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 am skeptical and don't have much faith in voters that this will sway who they vote for in November. I guess the hope is that it sways moderates/independents as it seems most Republicans/Democrats dig their heels in and vote straight ticket.
I am skeptical and don't have much faith in voters that this will sway who they vote for in November. I guess the hope is that it sways moderates/independents as it seems most Republicans/Democrats dig their heels in and vote straight ticket.
Typically I would agree but from Bernie and Drumpf it's clear that a lot of voters are pissed at the status quo. I do think this is mainly focused at swaying independents/undecideds but that's all they probably need, the regular D voters and some I/U voters to get to 51%
Our state's R senator issued a press release. It fills me with rage.
“We stand at a pivotal point in our nation’s history. The Obama Administration continues to use the judicial and regulatory systems to push through its legislative agenda, shifting the balance of power that our Founders established,” said Gardner. “That is why the next president of the United States should have the opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. In 1992, even then-Senator Joe Biden stated the Senate should not hold confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court nominee until after that year’s presidential election. Our next election is too soon and the stakes are too high; the American people deserve a role in this process as the next Supreme Court Justice will influence the direction of this country for years to come.”
Background:
In 1992, Senator Joe Biden stated on the Senate floor, “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents [Millard] Fillmore and [Andrew] Johnson, and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” The New York Times previously supported the postponement of a nomination during an election year. In an editorial, the paper wrote, “The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.” A Senate of a different party than the President has not confirmed a Supreme Court nominee during a presidential election year since 1888.
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.
Neither Warren Burger nor Thurgood Marshall came from Ivies. It's not unprecedented.
Our state's R senator issued a press release. It fills me with rage.
“We stand at a pivotal point in our nation’s history. The Obama Administration continues to use the judicial and regulatory systems to push through its legislative agenda, shifting the balance of power that our Founders established,” said Gardner. “That is why the next president of the United States should have the opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. In 1992, even then-Senator Joe Biden stated the Senate should not hold confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court nominee until after that year’s presidential election. Our next election is too soon and the stakes are too high; the American people deserve a role in this process as the next Supreme Court Justice will influence the direction of this country for years to come.”
Background:
In 1992, Senator Joe Biden stated on the Senate floor, “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents [Millard] Fillmore and [Andrew] Johnson, and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” The New York Times previously supported the postponement of a nomination during an election year. In an editorial, the paper wrote, “The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.” A Senate of a different party than the President has not confirmed a Supreme Court nominee during a presidential election year since 1888.
Not true, according to Wikipedia. Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, nominated by Reagan, and both houses of Congress were Democrat.
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.
Neither Warren Burger nor Thurgood Marshall came from Ivies. It's not unprecedented.
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?
God I hope not, although I believe he caved on DC abortion restrictions at some point; maybe during the shutdown?
Our state's R senator issued a press release. It fills me with rage.
“We stand at a pivotal point in our nation’s history. The Obama Administration continues to use the judicial and regulatory systems to push through its legislative agenda, shifting the balance of power that our Founders established,” said Gardner. “That is why the next president of the United States should have the opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. In 1992, even then-Senator Joe Biden stated the Senate should not hold confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court nominee until after that year’s presidential election. Our next election is too soon and the stakes are too high; the American people deserve a role in this process as the next Supreme Court Justice will influence the direction of this country for years to come.”
Background:
In 1992, Senator Joe Biden stated on the Senate floor, “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents [Millard] Fillmore and [Andrew] Johnson, and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” The New York Times previously supported the postponement of a nomination during an election year. In an editorial, the paper wrote, “The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.” A Senate of a different party than the President has not confirmed a Supreme Court nominee during a presidential election year since 1888.
I totally erased Cory Gardner from my mind! I was like "we have an R senator? There's Bennent and...." I forgot how much I hate him.
"...we asked him if he felt the White House would select a nominee who is black or Hispanic to cause election-year difficulty for Republicans who oppose any Obama nomination on the grounds that the next President should fill the court vacancy. "He could be headed in that direction," replied Hatch who has served as either chairman or ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1993-2005, "This [nomination process] is all about the election."
"The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him," Hatch told us.
"[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," he told us, 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."
Bolding added. Sure the whole thing was within the context of not bringing the nominee to the floor but we all know the attention span of the public to facts. Squirrel!
If this is Obama's last master stroke, well played sir, well played. We could get a D in the WH for the next 4 years AND take back Senate seats AND get another liberal on the court when this nominee flames out? O - we don't deserve you, we really don't. Thank you.
Our state's R senator issued a press release. It fills me with rage.
“We stand at a pivotal point in our nation’s history. The Obama Administration continues to use the judicial and regulatory systems to push through its legislative agenda, shifting the balance of power that our Founders established,” said Gardner. “That is why the next president of the United States should have the opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. In 1992, even then-Senator Joe Biden stated the Senate should not hold confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court nominee until after that year’s presidential election. Our next election is too soon and the stakes are too high; the American people deserve a role in this process as the next Supreme Court Justice will influence the direction of this country for years to come.”
Background:
In 1992, Senator Joe Biden stated on the Senate floor, “It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents [Millard] Fillmore and [Andrew] Johnson, and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” The New York Times previously supported the postponement of a nomination during an election year. In an editorial, the paper wrote, “The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia as an associate justice last year.” A Senate of a different party than the President has not confirmed a Supreme Court nominee during a presidential election year since 1888.
I totally erased Cory Gardner from my mind! I was like "we have an R senator? There's Bennent and...." I forgot how much I hate him.
I find that it's better for my sanity to pretend he doesn't exist.
"...we asked him if he felt the White House would select a nominee who is black or Hispanic to cause election-year difficulty for Republicans who oppose any Obama nomination on the grounds that the next President should fill the court vacancy. "He could be headed in that direction," replied Hatch who has served as either chairman or ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1993-2005, "This [nomination process] is all about the election."
"The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him," Hatch told us.
"[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," he told us, 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."
Bolding added. Sure the whole thing was within the context of not bringing the nominee to the floor but we all know the attention span of the public to facts. Squirrel!
If this is Obama's last master stroke, well played sir, well played. We could get a D in the WH for the next 4 years AND take back Senate seats AND get another liberal on the court when this nominee flames out? O - we don't deserve you, we really don't. Thank you.
But Hatch has also been a long-time advocate for Merrick Garland, who President Obama will nominate to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. In 2010, when he was considered for the slot that ultimately went to Elena Kagan, Hatch said that he had known Garland for years. He added that, if nominated, he would be a “consensus nominee” and that there was “no question” he would be confirmed.
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
Right. My point was that I was hoping this was a calculated move to prove a point. I hope (and it now sounds like this will be the case) that the GOP won't move on Garland. I'd rather swing the court to the left, instead of throwing another moderate in there, especially one who might be easy on law enforcement issues. So, no, the nomination doesn't thrill me if, by some chance, he ends up on the court.
I think this could have gone one of two ways: either Obama was calculated and nominated a right-leaning moderate with appeal for all sides, or he went into give-no-fucks mode and nominated the most liberal person there is. He obviously did the former, therefore, this was not a give-no-fucks move.
And, quite frankly, a nomination of any sort is coming to the table. The Senate is welcome to throw it out if they decide they don't like the nominee. You think a Republican president at this time would nominate a moderate? No way in hell. I like to think the Democrats are better at bridging the divide, but sometimes it gets exhausting to be the ones who try to play fair.
"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.
for real LOL
See, and if he had picked a true liberal, I might actually agree with McConnell here. But Garland? L-O-L
This makes a good point about what this pick means
So the Senate is just going to sit around for 8 months thinking about the nomination? That seems like it'll come back to bite them in the purple state elections even if it's true (not doing their jobs).
Neither Warren Burger nor Thurgood Marshall came from Ivies. It's not unprecedented.
Decades ago, no. Today? I'd bet money against it.
You seriously think someone that went to Stanford or Georgetown law school would not get nominated?
Look, nobody is going to be appointing someone from some low rung law school any time soon, and that's not really my point. Obviously,pretty much everyone that gets appointed today is going to have certain things on their resume, including a very prestigious law school and a series of prestigious jobs.
I just take issue with a court made up of a bunch of Harvard and Yale grads that ran around in DC power circles for 20 years ladder climbing. While a rainbow of people with that resume is nice, what would be even better would be a rainbow of people who worked in different cities, in politics, in business, as public defenders or community organizers, as legislators, etc.
Elena Kagan certainly has a prestigious resume, but she wasn't a judge and worked in education for a while. She also is pretty much universally regarded as the heir to Scalia's Best Writer On the Court position. Thurgood Marshall and RBG both worked as public interest lawyers and brought much needed wisdom about the realities of working on the front lines.
Yes, the Court needs experienced jurists. But it can't be a bubble. My biggest issue with this guy is that he defines the bubble.
But as I said, I get it. This wasn't the time to push the line. I can live with that.
Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, is 63 years old. And even for such a venerable institution, one where the justices are allowed to wear robes at work, that’s pretty old. Garland is the oldest nominee since Richard Nixon tapped Lewis F. Powell Jr., in 1971. Powell was 64 when he was nominated. Were the Senate to confirm him, Garland would be tied for the sixth-oldest new Supreme Court justice. If Garland isn’t confirmed, he’ll go down as tied for the eighth-oldest nominee.
Age isn’t just a piece of trivia when it comes to a potential Supreme Court justice. These are lifetime appointments and given the unstoppable drumbeat of time and the mortality of humans, the age of a nominee goes a long way in determining the future makeup of the court and how long it may be before a president’s fingerprints fade from it.
Still, there have been two nominees in their 70s — the oldest being a roughly 75-year-old William Smith (his exact birth date isn’t known) — both in the 19th century. Neither was confirmed by the Senate. This chart shows the ages of all past 160 nominees, plus Garland, and whether their nomination was confirmed. The data comes from the U.S. Supreme Court Justices Database.
Despite Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) flat-out rejecting Obama's Supreme Court nominee, a number of Republican senators said Wednesday that they would meet with Judge Merrick Garland.
Brian Deese, a senior advisor to the President who led the White House's SCOTUS process, highlighted some Republicans' softening their earlier hard-line remarks in a call with reporters.
"I am old enough to remember a few weeks ago when Republicans said uniformly they wouldn't even meet with our nominee," Deese said. "And just in the past hour since the President announced him in the Rose Garden, we've seen more than a handful of Republicans announce that they were willing to meet with our nominee."
Here's a running list of the GOP senators who have said they plan to meet with Garland.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
A late-in-the-day addition, the White House confirmed late Wednesday that Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, would meet with Garland after the Senate returns from recess.
Grassley railed against Obama for putting forward a SCOTUS nominee during an election year in a statement, saying the confirmation is “too important to get bogged down in politics.”
Grassley has been a key player in GOP efforts to block a nominee and had earlier vowed that his committee would not hold a hearing for any nominee before Obama leaves office.
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Keeping with his earlier remarks that he would meet with a nominee put forward by Obama, Kirk said Wednesday that he would assess Garland "based on his record and qualifications."
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
After saying last month the next President should choose Justice Antonin Scalia's successor, Ayotte said in a Wednesday interview she would meet with Garland "out of courtesy and respect."
"He's a current appeals court judge and out of courtesy and respect we will certainly meet with him if he would like to meet with me," Ayotte told Politico. "I would want to explain my position to the nominee...I would want to give him that courtesy."
But in a statement, she reiterated the Senate "should not move forward with the confirmation process until the people have spoken by electing a new President."
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Flake, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, also said he would meet with Garland.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
According to a report from the Washington Examiner, Collins said she would meet with the nominee.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
While Inhofe said he would meet with Garland, he said in a statement that he opposes the nomination and the next President should replace Scalia.
"I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court's future," he said in the statement.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
While The Hill reported Portman said he will meet with Garland, he said he would not change his position about Obama nominating a justice before leaving office.
"This is about the principle, not the person," he said in a statement. "After the election, I look forward to considering the nominee of our new President. Whether the American people elect a Republican or Democrat, I will judge his or her nominee on the merits, as I always have.”
TPM reporter Tierney Sneed contributed reporting in DC.
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.
Neither Warren Burger nor Thurgood Marshall came from Ivies. It's not unprecedented.
If Grassley says he will consider the nomination can McConnell actually stop him?
The Des Moines Register article I read indicates that Grassley will meet with Garland as a courtesy and is not changing his mind about considering the nomination during Obama's term.
I haven't read this entire thread, so not sure if we've speculated about the following.
1. What is this guy thinking? Figures it's an honor to be nominated and if it doesn't work out, no biggie? (Presumably has no skeletons that will damage him long term). Or did Obama check with HRC and tell him that she will continue the process, which made him feel better? Or is he a scapegoat and knows it and is OK with it because he's that nice a guy?
2. Can Obama withdraw the nomination if HRC wins in November and he figures, "now let's give her a chance for a real liberal?" Maybe the night before the election or something, so the Senate doesn't try to vote immediately afterwards.
3. Does this have to go through the Judiciary Committee or is there some loophole way to take it directly to the Senate? Obviously only useful if you can get 5-6 Republicans to break from the group, but still.
1. He seems like someone who takes his job and its role in democracy very seriously. There are a lot of people like that. I could see him being troubled by the politicization of this issue and feeling a sense of responsibility here.
2. Yeah, he can. Is the senate even in session during election week? They may not be.
3. Pretty sure it has to go through the committee first.
I haven't read this entire thread, so not sure if we've speculated about the following.
2. Can Obama withdraw the nomination if HRC wins in November and he figures, "now let's give her a chance for a real liberal?" Maybe the night before the election or something, so the Senate doesn't try to vote immediately afterwards.
]
Yeah. I was wondering how the process works. Can they drag it out until november and if HRC wins, McConnell suddenly realizes they had better push this through?