Printable View
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
What are the odds you think he'll get confirmed?
0%Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
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.
Poor, poor man.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/1351...hing-bag-o.gif
http://orig04.deviantart.net/6e71/f/...mb-d6qxjo1.gif
http://www.economyjumpers.com/boy_wi...ata_hg_clr.gif
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
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 entities.
- 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Pretty much what I would expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
He is the flavor of activist judge that the Republicans would support.
They should.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
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 http://i63.tinypic.com/14c79lt.png
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trill Clinton
Repugs block Garland, then Barry socks the shit 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
funny? I would ROFLMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
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.
LolQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Have you e-mail him before? Did his staff even give a non-automated reply? Also, you have two senators.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
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 hell 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 shit 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 LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by DMX7
Seems Cruz has already made his decision anyway.
https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-no...sident-office/
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgra...Artboard_1.png
Why Obama Nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court
needed a candidate who had support from Republicans in the past but who
would still move the court in a progressive direction. ????
He Could Shift the Court to Be More Liberal
If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.
Measures of ideology by four political scientists show where the justices stand in relation to one another. Judge Garland’s score is based on the score of his appointing president, Bill Clinton.
This methodology is considered to be a “reasonably good predictor of voting on the Supreme Court,” says Prof. Lee Epstein of Washington University.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgra...arland-720.png
He Is Undeniably Qualified
Judge Garland has spent 19 years on an appeals court, previously worked as a law clerk and has experience on the executive branch. According to Prof. Epstein, “these credentials aren't required, nor would most former justices have met them, but they reflect the new normal.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...omination.html
Conservative Groups Double Down On SCOTUS Obstruction
conservative groups quickly doubled down on their calls for Senate Republicans to block any person the president nominates to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Although a handful of senators are now hinting that they may be willing to at least meet with Garland — who has won praise from Republicans in the past — conservative groups are doubling down on their calls for the GOP to block his nomination.
Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice issued a statement repeating his call for “no confirmation proceedings until after the election.”
Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver similarly repeated that there should be “no Senate hearing on any Obama nominee.”
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Casey Mattox offered no criticism of Garland himself but claimed that the Obama administration is untrustworthy and so Garland’s nomination should be blocked: “The Obama administration has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to respect the rule of law, the Constitution, and the limits of its own authority. So it should be no surprise that the American people would be highly skeptical that any nominee this president puts forth would be acceptable.”
Heritage Action, which was calling for an end to most judicial and executive branch confirmations even before Scalia’s death, declared that “nothing has changed” with the nomination of Garland and that we are “one liberal Justice away from seeing gun rights restricted and partial birth abortion being considered a constitutional right.”
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council similarly tried to paint Garland as a liberal, saying he is “far from being a consensus nominee,” although he offered no specifics on the “serious questions” he said their were about Garland’s “ability to serve as a constitutionalist.”
Anti-abortion groups also doubled down on their opposition to any confirmation proceedings, although they struggled to find specific reasons to oppose Garland.
The Susan B. Anthony List’s Marjorie Dannenfelser wrote:
This changes nothing. We do not know this nominee but we do know Barack Obama. Anyone he nominates will join the voting bloc on the Court that consistently upholds abortion on-demand. The President should not be permitted one last opportunity to stack the Court with pro-abortion Justices.
Meanwhile, Americans United for Life dug up this one unconvincing piece of opposition research:
Consider that Judge Garland spoke at a gathering celebrating Linda Greenhouse’s book on Justice Harry Blackmun, Becoming Justice Blackmun. He described the release of the papers of the late Justice Blackmun—the author of one of the Supreme Court’s worst decisions, Roe v. Wade—as a “great gift to the country.”
Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman said his group would oppose any nominee who does not publicly “renounce Roe v. Wade”:
"Millions of lives hang in the balance of each ruling on abortion put forth by the Supreme Court. I refuse to support any nominee - Republican or Democrat - that will not renounce Roe v. Wade and commit to restoring legal protections to the pre-born," said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue.
…
"I strongly urge the members of the Judiciary Committee to hold fast to their promise, for the sake of the future of our country and the future of our posterity," said Newman. "The Senate Republican leadership cannot afford to break this important promise to their conservative, pro-life base, if they expect us to vote for any of them ever again."
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/conservative-groups-double-down-scotus-obstruction
harvard/yale :sleep
lets get some pepperdine love :)
What a group of assholes
Recess appointments only last until the current Congress is replaced. My guess is they win the Senate (new Congress sits a couple weeks before new President is sworn in) and the Dems ram him through during those two weeks. I'd much prefer Shillary appoint a raging liberal cunt, but it's Obama's nomination so she'll probably play along.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
If Trump wins you think he'll nominate Judge Judy?
His sister.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Yep, 0% chance this guy is getting confirmed when he tried to institute a handgun ban in DC. So Obama really didn't want to pick anyone who had a chance.
Gun control is always a loser in our elections, no idea why Obama wants to bring this to the forefront when the Dems are running a weak candidate.
There is a 0 percent chance anyone he names gets approved, tbh. Republicans will not allow it. Shit would be crazy if they stonewall it, Hillary wins and nominates Barry lolQuote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
I hate gun control always coming up with the fucking left, it makes it frustrating being a social democrat on many other issues since this one always gets thrown in too. Micheal Moore was right in Bowling for Columbine: guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.
No way Ak 47s and shit like that belong on the street, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
It ain't easy getting an AK-47 legally man. Any AK-47 you see on the street is most likely an illegal weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by djohn2oo8
technically.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
the AKM's look and function almost exactly the same as th 47's without the select fire option.
Semiauto AK clones are easy to get, but not the real fully auto shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Much higher than 0%. I'd put this scenario at about 1 in 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by djohn2oo8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splits
Actually, If Hillary wins in November and they lose the Senate you will suddenly see the Republicans decide that it's OK for the current President to get his nominee approved. Of course, If the Democrats win the Senate Obama will probably yank the nomination and let Hillary nominate a far left 35 year old.
If the Dems win the Senate Obama can appoint who he wants on January 3rd.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
They should just approve him now and avoid all of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex
fuck these establihment guys and their stupid games.
and people wonder why Trump and Bernie resonate with people...
McConnell Called Garland To Wish Him Well But Refused To Meet With Him
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused to hold what he called a “perfunctory meeting” with newly named Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland on Wednesday because the Senate won’t be considering him, according to a statement sent out by his office.
The senator instead reached out to Garland by phone.
“The Leader reiterated his position that the American people will have a voice in this vacancy and that the Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the person the next President nominates,” McConnell’s office said in a statement. “Since the Senate will not be acting on this nomination, he would not be holding a perfunctory meeting, but he wished Judge Garland well.”
The Senate majority leader has led the call not to consider any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, taking to the Senate floor shortly after Garland’s nomination to say there was no point in “endlessly debating” the issue.
In his statement, McConnell explained his refusal to meet with the judge in person by saying there was no point in subjecting him to “unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29
iow:
"Hi Merrick.
KY Jelly Brains Mitch, here.
Just calling to say we're gonna fuck you out of SCOTUS and the pinnacle of your judicial career, but don't take it personally. We're just fucking over the [email protected]"
Mitch McConnell’s Obstruction Falls Apart As 8 Republicans To Meet With SCOTUS Nominee
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/...iticus+USA+%29
That Awkward Moment When The GOP’s Top Judicial Attack Dog Sang Merrick Garland’s Praises
Not so long ago, however, Severino sang a very different tune.
Garland, who Obama nominated to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday, was also a contender for the Supreme Court vacancy in 2010 that was eventually filled by Justice Elena Kagan.
"Of those the president could nominate, we could do a lot worse than Merrick Garland," Severino said at the time.
She added that Garland was "the best scenario we could hope for to bring the tension and the politics in the city down a notch for the summer."
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760958/that-awkward-moment-when-the-gops-top-judicial-attack-dog-sang-merrick-garlands-praises/
Merrick Garland Is Obama’s Rope-a-Dope Nominee
Obama “could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Sen. Orrin Hatch said in a recent Newsmax interview, to give just one example. “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.”
It will be genuinely amusing for the remainder of the year to watch Hatch defend himself against this and other quotes as he refuses to consider Garland’s nomination.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/merrick_garland_is_obama_s_rope_a_dope_nominee.htm l
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us...=top-news&_r=0w
Sure thing....
“Well, I’ll put it this way: I don’t dislike him,” Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, told Chuck Todd of NBC. Mr. Inhofe voted to confirm Judge Garland in 1997, but vowed to block his nomination now.
FIFY.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
They should but they won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex
HEHEHEHEHEHEHE.....
:corn:
This would likely be the only notch against him. In any other setting this would be a damn good selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
McConnell explained his refusal to meet with the judge in person by saying there was
no point in subjecting him to “unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House.” :lol
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mcconnell-refuses-hold-meeting-garland?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_ campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...esident-trump/
SUPREME COURT 3:42 PM MAR 16, 2016
Republicans Could Do A Lot Worse Than Merrick Garland Under President Clinton — Or President Trump
By NATE SILVER
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that Republicans won’t hold hearings on Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. If McConnell follows through and makes everyone wait until next year, he and his party will be taking a serious risk. The political situation for Republicans could get a lot worse — and McConnell might no longer be in charge of the Senate.
The logic of this isn’t that complicated. Right now, the most likely person to become the next president is Hillary Clinton, who is on the verge of wrapping up the Democratic nomination. The second most likely person is Donald Trump. His path to the Republican nomination is more tenuous than Clinton’s path to the Democratic one. But Trump had a successful day of elections on Tuesday — and if it isn’t obvious how Trump will get to 1,237 delegates, it’s even less obvious how anyone else will become the Republican nominee.
Neither choice is particularly palatable to members of the conservative Senate majority, only one of whom (Jeff Sessions of Alabama) has endorsed Trump. But if their choice between Clinton and Trump is bad enough, Republicans have some further bad news: Democrats have a shot at winning back the Senate. They’ll need to gain four seats to do so if Democrats hold the presidency, or five if a Republican wins. That isn’t a trivial task, but Republicans are vulnerable because a number of their blue- and purple-state senators who won election in the Republican wave year of 2010 are now on the ballot again. Furthermore, Trump could have a negative effect on down-ballot races; so could Ted Cruz, or someone nominated after a contested convention. Although I wouldn’t call Democrats favorites to win back the Senate, a Democratic Senate is probably more likely than not conditional upon Clinton becoming the next president.
If you combine the view of betting markets with a bit of back-of-the-envelope math, it suggests that Republicans face these rough probabilities:
A 40 percent chance of President Clinton with a Democratic Senate.
A 30 percent chance of Clinton with a Republican Senate.
A 20 percent chance of President Trump (probably with a Republican Senate).
A 10 percent chance of Cruz, John Kasich or some other Republican.
You can quibble with those odds, obviously, and particularly with how much of a shot Trump would have against Clinton. Prudence would suggest that Trump’s chances are not zero: There could be an economic collapse, a terrorist attack or a Clinton scandal that could swing the election to Trump — or even if not, he could continue to rewrite the political rulebook and make fools out of political prognosticators. I wouldn’t take Trump at even money, though. For now, we’ll stick with the betting markets’ view, which imply that he’d be something like a 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 underdog.
The next step is figuring out what sort of person might be appointed to the Supreme Court in each circumstance. Suppose that, from Republicans’ view, a reliably liberal justice (say, someone with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s views) would score as a minus 10, and a reliable conservative (say, a clone of Justice Samuel Alito) would score as a plus 10. A truly centrist justice, who would side with the conservative position half the time and the liberal one half the time in key cases, would be a zero.
You’d probably score the possibilities something like what I have in the table below. With a Democratic Senate, Clinton would have relatively free rein to pick a nominee, although her majority in the Senate might not be especially large, and Republicans could filibuster her choice if Democrats win fewer than 60 seats. She’d also have won a fresh mandate even if Republicans held the Senate, however, and could probably get someone to Garland’s left confirmed, if not another Ginsburg.
The Republican calculus for a Supreme Court justiceCode:SCENARIO PROBABILITY SCORE
President Clinton + Democratic Senate 40% -9
President Clinton + Republican Senate 30 -6
President Trump! 20 +2
President Cruz or some other Republican 10 +9
Weighted average -4
Trump is a harder case to fathom. One way he could win the general election is by pivoting dramatically to the center and railing against partisanship. The Supreme Court nomination would then be one of President Trump’s first chances to demonstrate his abilities as a pragmatic deal-maker. He could nominate a conservative, but he could also pick someone with moderate or eccentric political views. Or he could make an unconventional choice: Trump once said his sister would make a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. A Trump appointment might be better for Republicans than a judge chosen totally at random from a circuit court, but perhaps not by much.
If you take a weighted average of these probabilities, you come up with a score of about negative 4. That’s equivalent to a center-left nominee – someone a lot like Garland, perhaps. If they wait until next year, Republicans might do better, but they could potentially do a lot worse.
And that’s before considering that the Supreme Court nomination isn’t happening in a vacuum. Polling suggests that a majority of the public wants the Senate to hold hearings on the next justice. Thus, blocking the appointment of Garland could hurt Republicans at the margin and further reduce their chances of keeping the Senate. On the flip side, it could curry favor with the Republican base. But one of the apparent lessons of this election is that the Republican base is neither as large nor as influential as we previously believed. Republicans continue to double down on a set of political strategies that seems to be failing.
Nate Silver is the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight.
‘This is not the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew’
The Huffington Post reported yesterday on two former top government officials in Iowa who find themselves “wondering what happened to the Grassley they used to know: a legislator who proudly helped take politics out of the state’s judicial confirmation process.”
Republican Joy Corning and Democrat Sally Pederson, both former Iowa lieutenant governors, are teaming up to try to convince Grassley to hold hearings for Obama’s court pick, Merrick Garland. They held a Thursday press event in Des Moines to remind him of his roots.
“You voted in favor of Iowa’s constitutional amendment that took campaign politics out of Iowa’s judicial system,” said Corning, citing a 2014 interview in which Grassley boasted about voting as a state lawmaker to prevent political parties from nominating judges. “You express great pride in that vote, and I quote, ‘It was a very forward-looking thing to do what we did 50 years ago.’”
That’s a sharp contrast to what’s happening today, she said. “Throughout your career, Chuck, you have been a fair-minded, common-sense consensus builder,” the former GOP official continued. “Refusing to fill the Supreme Court vacancy is none of those things.”
Pederson added, “[T]his is not the Chuck Grassley we thought we knew.”
And to a very real extent, this isn’t the Chuck Grassley that Iowans have gotten to know over his decades-long congressional career. In 1987, the GOP senator declared, “The dangers of politicizing the nomination process are exceeded only by its short-sightedness.
After all, presidential elections and Supreme Court nominations come and go. I urge my colleagues to resist the clarion call of raw politics that undermines the independent judiciary.”
That Grassley obviously bears no resemblance to the current Grassley.
But the broader point extends well beyond Iowa’s senior senator. His shift is undeniable, but what matters just as much are the conditions that pushed Grassley so far to the right.
As Republican politics has become more radical, the GOP’s elected officials have had to decide whether to fight the tide or move with it.
Those who’ve resisted, even a little, have been washed away in primaries (see Dick Lugar, Mike Castle, Bob Inglis, et al), run out of Capitol Hill (see John Boehner), or even pushed out of the GOP altogether (see Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, et al).
It’s why most Republicans prefer to simply go with the right-wing flow, satisfying both the party’s base and their own desire to keep their jobs.
When people say they don’t recognize Chuck Grassley anymore, they’re not wrong, but the unstated subtext is that they don’t recognize the Republican Party anymore.
There’s no reason to single out Grassley. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) used to boast about being a “square peg” – the title of his 2002 autobiography – because of his routine breaks with party orthodoxy. Now Hatch is among the Senate’s most brazen and unapologetic partisans, whose cringe-worthy antics were fairly described yesterday as “sickening.”
In 1984, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ran as a moderate. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), throughout his career, took pride in his independent streak. For most of these senators’ lengthy careers, the very idea that they’d support an unprecedented blockade against a qualified, moderate Supreme Court nominee would have seemed ridiculous.
And yet, here we are.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Heh, that was a much more detailed analysis that came to the same conclusion I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Odds tend to favor a Clinton win.
Running against trump is likely to have a energizing effect on Democratic turnout, which would be a complete disaster for Republicans. They only really will win if the turn out is low, which is how they got control of Congress to begin with.
This will have a run-on effect on the down ballot candidates for Congress. From what I remember reading about how that shakes up, there are more Republicans in trouble there than Democrats this time around.
This has the potential for a Democratic president to put her stamp on SCOTUS with a Democratically controlled senate.
If Garner isn't approved by the time the election rolls around, Obama will get to withdraw and give in to the GOP. They will get their wish of waiting until the next election, and have some crow to chow down on.
Moderates/liberals will replace any solidly "conservative" justice that leaves/dies in the next 8 years, as well as any liberal justice.
This nomination likely offers the last chance the GOP will have to really influence SCOTUS for the remainder of my lifetime, assuming the coming latino demographic wave swamps the federal election process as it is currently projected to in favor of the Democrat party.
... and they will piss it away.
Schadenfreude anyone?
Translation:Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
The Republican party has lost its effing mind.
I remember when I used to really like and identify with the Republican party, around the time of the first Bush. Once they started trying to impeach Clinton for getting a blowjob that was a pretty clear sign the the party had gone crazy. Especially when Gingrich was doing the same shit. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I read one "sane" Repug Congressman saying some years ago that he said Gingrich's reign of bullshit was something he had never seen before.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Howard SternQuote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Defiant Mitch McConnell Holds Merrick Garland’s Severed Head Aloft In Front Of Capitol Building
http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/5296/2/16x9/1200.jpg
WASHINGTON — Declaring that the president had been warned about naming a justice during an election year, a defiant Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly held up the severed head of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland this afternoon while standing in front of the Capitol building.
“We vowed that no nominees would be considered,” said McConnell, his suit reportedly splattered with blood as he flung the centrist appeals court judge’s bespectacled head aside and kicked it down the Capitol steps.
“There shall be no hearing. Do not attempt to silence the voice of the American people.”
Sources also confirmed that McConnell later wrapped Garland’s severed right hand in his judicial robes and mailed the package to potential nominee Sri Srinivasan.
http://www.theonion.com/article/defi...ands-sev-52575
On Supreme Court, Republicans can’t keep their story straight
After President Obama introduced Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, Republicans, some of whom called for Garland’s nomination, said his qualifications were irrelevant.
This is about the GOP’s self-imposed, made-up principle regarding confirmation votes in a presidential election year, not the merits of the individual jurist.
Soon after, the Republican National Committee unveiled a list of complaints about Garland – evidently representing the best RNC oppo researchers could come up with – suggesting the Republicans had changed their mind about whether the fight was about the nature of the fight.Over the weekend, in the party’s official weekly address, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) switched back to the original talking point, ignoring Garland and arguing, “This is about principle, not the person the president has nominated.”
A day later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) switched again, saying it is about the person the president nominated. The GOP leader said on “Meet the Press” yesterday:
“I think when you’ve got a nominee that MoveOn.org is extremely enthusiastic about, and multiple articles pointing out that if Judge Merrick were in fact confirmed, he would move the court dramatically to the left…. I don’t think it’s a good idea to move the court to the left.”
Soon after, McConnell quickly switched back, adding, “It’s not the person. It’s the principle.”
On “Fox News Sunday,” McConnell then contradicted his argument – the second one, not the first one – saying the fight is about the person.
“I 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, the National Federation of Independent Business that represents small businesses that have never taken a position on the Supreme Court appointment before. They’re opposed to this guy,” McConnell said.
In the same interview, McConnell then contradicted this argument – the first one, not the second one – saying this isn’t about Garland at all. “I think what we need to focus on is the principle, the principle,” he argued. “Who ought to make this appointment?”
Part of the problem here is the cringe-worthy incoherence of the Republican pitch. Over the course of literally a few days, the party, which had a month to prepare for this showdown, has managed
to tell the public the fight is about Garland,
is not about Garland,
except when it is,
which it isn’t.
McConnell failed to keep his own story straight to a dizzying degree: the Kentucky lawmaker ended up changing his mind about his own argument several times just yesterday morning, taking both sides of the same issue within the same interview.
It’s tempting to have Senate Republicans debate themselves for a while. Perhaps they can let the rest of us know when they’re figured out what they want to say.
The more alarming problem is the fact that the Senate Majority Leader seems to think press releases from activist groups should have some direct role in shaping the future of the nation’s highest court.
The constitutional process directs the Senate – the institution formerly known as the world’s most deliberative body – to advise and consent in the confirmation process. As far as Mitch McConnell is concerned, however, senators shouldn’t even consider a qualified nominee because MoveOn.org and the National Rifle Association have provided the Senate Majority Leader with all of the information he needs to know.
Who needs the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold confirmation hearings about one of the nation’s most important jobs? Mitch McConnell has a press statement from a lobbying group – and in 2016, the NRA and the National Federation of Independent Business apparently have veto power over the nominations to the nation’s highest court.
If McConnell is still capable of shame, now would be an excellent time for him to recognize just how sad a display he’s putting on for the nation.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Thanks, Kentucky. Thanks, Repugs. :lol
New Poll Shows Everyones Hates Senate Republicans, Especially Republicans
?The American public feels that a president’s Supreme Court nominations should be taken up by the U.S. Senate no matter when they occur, according to the latest Monmouth University Poll. Specifically, two-thirds say that Pres. Obama’s recent nomination deserves a hearing and 3-in-4 Americans think Senate Republicans are playing politics by refusing to consider to it.
Just 16% of the public agrees that the Senate Republicans are refusing to consider Garland primarily to give the public a say in the nomination. Fully 77% think the GOP leadership is just playing politics. Those who see this stance as mainly a political ploy include large majorities of
Democrats (86%),
independents (80%), and
Republicans (62%).
http://wonkette.com/599872/new-poll-shows-everyones-hates-senate-republicans-especially-republicans
Come on, Barry, do it! a recess appointment of an aggressive progressive.
Supreme Court fiasco weighs on key Republican senator
Earlier this month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was so embarrassed by his role in the Republican Supreme Court blockade, he “raised a binder to cover his face before hurriedly retreating” from reporters on Capitol Hill with questions about his behavior. It wasn’t a good sign.
Nearly four weeks later, Grassley is still under fire for his partisan antics, and in a way, he’s still covering his face – to the point that he doesn’t want to tell his own constituents where he’s holding public events. The Huffington Post reported yesterday:
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) says he will be going around speaking with constituents at more than a dozen events in his home state during the Senate’s two-week spring recess.
But most of the public will have no idea how to find him, because his office is keeping the details of those events secret to avoid protesters.
It’s amazing to think that just seven weeks ago, Grassley was sitting pretty, holding a powerful Senate gavel and looking like a lock to win re-election in November. Now, however, the long-time, far-right lawmaker is at the center of a Supreme Court fiasco; he’s receiving the worst press of his lengthy congressional career; and he’s facing the most serious Democratic challenge since joining the Senate 36 years ago.
Grassley is not just facing pressure from protesters demanding he act more responsibly in the Senate.
The Des Moines Register reported today – on the front page, no less – that Grassley went to Northwestern Iowa yesterday, home to some of the most conservative areas in the state, where he still faced “tough and repeated questions over his refusal to hold hearings on a nominee to the Supreme Court.”
An Associated Press report added:
Monday’s meeting took place in a Republican-dominated county where Grassley won more than 80 percent of the vote in his last two elections. Today, his sole public event is scheduled in a neighboring county where 92 percent of voters backed him in 2010.
Some observers think it’s no coincidence that the senator has chosen this time to hold public events more than 200 miles from more liberal Des Moines or other urban areas.
Right, but even here, locals weren’t particularly impressed with the kind of work Grassley is doing in D.C.
The pressure isn’t going away. Grassley can try to hold binders in front of his face while “hurriedly retreating” for the next several months, but it probably won’t help his electoral prospects.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ks-and-beyond/
He would be bailing them out if he did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
:lol WTF?Quote:
Originally Posted by DMX7
adding a 5th progressive under 50 years old (withdraw Garland, way too centrist and pro-business) would FUCK Repugs/VRWC/1%/BigCorp for decades which always helps America.
recess appointment would be temporary... the permanent selection still has to go through the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is...urt-an-option/Quote:
The presidential authority at issue in this possible scenario exists, according to Article II, when the Senate has gone into recess and the vacancy a president seeks to fill remains. Such an appointment requires no action at all by the Senate, but the appointee can only serve until the end of the following Senate session. The president (if still in office) can then try again during a new Senate session, by making a new nomination, and that must be reviewed by the Senate.
As soon as the Repug nut house said they absolutely wouldn't accept any of Barry's nominations, he should have appointed a hyper-liberal to get at least one year or more of 5-4 decisions, "settled law", in favor of America. eg, the recent 4-4 pro-union decision, still open to re-litigation, would have been 5-4 and settled.
Sometimes I think Barry and his team have been intimidated by the Repug crazies.
neo-con, neo=liberal Hillary wouldn't be intimidated, she'd go along with the crazises in fucking America.
I hope that Bernie would veto the Repugs' shitty laws every time.
Republican Blockade Collapsing As 2 More GOP Senators To Meet Obama SCOTUS Nominee
At least two Senate Republicans plan to meet with Merrick Garland next week, suggesting there’s momentum behind the Democratic campaign to pressure the GOP into at least one-on-one meetings with the Supreme Court nominee, if not an actual confirmation vote this year.Sen. Susan Collins of Maine had said during an interview with a Maine radio station earlier this week she will meet with Garland. And a spokesman for Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas said Thursday that he is planning one as well.“My understanding is that is currently being worked out for next week,” Boozman spokesman Patrick Creamer said in an email.
Ten Republicans total are now on record as wanting to or planning to meet with President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. The White House is planning on scheduling meetings with a dozen Republican senators as part of their campaign to turn up the pressure and get the president’s nominee confirmed.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/...iticus+USA+%29
No surprise is these 10 Repugs are primaried by Kock Bros.
The enforcers enforce
In Reversal, GOP Sen Says He No Longer Supports Hearings For SCOTUS Nom
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...scotus-nominee
Merrick Garland: 2 GOP Senators Revoke Support for Hearings Concerning Supreme Court Nominee
Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said they have reversed course and support not holding confirmation hearings for Garland, nominated to replace the late Antonin Scalia.
the last stand of a dying racist party that is just holding on to what little power it has left. they know that latinos will outnumber whites in as little as 15 years and they are just holding on for dear life. they will burn the whole place down before they leave.
PLEASE VOTE THESE ASSHOLES OUT IN NOV.....
#FeeltheBern
these Repugs assholes NEVER assume responsibility for the shit they visit on the nation
GOP Senator Leading SCOTUS Blockade Blames Roberts For Politicizing Court
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who as chair of the Judiciary Committee is on the front lines of Republicans' battle to block President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, accused conservative Chief Justice John Roberts of being "part of the problem" when it comes to the politicization of the Supreme Court.
In remarks he made from the Senate floor Tuesday, Grassley referenced comments Robertsmade at a forum days before Scalia died. At the forum, Roberts presciently decried the "sharply political, divisive hearing process" involved in Supreme Court confirmations which he said led the American public to wrongly believe that justices were either Democrats or Republicans.
Grassley said Tuesday that the "public's perception is at least sometimes very warranted."
"The Chief Justice has it exactly backwards. The confirmation process doesn't make the justices appear political. The confirmation process has gotten political precisely because the court itself has drafted from the constitutional text and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences," Grassley said.
He added that the "the justices themselves have gotten political."
"In fact, many of my constituents believe with all due respect that the Chief Justice is part of the problem," Grassley said. "They believe that a number of his votes have reflected political considerations, not legal ones."
He then referenced an article that appeared in the New York Times in which legal scholars suggested Roberts should weigh in on Republicans' refusal to approve a nominee to the court until after a new president is elected.
"Now that's a political temptation that the Chief Justice should resist," Grassley said. "I can't think of anything any current justice could do to further damage respect for the court at this moment than to interject themselves into what Chairman Biden called the political caldron of an election-year Supreme Court vacancy."
(Grassley was alluding to a speech that Vice President Joe Biden made in 1992 when he was chair of the Senate Judiciary committee discouraging then President George H.W. Bush from filling a hypothetical Supreme Court vacancy. Biden now says Republicans are taking the speech out of context.)
Grassley brought up again Roberts' concerns that Americans view the Supreme Court as a branch no different than the two others in its politics.
"I think he is concerned with the wrong problem," Grassley said. "He would be well served to address the reality, not the perception, that too often there is little difference between the actions of the court and the actions of the political branches."
"So physician, heal thyself," he added.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29
Repugs appointed Roberts, so they knew they were getting exactly the extreme right-wing, stare decisis-ignorer, political tool, the BigCorp shill they wanted. An umpire would call every Corporate-American ball as a strike against Human-Americans.
Repugs are shitbags.
Roberts told the Judiciary Committee precisely who he would be and exactly what he would do:
Now that those aren't just hollow statements and has defied any implicit promise of his being willing to simply vote the party line, they think he's a purely political creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Roberts, September 12, 2005
Remarkable.
With the exception of ACA, Roberts and his "open mind" has voted lock-step with his extremist right wing pro-business colleagues (the views of whom are the only ones he considers) which is exactly why he got the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I have no doubt that each of the 4 rightwing pro-business justices support the Senate Repugs blocking any nominee by the knitter.
So with Trump getting the nomination, do the Republicans now confirm this nigga for fear of getting a left wing justice from a Clinton presidency instead?
Right fears Hillary, she will appoint the most liberal judges she can find. Garland isn't too bad for right wingers, except for his anti-gun stances.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch
The Senate risks pissing off the NRA by confirming Garland, but they have to be scared shitless of losing their majority with Trump getting the nomination, and then Clinton or Obama get free reign January 3rd. This is a perfect storm for the Republicans losing the Senate. The hardcore right might not show up to vote for Trump, and thus not for their senators either, while the Democrats should be able to drive a large minority turnout based on Trump's racist rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch
He voted extreme hard right, fuck stare decisis, hard for pro-business, hard for anti-citizens, except for ACA, which he half-gutted by allowing the states to opt out of Medicaid expansion, placing him as chairman of the Repug death panels.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
GOP senator shreds his own party’s Supreme Court ‘principles’
For months, Senate Republicans have said their deeply held principles require them to impose the first-ever blockade on any Supreme Court nominee. To hear GOP senators tell it, there are some core beliefs that they feel compelled to honor: (1) no nominated justice should be considered in a presidential election year; and (2) if there’s a vacancy in a presidential election year, it must be filled by the next, yet-to-be-elected president.
Even after President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, a compromise choice, Republicans said it didn’t matter since their guiding principles overlook every other consideration, including Garland’s qualifications.
But on “Meet the Press” yesterday, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) was surprisingly candid about the shallowness of his party’s talking points. In fact, after Chuck Todd asked the Arizona Republican about his party’s strategy, Flake made the case for an entirely different set of principles.
“I think Republicans are more than justified in waiting. That is following both principle and precedent. But the principle is to have the most conservative, qualified jurists that we can have on the Supreme Court, not that the people ought to decide before the next election. I’ve never held that position.
“If we come to a point, I’ve said all along, where we’re going to lose the election, or we lose the election in November, then we ought to approve him quickly. Because I’m certain that he’ll be more conservative than a Hillary Clinton nomination comes January.”
As the Washington Post’s Dave Weigel noted yesterday, Flake was effectively “just straight giving the game away” with comments like these. For all the talk about “principles,” here was a Republican senator – a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee – saying on national television that the only “principle” he cares about is his partisan and ideological goal.
Every other consideration – the constitutional process, the Senate’s responsibilities, the merits of the pending nomination, every claim made by Senate Republicans for the last three months, etc. – is unimportant compared to the GOP’s desire to have “the most conservative” justices possible.
If that means rigging the confirmation process to advance a brazenly ideological agenda, so be it.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
GOP senator: Confirming judges unrelated to ‘doing our jobs’
the fight took an unintentionally funny twist yesterday when Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said that when it comes to confirming judicial nominees, it’s not part of senators’ job. The Huffington Postreported:
Democrats including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) made repeated requests Wednesday to confirm a batch of Obama’s judicial nominees who are ready for votes. Each time they tried, Tillis objected and suggested the Senate shouldn’t be spending time on judges.
“What we get are things that have nothing to do with doing our jobs,” he said. “I’m doing my job today and objecting to these measures so we can actually get back to pressing matters.”
I realize that Tillis, a far-right freshman, hasn’t quite learned how to be an effective senator yet – the North Carolinian just took office last year – but to say that confirming judicial nominees has “nothing to do with doing our jobs” is baffling.
The Constitution isn’t explicit on much when it comes to lawmakers’ responsibilities, but the text is rather literal when it comes to this part of the governmental process: it is absolutely senators’ job to vote on judicial nominees.
“I’m not sure what version of the Constitution you’re reading that doesn’t say confirming judges is part of your job in the United States Senate,” Warren said in response to her colleague’s ridiculous comment.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Ignorant Repugs, Congressional and supporters, esp from red and slave states, fucking up America with their ideological "strict obstructionism".
Supreme Court vacancy watch Day 199: The real incentive for the Republican Supreme Court blockade
It's Wednesday, August 31, and Day 199 since Justice Antonin Scalia died and Mitch McConnell decided no nominee would get any Senate attention: No meetings, no hearings, no votes. It's also Day 168 since Merrick Garland was nominated by President Obama to fill that vacancy. So what's the Senate up to?
They're still on recess, which would give them plenty of time to read this new reportfrom the Wesleyan Media Project and the Center for Responsive Politics, on what the courts—and particularly the Supreme Court—have done to flood our electoral system with dark money.
In the 2000 election, dark money nonprofits aired more than 34,000 advertisements, according to the report.
This number dropped by half to slightly above 15,000 for both the 2004 and 2006 elections before skyrocketing to over 158,000 in 2008.
By the next presidential election in 2012, dark money groups ran over 383,000 ads. […]
Previous examinations of the surge in dark money looked at this disclosed spending [post-McCain-Feingold].
The new report’s look at actual advertisement airings adds a new wrinkle to this by providing a measure that goes back before the McCain-Feingold disclosure requirements were put in place.
Or as Robert Maguire, political nonprofit investigator for the Center for Responsive Politics, says,
"This shows more conclusively than any study done in the past that there really is a change in quantity that goes along with court decisions and the lack of oversight of these groups that has allowed nonprofit groups to be a much more tantalizing vehicle for people who want to hide their political spending."
Translation: the 2010 Citizens United decision and the listing of disclosure rules made all the difference, as the graphic below demonstrates.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/0...28Daily+Kos%29
The VRWC/Repug whores on SCOTUS have greatly corrupted America in favor of the oligarchy, BigCorp, 1%.
Thanks, Repugs. Fucking up America at every chance.
U can move to Europe any time u want that is what Bernie wants the USA to be
I, for one, will fucking laugh my ass off when Obama/Hillary withdraws the nomination. GOP could have confirmed the guy who is actually pretty acceptable to most conservatives, but didn't because they wanted to gamble that they would win the white house.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
When they lose the Senate, and lose the presidency, we as Democrats will get to nominate a liberal to replace Scalia.
Elections have consequences.
.
Meh. I don't think the Republicans lose the senate but it will be so close it will be gridlocked. 2018 historically should see the republicans do well as that election usually favors the counter party to the sitting President.
Assuming she wins, Hillary will probably nominate an economic conservative who will let transgenders choose which bathroom to shit in.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Looks close.
All we have to do as Democrats is keep shoving a microphone in front of Donald J.
Keep it up DJ!!!!
Regardless of what happens in the senate, it looks like HRC will be nominating replacements for at least two SCOTUS justices. The best conservatives can do is filibuster to try and get someone they find acceptable, but there's no getting around the court leaning more liberal for the next few decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Wasn't Uncle Thomas talking about quitting? That would be great to replace that fuckhead. Ginsburg probably won't be there too much longer. Too bad it's not Obama doing the appointments, Clinton's will surely be center-right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
slave-state Repugs just gotta fuck over, "strictly obstruct" the knitter one more time
U.S. senator: 'Unlikely' Cuba ambassador will be approved this year
The chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which oversees the confirmation of foreign service nominees, said on Wednesday it was "highly unlikely" that an ambassador to Cuba would be approved this year.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday nominated career diplomat Jeffrey DeLaurentis to be the first U.S. ambassador to Cuba in more than five decades.
"The committee was notified of the nomination yesterday but has not yet received the appropriate paperwork to begin its work," Republican Senator Bob Corker said in a statement emailed to Reuters.
"However, it is highly unlikely that an ambassador to Cuba would be approved in the lame-duck."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cu...litics+News%29
lame-duck? Rather, fucking lame Repug Congress.
John McCain’s Grand Obstructionist Party: His comments reveal the GOP’s tired gameplan for a Hillary Clinton administration — obstruct at all costs
McCain said "we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee" of Clinton's and revealed his party's true colors
"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up. I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered.
the American people should get a say by electing the president they want to see pick the next justice for the nation’s highest court.
Among the senators making this argument, of course, was John McCain.
It lies with senators like McCain who have
spent years promising voters rollbacks of Obama programs that they could never, ever deliver, and that
they knew they could not deliver but promised anyway to keep the base voting for them.
McCain has been in the Senate for 30 years. He is more than aware of both the written and unwritten norms that allow the chamber to function. Or allowed it to function, back before Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008.
McCain still spent the last eight years gleefully participating in Republican efforts to block each and every legislative initiative or executive and judicial appointment by President Obama. He is now promising to do the same for the next president.
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/18/gran...-at-all-costs/
So the Repugs made promises to their base of assholes, never delivered them, so now the base has revolted and is supporting Trash (who can't, won't deliver his shit, either)
http://www.motherjones.com/files/blo...ck_garland.jpg
Judge Garland gets confirmed in lame duck IF Democrats take Senate.
First, Obama will be loyal to Garland and not withdraw nomination and Garland won't withdraw unless Clinton asks.
Clinton won't ask despite pressure from the left to withdraw Garland for younger and more liberal candidate.
Getting Garland out of way during lame duck clears her first 100-day agenda without a nasty Supreme Court fight that eats other things. RBG has signaled she and/or Breyer will leave the court while Dems still control Senate (before 2017).
This means she can get 1 or 2 more liberal Justices on Court and/or make it a big issue in the midterms, in the hopes of turning about Dem turnout problem in the midterms. With Garland done in [lame duck], Clinton has very good chance of 1, and some chance of 2, liberal appts before 2018 elections.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...cover-his-fate
looks like he is toast
sure, Repugs have plenty of Scalia, Thomas types of VRWC extremists to pack the court with.Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
The VRWC SCOTUS will fuck Trash's conned, deluded voters real hard.
so scalia will get replaced by another conservative... the roberts court was still doing some good things with social rights. the question is if ginsburg can wait out 4 years
and we now have precedent in place to hold off judicial confirmations for about a year. nice
Thomas can retire now.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
:lol yeah, denying equal rights to minorities that the Christian Taliban hate in the name of "religious freedom"Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21