The Honorable Chief Judge Merrick Garland

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Repugs block Garland, then Barry socks the shit out of them with recess apptmt of a 40ish hyper-liberal.

---

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.

If Trump wins you think he'll nominate Judge Judy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

If Trump wins you think he'll nominate Judge Judy?

---

His sister.

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.

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.

---

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 lol

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.

Quote:

---

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 djohn2oo8

No way Ak 47s and shit like that belong on the street, though.

---

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 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.

---

technically.

the AKM's look and function almost exactly the same as th 47's without the select fire option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

technically.

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 baseline bum

Yep, 0% chance this guy is getting confirmed

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djohn2oo8

There is a 0 percent chance anyone he names gets approved

---

Much higher than 0%. I'd put this scenario at about 1 in 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splits

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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

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.

---

They should just approve him now and avoid all of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

They should just approve him now and avoid all of this.

---

exactly.

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

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.

---

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.