Obama nominates Garland to high court, challenging GOP

[Berkshire]

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.

How do you guys come up with such crazy conspiracy theories? This is why the Republican party and all those who support them needs to be destroyed, never to return. Thank you Donald Trump!

[Ulic]

Obama nominates a conservative Republican judge with glowing reviews from Republicans

on his record. The Senate refuses to give him a hearing. Is it any easier to demonstrate

Republican obstructionism in an election year. Yet if Republicans lose the Senate they

will blame it all on Trump.

BTW if Republicans don't get behind Trump, fracture the party HRC wins the election

nominates a young left wing zinger, they will be kicking themselves for not giving this guy

a fare hearing...........But they will blame Trump.

[lannarebirth]

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.

How do you guys come up with such crazy conspiracy theories? This is why the Republican party and all those who support them needs to be destroyed, never to return. Thank you Donald Trump!

Actually it was the Democrat party (or at least its policies and belief system) that got destroyed when it became what the Republicans were. Republicans now, are just a brand with no product.

[up2u2]

A very good strategy by Obama. Select a Moderate to highlight just how toxic and obstructionist the Republican Congress has become. For eight years Americans have had to tolerate this 'we can't get power so we will wreck the joint'.

[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.

How do you guys come up with such crazy conspiracy theories? This is why the Republican party and all those who support them needs to be destroyed, never to return. Thank you Donald Trump!

If one removed my musing as to why Obama & Company would do such a thing the underlying points are hardly outlandish. Garland is most certainly not who Obama would prefer on the court. This can easily be gleaned from others. Obama acting politically should not be thought of as conspiracy. Obama has been brilliant at his political machinations.

In relation to the other fantasy post earlier, the senate has no duty whatsoever to make time the standard by which they execute their duty of advice and consent. The senate makes its own rules, and its own time. This is once again an intended mechanism for checks and balances, just like the fictitious obstructionist congress locking up legislation. Checks and balances are woven into multiple aspects of our constitutional framework. The senate may suffer politically by not acting hastily on Obama's choice but it most certainly does not have to act right now to advise and consent. In fact, Obama could then wait until senate was in recess and appoint. These are intended checks. The notion that gridlock is a sign of a deficient constitution is poppycock. Gridlock or the political parties locking up are the very sign that things are working as intended.

Though I despise Obama it is truly amazing to watch this guy work. This guy works others like The Prince (N.M.) himself; totally masters every political issue with cunning and brilliance. The Republicans remain totally befuddled by Obama's every move.

[NovaBlue05]

When Obama gets serious about an appointee, they will likely be quite a bit younger than this guy

[lannarebirth]

A very good strategy by Obama. Select a Moderate to highlight just how toxic and obstructionist the Republican Congress has become. For eight years Americans have had to tolerate this 'we can't get power so we will wreck the joint'.

I think Obama wanted a moderate anyway. This guy possibly ticks Obama's 2nd amendment box and I think that's the only one he cares about. Obama wouldn't care about abortion or Citizen's United litmus tests as those are both win/win for Democrats whoever is picked.

[Ulysses G.]

A very good strategy by Obama. Select a Moderate to highlight just how toxic and obstructionist the Republican Congress has become. For eight years Americans have had to tolerate this 'we can't get power so we will wreck the joint'.

I think Obama wanted a moderate anyway. This guy possibly ticks Obama's 2nd amendment box and I think that's the only one he cares about. Obama wouldn't care about abortion or Citizen's United litmus tests as those are both win/win for Democrats whoever is picked.

Can't agree on that. His instinct would be to appoint someone as far left as possible, but, if he did, it would give the Republicans good reason to not even consider him/her.

[keemapoot]

At long last, the wise, reasoned voice of old-style Republican smarts coming from Orrin Hatch:

Utah's Orrin Hatch and Arizona's Jeff Flake, Republican members of the Judiciary Committee that would hold any confirmation hearings, said it was possible the Senate could act on Garland's nomination in a "lame-duck" session after the election and before a new president and Congress take office in January.

http://news.yahoo.com/key-republicans-open-handling-garland-nomination-u-election-144222541.html

At 81 years old, and senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Republicans should follow Hatch's wise stated strategy, which may or may not be believed by the voting public in November, or merely seen as a trick to retain control of the Senate, and if retained then, with the real intentions to oppose and obstruct and let the new Republican President nominate a candidate. I think smart voters will see this for what it is: an empty non-binding commitment and promise.

Not working in Hatch's favor among his GOP peers is the following fact about him "sleeping with the enemy:"

Despite their political differences, Hatch was a longtime friend of fellow senator Ted Kennedy, speaking at his memorial service and publicly suggesting Kennedy's widow as a replacement for Kennedy in the Senate.

Edited March 17, 2016 by keemapoot

[Scott]

An off-topic post removed.

[up2u2]

A very good strategy by Obama. Select a Moderate to highlight just how toxic and obstructionist the Republican Congress has become. For eight years Americans have had to tolerate this 'we can't get power so we will wreck the joint'.

I think Obama wanted a moderate anyway. This guy possibly ticks Obama's 2nd amendment box and I think that's the only one he cares about. Obama wouldn't care about abortion or Citizen's United litmus tests as those are both win/win for Democrats whoever is picked.

Can't agree on that. His instinct would be to appoint someone as far left as possible, but, if he did, it would give the Republicans good reason to not even consider him/her.

The main issue really is a dysfunctional Supreme Court. That is what is at the heart of the problem. A Justice should not be Right or Left leaning they should address the Law and the Law only. They should not be quasi legislators or 'booster' for any Government. A Political Party of any persuasion should not be 'stacking' a Supreme Court in their favour. This is how despotic and corrupt governments conduct themselves. This principle stems from the Magna Carta 1215. A Supreme Court Justice should be totally independent from Government or political / religious ideology.

It is difficult to actually asses ANY US Institution that hasn't been corrupted in one way or another.

What should occur is ALL Justices are impeached and removed from their positions on the Supreme Court and 9 new Justices selected on the basis they address the Law and are not Party political. ANY Justice caught making the slightest political statement are immediately impeached and replaced. This is pretty simple stuff America.

Edited March 18, 2016 by up2u2

[Berkshire]

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.

How do you guys come up with such crazy conspiracy theories? This is why the Republican party and all those who support them needs to be destroyed, never to return. Thank you Donald Trump!

If one removed my musing as to why Obama & Company would do such a thing the underlying points are hardly outlandish. Garland is most certainly not who Obama would prefer on the court. This can easily be gleaned from others. Obama acting politically should not be thought of as conspiracy. Obama has been brilliant at his political machinations.

In relation to the other fantasy post earlier, the senate has no duty whatsoever to make time the standard by which they execute their duty of advice and consent. The senate makes its own rules, and its own time. This is once again an intended mechanism for checks and balances, just like the fictitious obstructionist congress locking up legislation. Checks and balances are woven into multiple aspects of our constitutional framework. The senate may suffer politically by not acting hastily on Obama's choice but it most certainly does not have to act right now to advise and consent. In fact, Obama could then wait until senate was in recess and appoint. These are intended checks. The notion that gridlock is a sign of a deficient constitution is poppycock. Gridlock or the political parties locking up are the very sign that things are working as intended.

Though I despise Obama it is truly amazing to watch this guy work. This guy works others like The Prince (N.M.) himself; totally masters every political issue with cunning and brilliance. The Republicans remain totally befuddled by Obama's every move.

Clearly, you hate Obama and will disagree with anything he does. You won't even concede the most obvious, which is that the man is simply doing his job. The Supreme Court has 8 justices, needs 9. He can't appoint a far left liberal because he knows this wouldn't fly. He won't appoint a far right conservative because it's simply against his conscience (and his own party would go ballistic). So he appoints someone who would be palatable to both sides so that we would have 9 justices. That's doing his job, and in a rather sensible way. Too bad the do-nothing Republican Congress can't do the same.

[keemapoot]

Interesting new tactic on obstructing Obama's centrist choice of Garland for SCJ by the Republicans. Majority leader McConnell clearly stated they will not hold a vote before November, even though some few swing-state Republicans up for re-election say they will "meet with Garland," (in an obvious gesture and effort to retain their seats)

However, the scuttlebutt is that that if Clinton is elected, they might hurry and vote in the lame duck session to confirm his appointment out of fear Clinton would nominate a lefty.

[Boon Mee]

Garland isn't a Lefty?

Goodbye 2nd Ammendment if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court.

[helpisgood]

Garland isn't a Lefty?

Goodbye 2nd Ammendment if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court.

From what I have read, he's not as liberal as might be a Clinton nomination. Supposedly, Garland leans more in favor of law enforcement in criminal cases. But, that's what I have read and heard so far from the mainstream media. Maybe someone knows more about his judicial background.

Also, see Keemapoot's helpful post no. 2 above.

The bottom line seems to be that of all of the possible nominations from a Democrat, Garland is the most palatable of the likely choices to the Republicans.

If you are referring to DC v. Heller, although I have never bothered to read the opinions, I believe that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to apply to state militias. Without going into the many details, that amendment was basically about assuring states that they could keep their militias and they would not be replaced by a federal standing army. There had been a historical concern of a tyrant imposing his or her will through a standing army. That was among the hot issues of the day. It was not about personal use.

By the way, I can understand how a government may allow certain citizens to have firearms along with certain sensible regulations. However, I do not see it as a constitutional right.

Edited March 21, 2016 by helpisgood

[Chicog]

So here's Mitch McConnell essentially at least admitting that he can't do his job unless the NRA or some other right wing group gives their permission.

No wonder the Republicans have lost faith in their leadership. They should change their name to the "Bought and Paid For Party".

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and appointed with the advice and consent of the National Rifle Association, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

McConnell offered this unusual view of the confirmation process during an interview with Fox News Sunday. In response to a question from host Chris Wallace, who asked if Senate Republicans would consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court after the election if Hillary Clinton prevails, McConnell responded that he “can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses.”

The Majority Leader’s statement is significant for several reasons. For one thing, it suggests that his previously stated position that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” is a sham. Simply put, it’s unlikely that the NRA or the NFIB will change their position on a nominee just because Hillary Clinton is president and not Barack Obama.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/20/3761908/mcconnell-no-new-supreme-court-justice-until-the-nra-approves-of-the-nominee/

[up-country_sinclair]

Garland isn't a Lefty?

Goodbye 2nd Ammendment if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court.

From what I have read, he's not as liberal as might be a Clinton nomination.

In my opinion, you're absolutely correct.

With that know-nothing blowhard Trump likely getting the nomination, the senate should easily fall back into the hands of the Democrats.

And who here doubts that President Obama will withdraw Judge Garland's nomination a day or two after the election because (wait for it) he thinks that that President-elect Clinton should make that choice. That would make it his final, ultimate trolling of Republicans. The extreme right wing hyper-partisans on this board would be in complete and utter meltdown mode. And the president will be laughing up his sleeve once again.

I dislike so many of his policies and decisions, but I have to admit he is very, very good at making the right appear like foolish amateurs.

[Boon Mee]

Typical Democrat Hypocrisy