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.
Especially the bolded. They'll obstruct, then "due diligence" then whatever else they can get away with...and take as long as they possibly can to avoid an actual vote until it's just late enough for Obama to not have time to nominate another before "it's too close to the election." So this will get played up until early or mid summer most likely.
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.
Dude, they've already been doing this. Russ Feingold posts at least once a day on this topic. Has been doing it since McConnell dug in.
Here's from 30 minutes ago
Now that the president has fulfilled his constitutional obligation to nominate a potential justice, it's time for the Senate to do its job. Judge Garland has a long, distinguished record and deserves a fair hearing and consideration. The Supreme Court is essential to our democracy, and we cannot allow partisan politics to shut it down. -RDF
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.
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.
I agree. The notion that he should not be considered a good choice just because he is a white male does not sit well with me. I do not know anything about him, so I am only going off of what is in this thread. It sounds like a good strategic pick to me.
I'm kinda meh on this pick, but now that McConnell has said "nope", like we thought he would, I'm feeling bad for Garland. Even seeing this coming, this has to be embarrassing for him.
I'm kinda meh on this pick, but now that McConnell has said "nope", like we thought he would, I'm feeling bad for Garland. Even seeing this coming, this has to be embarrassing for him.
He knew exactly the fight that was going on. He likely even is aware that him getting a hearing is slim.
I think that Obama had this pick in his pocket (he as a shortlist candidate the last two nominations) and waited until Hills had it locked up. It does two things: paints the GOP in a corner when refusing to meet with a relative moderate who 7 sitting R senators voted to confirm him, AND it basically gives voters a choice. Here is that choice: last night it became all but locked in that the next president will be HRC or Donald Trump. You don't like centrist Obama's choice? How you gonna like HRC's? How you gonna like Trump's?
Is that a gamble even the most obstructionist establishment conservatives want to take?
I think that Obama had this pick in his pocket (he as a shortlist candidate the last two nominations) and waited until Hills had it locked up. It does two things: paints the GOP in a corner when refusing to meet with a relative moderate who 7 sitting R senators voted to confirm him, AND it basically gives voters a choice. Here is that choice: last night it became all but locked in that the next president will be HRC or Donald Trump. You don't like centrist Obama's choice? How you gonna like HRC's? How you gonna like Trump's?
Is that a gamble even the most obstructionist establishment conservatives want to take?
It is really such an amazing set of circumstances! are any of those 7 R senators up for election?
I'm kinda meh on this pick, but now that McConnell has said "nope", like we thought he would, I'm feeling bad for Garland. Even seeing this coming, this has to be embarrassing for him.
I just watched his speech and started crying when he teared up. #pregnancyhormones
You are past this point, but why does pro-police have to mean lacks common sense. Isn't there a poster on here who is pretty pro-police but can also criticize them when it is due?
Obama is an extremely smart man. I don't have a problem with this pick at all. Very strategic.
Post by WanderingWinoZ on Mar 16, 2016 12:15:09 GMT -5
TPM
I want to be careful not to over-interpret this, but a few more Republican senators have said today they would be willing to meet with Merrick Garland. That is at odds with what Senate GOP leadership and conservative outside groups have been calling for, mainly because they want to avoid going down a slippery slope where it becomes about the nominee rather than their blanket opposition to Obama naming the next Supreme Court justice.
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.
I can see this being the strategy for some (Fox News?). Pretend he's something he really isn't in order to "justify" their complete and utter failure to perform their constitutional duty.
I think that Obama had this pick in his pocket (he as a shortlist candidate the last two nominations) and waited until Hills had it locked up. It does two things: paints the GOP in a corner when refusing to meet with a relative moderate who 7 sitting R senators voted to confirm him, AND it basically gives voters a choice. Here is that choice: last night it became all but locked in that the next president will be HRC or Donald Trump. You don't like centrist Obama's choice? How you gonna like HRC's? How you gonna like Trump's?
Is that a gamble even the most obstructionist establishment conservatives want to take?
It is really such an amazing set of circumstances! are any of those 7 R senators up for election?
As far as I can tell only John McCain is up for reelection this year.
I think it's very strategic but I would honestly be fine with him being confirmed. He's not my first pick but he's definitely qualified and I trust Obama to make a good pick. That's why I voted for him.
The R response is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Hilz is going to pick a "liberal bomb dropper" (thanks to whoever said that) and they'll haz a sad about it.
Post by sparkythelawyer on Mar 16, 2016 13:14:48 GMT -5
I honestly don't mind a moderate being placed on the bench. Someone has to be the conduit between both sides, and Justice Kennedy cannot last forever. I miss Justice O'Connor.
"It seems clear President Obama made this nomination not, not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election," McConnell said.
At least it's respectable. They've got convictions, and we know it.
It's not serving them well right now.
I don't mind this pick.
Yeah. I'm not jumping for joy, as I think the court would really benefit from someone that didn't have a Ivy+prestigious big firm/government job +circuit court resume, particularly when that person is an old white dude with a few right of center opinions.
That said, he's perfectly fine. He's better than Scalia. It's a responsible, fair choice for someone trying to reduce partisan rancor and be the bigger person.
I'm sad that we aren't getting Paul Watford or Jane Kelly, or even Srinivasan who maybe is more moderate than I'd prefer, could at least offer a different perspective even though his resume is establishment.
But I'm also proud that our president is an adult and has made a sincere effort to offer a consensus pick.
This is not a give-no-fucks-Obama move. I'm hoping WanderingWinoZ is right- he's a sacrificial lamb to prove a point. I actually kind of hope the GOP sticks to their current stance. This nomination doesn't make me happy.
What would be the point of a give-no-fucks nomination? The GOP are in control so it would be the same thing as making no nomination at all. You can't accuse the other side of not coming to the table if you're not either. Obama named two liberals already. Adding in one moderate still puts him ahead of what was there when he came in.
Sent from my SM-G900T using proboards
I don't think I understand your point. The end result may be the same (no confirmed justice), but it seems there is a world of difference politically between Obama failing to do his Constitutionally-mandated duty (nominating someone) and the Senate failing to do theirs (holding hearings and confirming or not).
Yeah. I'm not jumping for joy, as I think the court would really benefit from someone that didn't have a Ivy+prestigious big firm/government job +circuit court resume, particularly when that person is an old white dude with a few right of center opinions.
That said, he's perfectly fine. He's better than Scalia. It's a responsible, fair choice for someone trying to reduce partisan rancor and be the bigger person.
I'm sad that we aren't getting Paul Watford or Jane Kelly, or even Srinivasan who maybe is more moderate than I'd prefer, could at least offer a different perspective even though his resume is establishment.
But I'm also proud that our president is an adult and has made a sincere effort to offer a consensus pick.
There will never be a SC justice that comes from a non-ivy. And I think it's really unlikely there'll ever be a SC justice that doesn't come from a circuit court.
I just got an email from NARAL about him and it says he doesn't have a public record on reproductive rights. We can trust Obama on this, right? He wouldn't nominate a pro-lifer, even as a bargaining chip, would he?
Yeah. I'm not jumping for joy, as I think the court would really benefit from someone that didn't have a Ivy+prestigious big firm/government job +circuit court resume, particularly when that person is an old white dude with a few right of center opinions.
That said, he's perfectly fine. He's better than Scalia. It's a responsible, fair choice for someone trying to reduce partisan rancor and be the bigger person.
I'm sad that we aren't getting Paul Watford or Jane Kelly, or even Srinivasan who maybe is more moderate than I'd prefer, could at least offer a different perspective even though his resume is establishment.
But I'm also proud that our president is an adult and has made a sincere effort to offer a consensus pick.
There will never be a SC justice that comes from a non-ivy. And I think it's really unlikely there'll ever be a SC justice that doesn't come from a circuit court.
There will never be a SC justice that comes from a non-ivy. And I think it's really unlikely there'll ever be a SC justice that doesn't come from a circuit court.