Obama nominates Garland to high court, challenging GOP

[webfact]

Obama nominates Garland to high court, challenging GOP
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama nominated appeals court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, thrusting a respected moderate jurist and former prosecutor into the center of an election-year clash over the future of the nation's highest court.

Obama cast the 63-year-old Garland as "a serious man and an exemplary judge" deserving of a full hearing and a Senate confirmation vote, despite Republican vows to deny him both. Standing in the White House Rose Garden with Garland, Obama argued the integrity of the court was at stake and appealed to the Senate to "play it straight" in filling the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

"It's supposed to be above politics," Obama said of the high court. "It has to be. And it should stay that way."

Republican leaders, however, held to their refusal to consider any nominee, saying the seat should be filled by the next president after this year's election. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke with Garland by phone but did not change his position that "the American people will have a voice." He said he would not be holding "a perfunctory meeting but he wished Judge Garland well," a spokesman said.

Others in the GOP ranks were less wedded to the no-hearing, no-vote, not-even-a-meeting stance — a sign that Republicans are aware the strategy could leave them branded as obstructionist.

Unlike McConnell, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley said he is open to meeting with Garland in the coming weeks, as did five other Republican senators — Rob Portman of Ohio, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. The judge will begin visiting with Democratic senators on Thursday at the Capitol, before the Senate breaks for a two-week recess.

Scheduling courtesy meetings is a long way from securing a full hearing, much less winning the 60 votes needed for confirmation. Still, the White House seized the comments as evidence Garland's weighty resume and bipartisan credentials were putting pressure on Republicans.

Garland, 63, is the chief judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court whose influence over federal policy and national security matters has made it a proving ground for potential justices.

A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Garland has clerked for two appointees of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower — the liberal Justice William Brennan Jr. as well as Judge Henry J. Friendly, for whom Chief Justice John Roberts also clerked. As a federal prosecutor, he made his reputation overseeing the investigation and prosecutions in the Oklahoma City bombing case in 1995, as well as the case against Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

When confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 1997, Garland won backing from a majority in both parties, including seven current Republicans senators.

As a replacement for Scalia, Garland would undoubtedly shift the court away from its conservative tilt. He would be expected to align with the more liberal members on environmental regulation, labor disputes and campaign finance.

The D.C. Circuit isn't a hotbed for cases on social issues, leaving few solid indicators of Garland's views on abortion rights or the death penalty.

Garland's involvement in two high-profile gun rights cases has prompted concern from gun control opponents. In 2007, Garland wanted the full court to reconsider a panel decision that struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership. But Garland never took a position on the merits of the case.

In 2000, he was part of a 2-1 majority that said the FBI could retain gun purchase records for six months to make sure the computerized instant background check system was working. The FBI's position was challenged by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.

But he is not viewed as a down-the-line liberal. He's ruled against giving the District of Columbia a vote in Congress. Particularly on criminal defense and national security cases, he's earned a reputation as centrist with a law-and-order streak, siding more often with prosecutors.

When his name was floated for the Supreme Court in the past, it was liberal groups that expressed concerns, pointing to early decisions favoring the government in disputes over the legal rights of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Progressives and civil rights activists also had pushed the president to name an African-American woman or to otherwise expand the court's diversity. Obama passed over appeals court Judge Sri Srinivasan, who would have been the first Asian-American justice, and Judge Paul Watford, who would have been the second African-American.

Garland — a white, male jurist with an Ivy League pedigree and a career largely in the upper echelon of Washington's legal elite — breaks no barriers. He would be the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis Powell, who was 64 when he was confirmed in 1971.

In emotional remarks in the Rose Garden, he choked back tears, calling the nomination "the greatest honor of my life." He described his grandparents' flight from anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe and his modest upbringing. He said he viewed a judge's job as a mandate to set aside personal preferences and "follow the law, not make it."

Obama quoted past praise for Garland from Roberts and Sen. Orrin Hatch. In 2010, Hatch said he could be confirmed to the highest court "virtually unanimously."

Garland has experience with a prolonged confirmation process. He waited 2½ years to win confirmation to the appeals court. Then, as now, one of the men blocking his path was Grassley, who argued he had no quarrel with Garland's credentials but objected to a Democratic president trying to fill an appeals court he felt had too many seats.
___

Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Alan Fram, Josh Lederman, Kevin Freking, Matthew Daly and Sam Hananel contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-03-17

[keemapoot]

Oh boy, is this going to be fun. Here's what the top Republican leadership and Republican leaders have said of Garland in the past:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (2010): "I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of votes. And I will do my best to help him get them," the senator said. "I know Merrick Garland very well. He would be very well supported by all sides and the president knows that."

Ed whelan (2010), leading conservative thinker: "He's earned the respect of a range of folks, including conservatives, and I think he is the most likely to exercise judicial restraint," Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said at the time.

Carrie Severino, conservative legal activist: "Of those the president could nominate, we could do a lot worse than Merrick Garland," she said. "He's the best scenario we could hope for to bring the tension and the politics in the city down a notch for the summer."

http://news.yahoo.com/times-republicans-praised-merrick-garland-152100466.html

Edited March 16, 2016 by keemapoot

[Somtamnication]

He is in for a bumpy ride!

[keemapoot]

He is in for a bumpy ride!

Obama has chosen the perfect guy to let them wail on. It will guarantee the Dems the win in the Senate (in Nov. election) if they oppose this guy.

Edited March 16, 2016 by keemapoot

[NovaBlue05]

I don't know of anyone who votes based on something as relatively abstract as filling a SCOTUS seat although I'm sure they are out there

[keemapoot]

I don't know of anyone who votes based on something as relatively abstract as filling a SCOTUS seat although I'm sure they are out there

That won't be the reason. It will be the perception that the GOP's obstructionism and blocking of the running of government has gone too far.

[NovaBlue05]

I don't know of anyone who votes based on something as relatively abstract as filling a SCOTUS seat although I'm sure they are out there

That won't be the reason. It will be the perception that the GOP's obstructionism and blocking of the running of government has gone too far.

Of course the GOP shut down the federal government in late 2013. I think they did pretty well in the following election.

[lannarebirth]

He is in for a bumpy ride!

Obama has chosen the perfect guy to let them wail on. It will guarantee the Dems the win in the Senate (in Nov. election) if they oppose this guy.

I think he's the perfect guy because of the Republican threat. Which, BTW, I think the Dems would have threatened similarly if the shoe were on the other foot. I think the Republicans will move on this guy and the issue goes away. Either that or they've got a death wish.

[stevenl]

He is in for a bumpy ride!

Obama has chosen the perfect guy to let them wail on. It will guarantee the Dems the win in the Senate (in Nov. election) if they oppose this guy.

I think he's the perfect guy because of the Republican threat. Which, BTW, I think the Dems would have threatened similarly if the shoe were on the other foot. I think the Republicans will move on this guy and the issue goes away. Either that or they've got a death wish.

They'll boycott this, just as they try to boycott everything else.

[condobrit001]

I think the appointment should be delayed until Trump takes office.

The appointment could then be decided by a special edition of "The Apprentice" - what a show that would be!

[keemapoot]

I think the appointment should be delayed until Trump takes office.

The appointment could then be decided by a special edition of "The Apprentice" - what a show that would be!

Hehe. His nominee contestants would be Fox News' "The Judge" Napolitano, reality TV star "Judge Judy," and featuring special guest, 96 year old Judge Wopner from "The People's Court."

What an all star cast that would be.

[Acharn]

He is in for a bumpy ride!

Obama has chosen the perfect guy to let them wail on. It will guarantee the Dems the win in the Senate (in Nov. election) if they oppose this guy.

I think he's the perfect guy because of the Republican threat. Which, BTW, I think the Dems would have threatened similarly if the shoe were on the other foot. I think the Republicans will move on this guy and the issue goes away. Either that or they've got a death wish.

I don't think the Dems would have refused to consider *ANY* nominee. At the same time, I don't think the Republicans are going to suffer for their scorched earth obstructionism. As another poster pointed out, they didn't suffer any harm for shutting the government down in 2013 and they haven't suffered any harm for any of their other obstruction. That's what their real base wants -- absolutely no cooperation with the hated enemy. If they allow Obama to appoint a moderate to SCOTUS that will delay their takeover until another Republican is President. The Powell Memorandum of 1973 is so, so close to fulfillment.

[helpisgood]

I think the appointment should be delayed until Trump takes office.

The appointment could then be decided by a special edition of "The Apprentice" - what a show that would be!

Hehe. His nominee contestants would be Fox News' "The Judge" Napolitano, reality TV star "Judge Judy," and featuring special guest, 96 year old Judge Wopner from "The People's Court."

What an all star cast that would be.

That is funny. Thanks!

Paddy Chayefsky's Network (1976) seemed far-fetched back then, but not as much now.

[Chicog]

Even if Congress was amenable to accepting him, they'll still have to do their NRA paymasters' bidding.

[Phuket Stan]

Even if Congress was amenable to accepting him, they'll still have to do their NRA paymasters' bidding.

Not just to the NRA but also to all those hard right wing Think Tanks etc etc that the Koch Bros and their ilk have set up

If you want a good read about them get a copy of "Dark Money" by Anne Sayer which was published earlier this year. She is a writer for The New Yorker and it will open your eyes about how the GOP has been taken over by many of these hardliner money men

If u have a Kindle its available on the net

Edited March 17, 2016 by Phuket Stan

[freebyrd]

More shameful behaviour from the Republican party who have already said 'No'.

[Pimay1]

More shameful behaviour from the Republican party who have already said 'No'.

I don't suppose the following is shameful behavior because it came from a democrat right? Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy?

Sen. Joe Biden; As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and 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.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/joe-biden-in-1992-senate-should-block-election-year-supreme-court-nominees/

[helpisgood]

Even if Congress was amenable to accepting him, they'll still have to do their NRA paymasters' bidding.

Not just to the NRA but also to all those hard right wing Think Tanks etc etc that the Koch Bros and their ilk have set up

If you want a good read about them get a copy of "Dark Money" by Anne Sayer which was published earlier this year. She is a writer for The New Yorker and it will open your eyes about how the GOP has been taken over by many of these hardliner money men

If u have a Kindle its available on the net

Yes, Dark Money sounds like a great book. I saw the author interviewed and enjoyed it.

I am guessing that you heard the book and author mentioned on an audio-only medium. Her name is Jane Mayer, which does sound much like the name you have mentioned. I understand that she is a well-respected journalist.

Thanks for the recommendation!

[GinBoy2]

Love or hate him, this was an excellent piece of politics. I can only imagine how much more angst this has piled on the already angst ridden GOP.

Remember generally, when a politician says as Obama did today, we need to rise above partisanship, what it really means is they are just playing partisanship in a much more sophisticated way then their rivals.

So here's the deal. Garland is one of the oldest SCOTUS nominees ever, but he's almost perfect in terms of his connections, political connections, universally liked. But he's a throw away nominee. So GOP is currently agonizing do they hold to their guns and risk whatever November brings, and even if it's Trump, God knows what that brings, it could be worse, definitely worse with Clinton.

Do nothing, and that risk is there, plus it's a stick to beat GOP members of the Senate in re-election battles.

Or maybe, hold hearings but delay a vote until after the election...if it's Clinton approve Garland as fast as their grubby little finger can, as their best worst option.

Either way, a more acceptable liberal nominee hasn't been wasted, ie Srinivasan, and the Democrats can make hay with the ensuing turmoil from now until November.

Fun times!

[helpisgood]

More shameful behaviour from the Republican party who have already said 'No'.

I don't suppose the following is shameful behavior because it came from a democrat right? Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy?

Sen. Joe Biden; As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and 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.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/joe-biden-in-1992-senate-should-block-election-year-supreme-court-nominees/

Yeah, so what? Freebyrd (great song, by the way) is not Joe Biden.

Or, are you? ;-)

[Pimay1]

More shameful behaviour from the Republican party who have already said 'No'.

I don't suppose the following is shameful behavior because it came from a democrat right? Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy?

Sen. Joe Biden; As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and 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.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/joe-biden-in-1992-senate-should-block-election-year-supreme-court-nominees/

Yeah, so what? Freebyrd (great song, by the way) is not Joe Biden.

Or, are you? ;-)

Yeah so what? Nice one. I like the Democrats double standards. Typical liberal left thinking.

[helpisgood]

More shameful behaviour from the Republican party who have already said 'No'.

I don't suppose the following is shameful behavior because it came from a democrat right? Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy?

Sen. Joe Biden; As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and 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.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/joe-biden-in-1992-senate-should-block-election-year-supreme-court-nominees/

Yeah, so what? Freebyrd (great song, by the way) is not Joe Biden.

Or, are you? ;-)

Yeah so what? Nice one. I like the Democrats double standards. Typical liberal left thinking.

What!! Please explain how freebyrd is responsible (assuming he is a Democrat) for the actions of all Democratic politicians. They cannot possibly disagree?

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

[tomwct]

He is in for a bumpy ride!

No bumpy ride! No ride at all! Biden Rule!

[freebyrd]

More shameful behaviour from the Republican party who have already said 'No'.

I don't suppose the following is shameful behavior because it came from a democrat right? Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy?

Sen. Joe Biden; As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and 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.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/joe-biden-in-1992-senate-should-block-election-year-supreme-court-nominees/

Hypocrisy? Nah, I'm just a Brit sounding off, it doesn't affect me personally.

To an outsider the Republicans have been at Obama from day 1 because he's black. Democracy seems to be for WASP's from this end of the planet.

[Pimay1]

I don't suppose the following is shameful behavior because it came from a democrat right? Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy?

Sen. Joe Biden; As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not–and not–name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and 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.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/joe-biden-in-1992-senate-should-block-election-year-supreme-court-nominees/

Yeah, so what? Freebyrd (great song, by the way) is not Joe Biden.

Or, are you? ;-)

Yeah so what? Nice one. I like the Democrats double standards. Typical liberal left thinking.

What!! Please explain how freebyrd is responsible (assuming he is a Democrat) for the actions of all Democratic politicians. They cannot possibly disagree?

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

I was not referring to freebyrd. I was making reference to your statement "yeah so what."

[helpisgood]

Yeah, so what? Freebyrd (great song, by the way) is not Joe Biden.

Or, are you? ;-)

Yeah so what? Nice one. I like the Democrats double standards. Typical liberal left thinking.

What!! Please explain how freebyrd is responsible (assuming he is a Democrat) for the actions of all Democratic politicians. They cannot possibly disagree?

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

[had to delete a quote or I could not upload this post]

I was not referring to freebyrd. I was making reference to your statement "yeah so what."

Are you purposely confusing the issue to evade my point? My point was simple and clear.

By the way, I am not a Democrat either.

[up2u2]

Lets see if Republicans actually respect the US Constitution shall we. They are always blathering on about it. A Justice has been put forward they are directed to consider the applicant and appoint him as a Justice.

Lets see how many excuses Republicans can come up with for not abiding by the US Constitution.

Obama should throw everything at this and get a Moderate onto the Supreme Court. He really will have an impressive legacy once he leaves office. As State Republican enact Trap Laws the Supreme Court can just knock them over.

This is pivotal for the protection of the American People against Republicans using the State Legislatures to blind-side Federal Laws.

[Pimay1]

Yeah so what? Nice one. I like the Democrats double standards. Typical liberal left thinking.

What!! Please explain how freebyrd is responsible (assuming he is a Democrat) for the actions of all Democratic politicians. They cannot possibly disagree?

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

[had to delete a quote or I could not upload this post]

I was not referring to freebyrd. I was making reference to your statement "yeah so what."

Are you purposely confusing the issue to evade my point? My point was simple and clear.

By the way, I am not a Democrat either.

Ok I'll try one more time. Freebyrd is not responsible for anyone's actions except his own much less all Democrats. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make was that Biden said no SCOTUS judge appointment during an election year until after the November election. Of course that was when there was a Republican president. Now as there is a Democrat president, appointing a judge to the SCOTUS is just fine and should be done.

[had to delete a quote or I could not upload this post]

By the way, I'm not a Republican either.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Pimay1

[arjunadawn]

It is a bait and switch. There is no way Obama wants this guy on the court. Obama wants the senate to agree to a hearing... not agree to this guy. Its a false offer. If the senate takes the bait, Garland will be pulled, sick, switch, or intentionally derailed, etc. Garland is to the senate what a can opener is to tuna fish. If the senate rejects him, the nomination serves the political objectives. If anyone thinks Obama appointing a supreme court justice is just as milk-n-cookies as this guy they are lying or delusional. Its a false offer. I could be wrong, but I have not been yet about this radical, marxist president.

[stevenl]

It is a bait and switch. There is no way Obama wants this guy on the court. Obama wants the senate to agree to a hearing... not agree to this guy. Its a false offer. If the senate takes the bait, Garland will be pulled, sick, switch, or intentionally derailed, etc. Garland is to the senate what a can opener is to tuna fish. If the senate rejects him, the nomination serves the political objectives. If anyone thinks Obama appointing a supreme court justice is just as milk-n-cookies as this guy they are lying or delusional. Its a false offer. I could be wrong, but I have not been yet about this radical, marxist president.

Your last line shows you're wrong on all counts.