The only reason I'm not horribly disappointed is that someone pointed out yesterday that this won't hurt Merricks career and it had the potential to hurt Sri's, so I'm going to say it's strategic to help Sri in the long run.
That was me.
My disappointment is that this signals that Obama doesn't think the Rs are going to budge. I honestly didn't think he would put up Srinivasan (sp?) and make him go through the scrutiny and disappointment and possible career ruination if it was all for naught. Nothing in Obama's character would make me think he would sacrifice another man's promising career to throw bombs.
And if Obama is wrong and the Rs relent? Still better than where we started.
I actually think this is a great choice. It's strategic but it's also President Obama walking the walk here, which makes them look even worse. He's nominating a moderate, someone who appeals to both sides, not just because it makes the Rs look bad, but because it's the right choice for where we are right now. He's giving a little and expecting them to give a little for the good of the country to avoid a prolonged SCOTUS vacancy. Even if you put a moderate in Scalia's post it's still a net win. Regardless of people wanting someone more liberal, President Obama has to work with the reality of the situation he's in.
I hope it's strategic, because otherwise, this is not a good choice.
What do you find objectionable about him?
I mean, I agree its likely a strategy pick, and as I said up thread, I wanted Jane Kelly, but I find nothing about this guy particularly objectionable. He's unquestionably qualified, well-respected, and moderate/left. He's like the poster child for a Supreme Court pick.
Okay, so Obama works with the reality of a situation and names someone moderate.
But Republicans just don't do that shit. I mean, those assholes sitting on the Supreme Court now, other than our 3 actual liberals and our 1 who sometimes doesn't suck, are not moderates. Why do we play their games when they won't play ours? It gets us NOTHING.
He has to play because he doesn't have a majority in Senate. Were other more radical justices nominated when there was a split like this? It seems like if the President is one party and Senate is the other, in either direction, then only a moderate can possibly be confirmed.
Okay, so Obama works with the reality of a situation and names someone moderate.
But Republicans just don't do that shit. I mean, those assholes sitting on the Supreme Court now, other than our 3 actual liberals and our 1 who sometimes doesn't suck, are not moderates. Why do we play their games when they won't play ours? It gets us NOTHING.
I agree, I hate that the Dems always move center.
But what is the alternative? Dig in, like the GOP?
Okay, so Obama works with the reality of a situation and names someone moderate.
But Republicans just don't do that shit. I mean, those assholes sitting on the Supreme Court now, other than our 3 actual liberals and our 1 who sometimes doesn't suck, are not moderates. Why do we play their games when they won't play ours? It gets us NOTHING.
I agree, I hate that the Dems always move center.
But what is the alternative? Dig in, like the GOP?
Hmm, I don't know. Because the thing is, what if they do go for this? The GOP is in a bad place right now wrt Trump. If Trump gets the nomination, they will most likely end up losing the Senate. Not many people are going to be careful about ticking a Democrat for President and then a Republican for Senate. Then the Dems are in a much better position wrt SCJ nominations.
If the Republicans have any sense of long term strategy they will go for this. Fwiw, I don't much about this guy besides what has been in this thread and with many saying they are disappointed by this pick.
Okay, so Obama works with the reality of a situation and names someone moderate.
But Republicans just don't do that shit. I mean, those assholes sitting on the Supreme Court now, other than our 3 actual liberals and our 1 who sometimes doesn't suck, are not moderates. Why do we play their games when they won't play ours? It gets us NOTHING.
Ordinarily, I'd agree with you. The extreme right-wingers give no fucks about moderate legislation and whatnot for the good of the country, so why should liberals care about not doing the same? OTOH, we need somebody on the bench and even if we could be guaranteed a liberal if HRC is elected, I'm uncomfortable waiting that long. I think Garland is a fine choice. Not my #1 choice, but inoffensive and still wayyyyyy more left than Scalia lol.
ETA: I have to run to my conference for the day but admittedly I haven't checked on the pro-police agenda. I reserve the right to be disappointed later! I am meeting ESF for dinner tonight so she can give me the lowdown lol.
Post by centralsquare on Mar 16, 2016 10:40:36 GMT -5
Would you rather not have ACA? Because that's where we'd be without some compromise. It makes me angry, and I hate having to be pragmatic and compromise. But that's how things move forward. Incrementally. Not via a standoff.
I mean, I agree its likely a strategy pick, and as I said up thread, I wanted Jane Kelly, but I find nothing about this guy particularly objectionable. He's unquestionably qualified, well-respected, and moderate/left. He's like the poster child for a Supreme Court pick.
Well, he's a white male for one. Not impressed.
He's also pretty pro-police, which is also not what we need right now.
I can't get on the train that being a white male is somehow a flaw or disqualification of someone otherwise incredibly qualified.
What did you expect with his pick? Neither of Obama's picks have been particularly earth-shattering so far. I know that sounds snarky but I'm genuinely curious what those who are angry about this pick anticipated.
Mitch McConnell is now saying that they will not move to confirm.
KaBOOM.
Of COURSE this is strategy! People! Obama is not a stupid man. He is not surrounded by stupid advisers.
Also, $10 says he and Hills were chatting last night before her victory speech. I bet you MONEY they are coordinating on this front.
Exactly. Obama picks the least toxic nominee. White guy. Moderate record. Nothing that sticks out as immediately divisive like gender or race. How does that play with the public?
You get even keel voters looking at McConnell and team as obstructionists. McConnell doesn't win this battle in the long run when you have a person who basically mirrors majority America. *laughs* They are not going to do well with this.
The long run is that it hurts them. Everything bad is in play right now - Trump, the SC. The GOP could lose seats over this. Did they even think about the end game here? Because I'm questioning it. Usually, the GOP plays these lines out - it's why they've been successful, but this? They are burning down their own house right now.
I think it's a good play on Obama's part. I need to watch Garland's speech to check him out. I agree with the strategy to not sacrifice a younger judge's career, though regrettably Garland will be damaged in the process. Or maybe he won't, if the R's refuse to even hold hearings.
I don't get it though, as a strategy for the R's? Given the number of senate seats in play this year, the potential for a Trump nominee, a brokered convention or Trump-prompted riots, I don't see how adding this to their list of "stances" helps them in any way shape or form. Are we seeing the end of Days of the Republican Party?
This is what I love about history. Shit happens in real life that you wouldn't believe in a movie.
Post by hopecounts on Mar 16, 2016 11:05:02 GMT -5
And this is good strategy. I think the Dems are going to play the obstructionist card HARD in the senate races and what can the R senators say, this guy is so moderate and 'majority' that there is no argument to be made against moving his nomination forward. You end up with R's losing seats in the Senate because people are tired of 'politicians' and either a slightly Dem or So weakly R Senate that HRC can put forward a liberal nominee and won't have much trouble. This is how the game is played.
Cruz supporters on FB calling Garland a liberal progressive...lol wut. They've completely lost sight of what being moderate looks like. Anyone who is not uber conservative like them is a liberal.
Cruz supporters on FB calling Garland a liberal progressive...lol wut. They've completely lost sight of what being moderate looks like. Anyone who is not uber conservative like them is a liberal.
Yeah, he also called the most recent planned Parenthood shooter a leftist transgender activist, so...
My question is will the voters remember this all the way to November?
The election ads write themselves. 'Garland is a well respected judge with a moderate record' {infographic flashes} 'and yet Senator Y was part of the Republican obstructionists who refused to even consider him' 'do you want a Senator who refuses to do his constitutional duty or a Senator who will go to Congress and work for you?' Plus I don't think this will end soon.