Reply With Quote
What are the odds you think he'll get confirmed?
The President's Supreme Court nominee has drawn high regard from sitting Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the recent past and been acknowledged as a nominee that all parties could support for a seat on the Supreme Court:
What are the odds you think he'll get confirmed?
0%
The party that insists that all of America should be wholly a meritocracy will elect to ignore the merit of a jurist that has already been acknowledged to have unquestionable merit for the position that he's been nominated for.
That aside, Judge Garland is a brilliant nomination by President Obama, I think. He's a political moderate who's record demonstrates a rigorous adherence to precedent and statutory texts. Judge Garland is reputedly a tough on crime sort, too. He's older than the usual nominee at 63, which means he won't be on the Supreme Court for an extraordinarily long time. Add the fact that Judge Garland has already been praised by members of the very committee that will refuse to even consider his nomination, apparently, which means that they'll have to have their own words shoved down their throats for a while.
Plus, while there is a lot of clamor for Sri Srinivasan, it would have been imprudent to have burned Judge Srinivasan's chance at a Supreme Court appointment in this climate. Garland makes eminently more sense, since the worst thing that happens to him is he becomes a political martyr who lives out the rest of his judicial existence as chief judge of one of the most important federal courts for a few more years.
I don't think Judge Garland is the nominee that true liberals would have wanted, but he's an extremely pragmatic choice in this environment and will make it abundantly clear what the game is here.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 03-16-2016 at 11:50 AM.
Poor, poor man.
Senate Repugs will refuse to hear, consider Garland.
Barry will then do a recess appointment, with the support of a probably LARGE majority of Americans.
Which is exactly why he was picked.
A twist of the knife for the Republicans in Congress. They have to explain for the entire election cycle why they won't hold hearings for someone they are on record as praising.
I approve.
He wasn't likely (at this stage of his life) to have another shot at the Court and his nomination saves others from going through what he will face and ensures that they remain available for a subsequent appointment, particularly under a Democratic presidency.Poor, poor man.
The Bad:
- He is another Jewish white male – where is the representation?
- He would be the oldest nominee in 40 years at 63.
- He is very pro-police and rarely votes in favor of criminal appeals.
- He is unlikely to turn over existing criminal justice rulings like the death penalty.
- During his time as a lawyer, he represented the tobacco industry.
- During his time as a lawyer, he fought against the Clean Air Act.
- During his time as a lawyer, he represented corporate en ies.
- As a judge, he voted against allowing Guantanamo detainees access to civil courts.
- He is absolutely not a progressive liberal.
- Orrin Hatch loves the guy.
- He is just a placeholder to call Republican Senate’s bluff
- He will almost certainly side with Conservative justices.
http://trofire.com/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-good-bad/
Looks like a good selection. Republicans should declare victory that their "threat" forced Bo to nominate an acceptable candidate and accept the nomination ASAP. Their alternative could be much worse if they actually go through with their stupid boycott "no matter what" and risk Hillary ending up Prez with a Democratic Senate and shoving a far left justice up their ass.
They'll just say he was their compromise choice when Obama had a dem senate.
Pretty much what I would expect.
He is the flavor of activist judge that the Republicans would support.
They should.
It is worth noting that Obama gave the GOP what they reasonably would have wanted anyway.
He gets to be the responsible adult in the room, per par when it comes to dealing the the insane wing of the Republican party.
mitch mcconell is speaking against garland
Huge mistake. They could lose the senate if the dems can successfully paint them as complete obstructionists, and it won't be a hard argument to make if they stonewall this nomination. Then they could end up with another liberal like Sotomayor or Kagan.mitch mcconell is speaking against garland
Repugs block Garland, then Barry socks the out of them with recess apptmt of a 40ish hyper-liberal.
It would be funny if they can get a dem senate and Obama has 18 days to nominate someone.
funny? I would ROFLMAO
another compromise from barry and repugs waive the mutombo finger, again.
I just emailed my Senator and reminded him they would be nuts not to confirm him.
Have you e-mail him before? Did his staff even give a non-automated reply? Also, you have two senators.
Don't know of him or much about him.
But yeah, he's not going to confirmed. Even though most of the these Republicans know that doing so would be the smartest thing to do given the likelihood of a Trump of nomination and therefore a close to no shot in chance of being able to confirm a Republican nominated one, they'll do the stupid thing to avoid looking like Obama appeasers, and decline. Then, a year or two from now, when a lefty is appointed they'll pretend to be mad. These are morally bankrupt politicians who don't give a about what's at stake other than their political legacy.
surprised we haven't seen Le Happy Merchant yet in this thread, tbh...
I don't count Cruz LOL
Seems Cruz has already made his decision anyway.
https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-no...sident-office/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
