Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2016 - 06:54pm PT
|
This nomination is DOA for now. They have the votes. The only way it advances is if Hillary wins in Nov. and the Republicans figure that she'll nominate someone more liberal after she's sworn in next Jan.
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2016 - 07:31pm PT
|
It makes sense that Obama announces he will continue to put forward Garland for the Supreme Court until a new president is elected, and he becomes a lame duck.
That takes care of the Republican Senators that think they can approve Garland as a last-gasp choice, if Hillary Clinton becomes president.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2016 - 07:33pm PT
|
"Sixty-three percent of Americans say that the Senate should have hearings on the nominee."
Since when has public opinion ever meant a goddam thing to the RepubliCorporatocracy®?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2016 - 07:50pm PT
|
The only way the sh#t can really hit the fan is the Repubs both lose the presidency and control of the Senate (which admittedly could happen).
If Hillary wins but the Repubs retain the Senate, all's not lost, they just need to keep rejecting whatever lefty Hillary nominates.
It probably wouldn't be tenable for the Senate to say it wouldn't even consider whomever Hillary nominates (as tempting a proposition as that would be).
But there's no reason for the Senate to accept anyone who doesn't meet its standards.
Garland may well be another reflexive statist lefty in the Kagan-Sotomayor mold--I don't see the threat that Hillary may nominate someone even worse as much of an inducement to the Senate.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 17, 2016 - 09:22am PT
|
Increasingly, I think republican senators will cave.
This morning, Senator Hatch stated that maybe-perhaps-gosh, you never know!, the senate might consider Garland's nomination after the election, which is inconsistent with their stated position that the next president should make the appointment.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 09:56am PT
|
Increasingly, I think republican senators will cave.
If by "caving" you mean out-maneuvering Obama, I tend to agree.
I think the plan all along was to use the rhetoric of not considering any nominee to goad Obama into picking a more-or-less moderate in order to try to shame the Repubs, with Obama not thinking the Repubs would actually accept whoever he nominates anyway, so it doesn't matter that he picked someone far less liberal than he really wanted.
But now the Repubs essentially have a cost-free option of accepting Garland if they so choose--there's really no way Obama can un-nominate him.
I almost feel sorry for Obama how bad he's got screwed on this one . . . almost.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 17, 2016 - 09:59am PT
|
Interesting take, blah.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 10:24am PT
|
there's really no way Obama can un-nominate him.
Let's see....
In the history of nominations names were withdrawn by presidents Washington, John Adams, Tyler, Grant, Hoover, Johnson (2), Nixon (2), Reagan (2), and GWB.
It appears Obama is not restricted.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 11:03am PT
|
so it doesn't matter that he picked someone far less liberal than he really wanted. Unless you're clairvoyant, you can't really say how liberal a nominee he "really wanted". Generally, Democratic nominees are more centrist than those nominated by their Republican counterparts.
Rather, it is the constant refrain from the right that Obama wanted someone really liberal, but that is an argument applied to many areas: 'Obama is going to take your guns', 'Obama is going to use the federal govt. to usurp state's rights', etc. Many Republican fears are not supported by any demonstrable facts.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 17, 2016 - 11:05am PT
|
Unless Judge Garland has some serious skeletons in his closet I strongly doubt he would withdraw the nomination. That would reflect very poorly on the President.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 11:20am PT
|
If a democrat wins the presidency and the Senate turns, the president may defer the choice to the next president, and use the tea party rhetoric about lame duck nominations to justify it.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 11:31am PT
|
Many Republican fears are not supported by any demonstrable facts.
Understatement of the year.
Obama has demonstrated many moderate/centrist tendencies over the course of the last 8 years. Of course the Reps/Cons need to see it all as extreme left. So nominating Garland may be a choice he'd be happy with no matter the circumstance. He's nominated two one the liberal side. He could be picking someone to keep the court more or less balanced and he thinks that's good for the country and his legacy. Who cares if many on the right are bigots and only want the country to work for them, Obama and others may have empathy and want to try to make things work as well as possible for everyone. You know, like the founding fathers intended.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 11:35am PT
|
Generally, Democratic nominees are more centrist than those nominated by their Republican counterparts.
I think I need to understand your definition of "centrist" before I can respond to that one, Steve. To my mind, the last true centrist nominated by a Democrat was Byron White, and the last by a Republican was Anthony Kennedy. Perhaps Breyer and Roberts could be called "centrist" as well, but Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor have rendered no decision that didn't go predictably left (or else resulted in their predictable recusal), and Alito and Thomas have been predictably right.
John
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 11:43am PT
|
John
does the Senate Republicans strategy of going along for perhaps up to a year until the new President nominates a justice actually work against them in the mean time?
with the court now at 8 that would mean that any overturning lower courts would require 5-3 majority and only 4-4 to not overturn?
my understanding is that there are a few important lower court appeals in front of the
SCOTUS that is in the political right's interests, for example the recent
abortion access requiring hospital admitting credentials was it not stymied?
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 11:45am PT
|
It was not necessary to add more liberals to the court, already have Kagen and Sotomayor. With them it is a 4-4 split, Garland is left of center so I think we will see a lot of the 5-4 decisions going in the progressive direction. Obama was not tricked by the GOP, in fact Garland was on the short list for prior nominations.
Did anyone double check to make sure Tony was really dead?
Norton - the 4-4 split is a double edged sword. On a 4-4 decision the lower court decision stands. so it depends on what the lower court did.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 11:50am PT
|
"Sixty-three percent of Americans say that the Senate should have hearings on the nominee."
The Republicans are such asswipes--Their statement, via Ryan said " We should let the American people decide the direction of the court."
What a liar.
The American people electeded Obama--that was their voice.
The American people now say they don't want the Senate to hold up the nomination process:
The survey, released Tuesday night by the Wall Street Journal, found 55 percent of all registered voters disagreed with Senate Republicans' refusal to set Judiciary Committee hearings to vet a potential nominee for the high court, effectively blocking the first step of the confirmation process.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-09/poll-majority-oppose-gops-plan-to-block-obamas-supreme-court-nominee
The Republicans are such asswipes.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 11:50am PT
|
Norton - the 4-4 split is a double edged sword. On a 4-4 decision the lower court decision stands. so it depends on what the lower court did.
The lower court ruling only stands in whatever circuit it is being appealed from and can be revisited by a later Supreme Court if it chooses.
It does not set precedent.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 11:52am PT
|
Norton,
I agree that the status quo on the SCOTUS will result in many 4-4 decisions. These have the effect of affirming the decision in the court below (technically, the court does not reverse the decision. That is a bit more like denying certiorari (i.e. deciding not to hear the case.) The conventional legal wisdom is that denying cert. just means the court didn't make a decision; it does not really validate the opinion from which the appellant sought review.)
I was skimming the docket on the court's website this morning, but I haven't looked carefully enough to see whether the net effect of the current, likely, deadlock favors any particular ideology.
John
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 11:53am PT
|
Garland is left of center, how so?
just last week he was praised as strictly neutral by prominent GOP Senator
who commented that he liked Garland not siding with criminal defendants,
normally seen as a leftist stance by the right
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2016 - 11:58am PT
|
Garland is not saddled with an anti-government bias. He is pragmatic which disqualifies him from being right wing and he was appointed to the Court of Appeals by Clinton.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!