate?

After some initial posturing, they will confirm this guy if nothing outrageous comes to light about him during the inquiry.

If Tom's idea is viable (if they lose, confirm him after the election but before everyone changes seats; if they win, deny him), they might do that. I don't know if that is really possible though, plus that strategy may actually cause them to do worse in the Congressional elections. So the smart play would seem to be confirm him and put it all behind them quickly. (And they may well prefer this candidate to one Donald puts up even if "they" win. Does a Trump win even count as a Republican win? He's an island to himself.)