Well, it is official, Obama's nominee is judge Merrick Garland. What now?

[Peter King]

Obama has gone against the wishes of the liberal side of his party and nominated a moderate judge to replace Judge Scalia. Garland is a moderate that has in the past received republican support and of which Orrin Hatch even last week said that Obama is not going to ever nominate a moderate (because he did not believe Obama would ever nominate a moderate even though that is what Obama had said to him) he added to those comments:

"Obama could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," "He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the liberal Democratic base wants."

So Obama pulled a gotcha for Orrin Hatch and did indeed nominate a moderate. And not only did he name a moderate but he named the exact person who Orrin named as a good candidate for the post. So how now for the republican senators (especially the ones in hotly contested seats).

Are they going to not even meet with him? Hold meetings in the judicial committee? Or hold and up and down vote to affirm or deny him the seat on the supreme court?

What do you think should happen now?

 

[Centrehalf]

Obama has gone against the wishes of the liberal side of his party and nominated a moderate judge to replace Judge Scalia. Garland is a moderate that has in the past received republican support and of which Orrin Hatch even last week said that Obama is not going to ever nominate a moderate (because he did not believe Obama would ever nominate a moderate even though that is what Obama had said to him) he added to those comments:



So Obama pulled a gotcha for Orrin Hatch and did indeed nominate a moderate. And not only did he name a moderate but he named the exact person who Orrin named as a good candidate for the post. So how now for the republican senators (especially the ones in hotly contested seats).

Are they going to not even meet with him? Hold meetings in the judicial committee? Or hold and up and down vote to affirm or deny him the seat on the supreme court?

What do you think should happen now?

The GOP should stick to their guns but I don't think they will. I think they're going to crack and at the very least have hearings. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up confirming him. As recently as yesterday I was saying no way on this but after thinking about it a bit more the GOP has a history of caving on stuff like this.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I suggest panic.

 

[longview]

I am a bit torn, If the republicans loose the race, A Hillery choice will not be moderate.

 

[JackA]

Obama has gone against the wishes of the liberal side of his party and nominated a moderate judge to replace Judge Scalia. Garland is a moderate that has in the past received republican support and of which Orrin Hatch even last week said that Obama is not going to ever nominate a moderate (because he did not believe Obama would ever nominate a moderate even though that is what Obama had said to him) he added to those comments:



So Obama pulled a gotcha for Orrin Hatch and did indeed nominate a moderate. And not only did he name a moderate but he named the exact person who Orrin named as a good candidate for the post. So how now for the republican senators (especially the ones in hotly contested seats).

Are they going to not even meet with him? Hold meetings in the judicial committee? Or hold and up and down vote to affirm or deny him the seat on the supreme court?

What do you think should happen now?

Maybe what should happen now is an unassisted Presidential appointment.

If the Senate can withhold its advice and consent for one year, why can't it do it for two years, or three or forever? This is the illogic of the McConnell argument. Section two mandates the President to make appointments. The word used is "shall", and he makes appointments "with" the Senate's advice and consent. By refusing to participate in the Constitutional process, the Senate abandons
it's unambiguous obligation, leaving the President no other choice than to make an appointment on his own.

 

[Centrehalf]

Maybe what should happen now is an unassisted Presidential appointment.

If the Senate can withhold its advice and consent for one year, why can't it do it for two years, or three or forever? This is the illogic of the McConnel argument. Section two mandates the President to make appointments. The word used is "shall", and he makes appointments "with" the Senate's advice and consent. By refusing to participate in the Constitutional process, the Senate abandons
it's unambiguous obligation, leaving the President no other choice but to make an appointment on his own.

I think this only works if you believe the Senate has an obligation to rubber stamp nominees. If they have that obligation then there really is no consent.

 

[Cyrylek]

As someone who really doesn't want any more "liberal" judges, of the type that voted for eminent domain abuse in Kelo vs. New London and against freedom of speech in Citizens United vs. FEC, I would much prefer that the next, non-socialist President nominates the candidate.

The only problem: who might that be? Sure, there's still a chance of Cruz winning, or - better - a brokered GOP conventions, and Kasich or Ryan ending up on the top. But more likely, it is either Trump (an authoritarian populist with utter, copiously documented disrespect for the Constitution) or Clinton. Or, if gods really have a sense of humor, Sanders.

I say, let's cut our losses, and at least start the process. It takes time. If Trump is defeated by June, GOP Senators can begin sabotaging the nomination. If not, they should confirm the apparently moderate-ish candidate.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I am a bit torn, If the republicans loose the race, A Hillery choice will not be moderate.

Exactly. They will just be shooting themselves in the foot by not at least having hearings.

 

[Dragonfly]

The Republicans will look like a bunch of spoiled-brat school yard children if they refuse to consider this pick.

In the end, it might just push some fence sitters towards the non-republican candidate in November if they keep playing silly games.

The process should move forward, and let those who wish to be brick walls show their faces as individuals, and not as a collective group of idiots.

Plus - it's almost a given there will be more seats in the SC opening up during the next term. Ginsberg looks like she could drop at any given moment.
There's no way she makes 4 more years on the bench.

 

[longview]

Exactly. They will just be shooting themselves in the foot by not at least having hearings.

Yea, bird in the hand sort of thing.

 

[longview]

The Republicans will look like a bunch of spoiled-brat school yard children if they refuse to consider this pick.

In the end, it might just push some fence sitters towards the non-republican candidate in November if they keep playing silly games.

The process should move forward, and let those who wish to be brick walls show their faces as individuals, and not as a collective group of idiots.

Plus - it's almost a given there will be more seats in the SC opening up during the next term. Ginsberg looks like she could drop at any given moment.
There's no way she makes 4 more years on the bench.

On the other side of the coin, moving ahead with the considering the Garland, could reenforce,
in the minds of some how spineless the Republican leadership has become.
I would say Garland is worth consideration.

 

[Dragonfly]

I would say Garland is worth consideration.

Yep. Worth starting the process.
I didn't say they should approve him. I just think it's silly to stomp feet and say, "We won't consider ANY nomination from Obama regardless of who is nominated."
Disapprove for "valid" reasons. Not just because Obama nominated him.

 

[longview]

Yep. Worth starting the process.
I didn't say they should approve him. I just think it's silly to stomp feet and say, "We won't consider ANY nomination from Obama regardless of who is nominated."
Disapprove for "valid" reasons. Not just because Obama nominated him.

I agree, they would set a bad example to follow this guys advice.

There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.

Senator Barack Obama 2006, about Samuel Alito.

 

[Cardinal]

I agree, they would set a bad example to follow this guys advice.


Senator Barack Obama 2006, about Samuel Alito.

"...there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view."

 

[eohrnberger]

I am a bit torn, If the republicans loose the race, A Hillery choice will not be moderate.

Right. 'A bird in the hand is worth more than a bird in the bush'.

A moderate appointment in hand, is better than the likely leftist that Hillary would no doubt appoint.

 

[Visbek]

What should happen is that Senators should meet with him, review his qualifications for the position, hold a confirmation hearing, and the Senate should vote.

In the current environment, that would basically be Republicans (yet again) shooting themselves in the face. Merrick is not another Scalia, but he's a centrist, and one that leans a bit to the right on law enforcement issues. a total refusal to meet him is yet another obvious indicator of naked partisanship, and of people more interested in scoring illusory points than in getting the job done. If Hillary wins, she can get away with appointing a far more left-leaning judge. If Trump wins, who knows what he'll do?

Apparently, several Republican Senators are already talking about meeting with him. Given Merrick's qualifications, and the current political climate, I expect they will at least have a confirmation hearing.

 

[JackA]

I think this only works if you believe the Senate has an obligation to rubber stamp nominees. If they have that obligation then there really is no consent.

Unintelligent comment.

Rubberstamping would be an opposite disregard of Constitutional responsibility from the one the majority leader is embarked upon.

 

[Centrehalf]

Unintelligent comment.

Rubberstamping would be an opposite disregard of Constitutional responsibility from the one the majority leader is embarked upon.

Ok then, tell me what you think advice and consent means.

 

[longview]

"...there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view."

As do I , yet that was Senator Barack Obama statement in 2006.

 

[Mycroft]

Obama has done enough demagoguing, spinning, hyperbolizing...and outright damage to the country - all in the name of making the Republicans look bad. He has NEVER actually tried to work out an agreement with the Republicans. The Republican Congress should refuse to even talk about this nominee. Obama is a lame duck who thinks he still has some power, when the only power he has is when he takes it into his own hands...against the dictates of the Constitution. Unfortunately, unless the Republicans screw up and go into recess, he won't be able to take things into his own hands with this issue.

Instead of confirming Obama's pick...a so-called moderate...the Republicans should stick to their plan and wait till after the election. They stand a better chance of a Republican President...which means a guaranteed conservative on the bench. At the worst, if Hillary is President and she nominates a liberal nutjob to the bench, they can reject her nomination until she caves and nominates a moderate.

The Republicans will be better off staying their current course.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I think its Hillaryous that the GOP made a big deal out of this and he chooses a moderate, level-headed Lawyerly individual for the job.

 

[TurtleDude]

Obama has gone against the wishes of the liberal side of his party and nominated a moderate judge to replace Judge Scalia. Garland is a moderate that has in the past received republican support and of which Orrin Hatch even last week said that Obama is not going to ever nominate a moderate (because he did not believe Obama would ever nominate a moderate even though that is what Obama had said to him) he added to those comments:



So Obama pulled a gotcha for Orrin Hatch and did indeed nominate a moderate. And not only did he name a moderate but he named the exact person who Orrin named as a good candidate for the post. So how now for the republican senators (especially the ones in hotly contested seats).

Are they going to not even meet with him? Hold meetings in the judicial committee? Or hold and up and down vote to affirm or deny him the seat on the supreme court?

What do you think should happen now?

The Senate should hold hearings on this guy since his credentials are within the range of subjective and objective qualifications but I am concerned about some of his past rulings which make him appear to be a gun banner that is being chosen to overturn Heller. and if he cannot explain his votes on the Heller rehearing issue, he should be DENIED. But his nomination should be heard.

I believe Obama picked this guy to hurt the GOP in the next election and for that it was a good choice

 

[Cardinal]

As do I , yet that was Senator Barack Obama statement in 2006.

Read his post again, more carefully this time. One was referring to nominating, the other confirming.

 

[Centrehalf]

Read his post again, more carefully this time. One was referring to nominating, the other confirming.

Are you talking about the Obama quote or a member post?

 

[Cardinal]

Are you talking about the Obama quote or a member post?

Go back and read the two quotes in Longview's post and see if you can tell how one thing is not like the other.