Merrick Garland's Supreme Court Nomination

RooksGambit wrote:

This is awesome, I love The Onion.

I really don' t know what more to say...he's not going to be given a chance and I think most of us know this. The Republicans have said it so many times, and so loudly that they can't walk back on it now. They're stuck holding and defending that position and honestly, for most of them, it will work. Their constituents want this kind of action, they want to stop Obama at every turn. Yeah, there's going to be people in their states who are unhappy, but the plurality of their voters will praise and reward this, not condemn it.

Ehhhhhhhhhh, last I saw, Portman was losing ground in polling for his current reelection campaign. And even if none of the Republicans with the power to hold these hearings was up for reelection, they have to know this isn't doing them any favors downticket in a year where we are likely to see a LOT of folks voting.

Demosthenes wrote:
RooksGambit wrote:

This is awesome, I love The Onion.

I really don' t know what more to say...he's not going to be given a chance and I think most of us know this. The Republicans have said it so many times, and so loudly that they can't walk back on it now. They're stuck holding and defending that position and honestly, for most of them, it will work. Their constituents want this kind of action, they want to stop Obama at every turn. Yeah, there's going to be people in their states who are unhappy, but the plurality of their voters will praise and reward this, not condemn it.

Ehhhhhhhhhh, last I saw, Portman was losing ground in polling for his current reelection campaign. And even if none of the Republicans with the power to hold these hearings was up for reelection, they have to know this isn't doing them any favors downticket in a year where we are likely to see a LOT of folks voting.

Portman and Toomey are the most at risk but they were at risk before all of this because they're in states with a split electorate. For the majority of Republicans who are in solidly red states, this will play well. In fact, not blocking would hurt them far more.

So if the GOP does block all of Obama's nominees and then Trump wins, is there anything to stop the democrats from blocking his nominees in the same way?

RooksGambit wrote:

Portman and Toomey are the most at risk but they were at risk before all of this because they're in states with a split electorate. For the majority of Republicans who are in solidly red states, this will play well. In fact, not blocking would hurt them far more.

Maybe the plan is to hold the ground until all their primaries are done, and then quickly confirm before the general?

Sonicator wrote:

So if the GOP does block all of Obama's nominees and then Trump wins, is there anything to stop the democrats from blocking his nominees in the same way?

It depends. Unless the Democrats do really, really well in the Senate during elections (possible in general, but in a scenario where enough Trump voters went to the polls to get him elected much less likely) the Republicans will still hold the majority of the Senate.

All a Supreme Court Justice confirmation needs is that majority, so the only way for the Democratic minority to stop that would be to filibuster. Historically, prior to these last 8 years, filibusters have never (or maybe really rarely?) been used for nominations. In the last 8 years the Republicans have done it all the freaking time. However, it still has never been done for a Supreme Court nomination.

If the Democrats were to do that it would hurt their argument that the Republicans are a party of enormous, beyond the pale obstruction based on blind identity politics and not actually getting or not getting reasonable things done. Especially because if Trump's candidate actually had 100% of Republicans behind it s/he may be reasonable, as opposed to his daughter or whatever.

It has been reported that the Republicans have communicated to Obama through back channels that they are going to wait until November to decide. If Clinton wins, they will take Garland because of the threat of worse coming down the pike.

Sonicator wrote:

So if the GOP does block all of Obama's nominees and then Trump wins, is there anything to stop the democrats from blocking his nominees in the same way?

The fact that they approved two of Obama's other nominees? The ones made before his last year in office.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Sonicator wrote:

So if the GOP does block all of Obama's nominees for the current open seat and then Trump wins, is there anything to stop the democrats from blocking his nominees in the same way?

The fact that they approved two of Obama's other nominees? The ones made before his last year in office.

Does that help?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Sonicator wrote:

So if the GOP does block all of Obama's nominees and then Trump wins, is there anything to stop the democrats from blocking his nominees in the same way?

The fact that they approved two of Obama's other nominees? The ones made before his last year in office.

For people wondering about specifics, 23% of Republican Senators confirmed Sotomayor, 12% confirmed Kagan.

The ones made before his last year in office.

Boy that sounds silly every time I read it.

He's black. He gets 3/5's of a term.

Paleocon wrote:

He's black. He gets 3/5's of a term.

Ouch. That's seems on point, doesn't it?

Yonder wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Sonicator wrote:

So if the GOP does block all of Obama's nominees and then Trump wins, is there anything to stop the democrats from blocking his nominees in the same way?

The fact that they approved two of Obama's other nominees? The ones made before his last year in office.

For people wondering about specifics, 23% of Republican Senators confirmed Sotomayor, 12% confirmed Kagan.

So 1% would confirm Garland?

Paleocon wrote:

He's black. He gets 3/5's of a term.

Heyyyo!

Paleocon wrote:

It has been reported that the Republicans have communicated to Obama through back channels that they are going to wait until November to decide. If Clinton wins, they will take Garland because of the threat of worse coming down the pike.

If that's the case, and Clinton wins, what's to stop Obama from withdrawing the nomination at that point, and either not nominating anyone else in the name of being a lame duck, or nominating a raging liberal?

Chaz wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It has been reported that the Republicans have communicated to Obama through back channels that they are going to wait until November to decide. If Clinton wins, they will take Garland because of the threat of worse coming down the pike.

If that's the case, and Clinton wins, what's to stop Obama from withdrawing the nomination at that point, and either not nominating anyone else in the name of being a lame duck, or nominating a raging liberal?

Not a thing and I hope he does it.

Me too.

I am pretty sure that Obama has made it clear that his offer has an expiration date.

farley3k wrote:
Chaz wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It has been reported that the Republicans have communicated to Obama through back channels that they are going to wait until November to decide. If Clinton wins, they will take Garland because of the threat of worse coming down the pike.

If that's the case, and Clinton wins, what's to stop Obama from withdrawing the nomination at that point, and either not nominating anyone else in the name of being a lame duck, or nominating a raging liberal?

Not a thing and I hope he does it.

"I believe that it was my Constitutional duty to nominate a qualified candidate, and it was the Constitutional duty of the Senate to confirm that qualified candidate. The Republican party was wrong to purposefully fail in their Constitutional duty for eight months--many times longer than any nominee for the Supreme Court has ever waited pending approval--however it is now November, we cannot get that eight months back.

"So there is now no reason not to do what the Republicans have demanded for the past months and look to the results of this election to ensure a Justice is chosen that matches the wishes of the American people. Eight months ago I nominated Garland based partially on the electoral gains that the American people had given the Republican party in 2014. This month's elections make it clear, however, that another nominee better represents the wishes of the American people, with that in mind I withdraw Garland from consideration and nominate XXX."

Yonder wrote:
farley3k wrote:
Chaz wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

It has been reported that the Republicans have communicated to Obama through back channels that they are going to wait until November to decide. If Clinton wins, they will take Garland because of the threat of worse coming down the pike.

If that's the case, and Clinton wins, what's to stop Obama from withdrawing the nomination at that point, and either not nominating anyone else in the name of being a lame duck, or nominating a raging liberal?

Not a thing and I hope he does it.

"I believe that it was my Constitutional duty to nominate a qualified candidate, and it was the Constitutional duty of the Senate to confirm that qualified candidate. The Republican party was wrong to purposefully fail in their Constitutional duty for eight months--many times longer than any nominee for the Supreme Court has ever waited pending approval--however it is now November, we cannot get that eight months back.

"So there is now no reason not to do what the Republicans have demanded for the past months and look to the results of this election to ensure a Justice is chosen that matches the wishes of the American people. Eight months ago I nominated Garland based partially on the electoral gains that the American people had given the Republican party in 2014. This month's elections make it clear, however, that another nominee better represents the wishes of the American people, with that in mind I withdraw Garland from consideration and nominate XXX."

IMAGE(http://www.movienewz.com/img/films/xxx3-movie-poster.jpg)

The thing about this is, I'd expect to see it on Clickhole, not the Onion. The Onion is for outright satire, the Clickhole is for things that actually sound semi-plausible unless you pay attention. The way things have been going, that story is more like Clickhole material.

Dixie_Flatline wrote:

The thing about this is, I'd expect to see it on Clickhole, not the Onion. The Onion is for outright satire, the Clickhole is for things that actually sound semi-plausible unless you pay attention. The way things have been going, that story is more like Clickhole material.

You've obviously never read any Onion articles about Joe Biden

Dixie_Flatline wrote:

The thing about this is, I'd expect to see it on Clickhole, not the Onion. The Onion is for outright satire, the Clickhole is for things that actually sound semi-plausible unless you pay attention. The way things have been going, that story is more like Clickhole material.

Have you been following this election season? I almost feel sorry for The Onion writers, it must be getting impossible to come up with anything that won't immediately fall into Poe's Law.

I just watched a Samantha Bee clip where she meets with young, diverse, educated Trump supporters.
The Republicans can absolutely walk back from this. There seems to be few things they can do that they can't twist into fueling their base or when all else fails, doubling down on crazy works with regularity.
Case in point (not verbatim):
Samantha Bee - how are we going to build the wall, we can't afford it?
Trump supporter - Mexico is going to pay for the wall
SB assistant - the Mexican president said there is no way they are paying for the wall
Trump supporter - you know what Trump says? "That wall just got 10 feet higher!"

Yonder wrote:
RooksGambit wrote:

Portman and Toomey are the most at risk but they were at risk before all of this because they're in states with a split electorate. For the majority of Republicans who are in solidly red states, this will play well. In fact, not blocking would hurt them far more.

Maybe the plan is to hold the ground until all their primaries are done, and then quickly confirm before the general?

I think it's more likely they confirm just before a brokered convention, which will immediately be drowned out by that insanity.

Jolly Bill wrote:
Yonder wrote:
RooksGambit wrote:

Portman and Toomey are the most at risk but they were at risk before all of this because they're in states with a split electorate. For the majority of Republicans who are in solidly red states, this will play well. In fact, not blocking would hurt them far more.

Maybe the plan is to hold the ground until all their primaries are done, and then quickly confirm before the general?

I think it's more likely they confirm just before a brokered convention, which will immediately be drowned out by that insanity.

I don't think Mitch McConnell would like to do something to antagonize the mob against him specifically right before the riot of the contested convention. Unless McConnell isn't going to Cleveland, in which case that would probably be alright. For him anyways.

Unless they are more or less giving in to the idea of a Trump nomination at this point... a contested convention that Trump wins leads to no riots and drowning news coverage.

Jolly Bill wrote:
Yonder wrote:
RooksGambit wrote:

Portman and Toomey are the most at risk but they were at risk before all of this because they're in states with a split electorate. For the majority of Republicans who are in solidly red states, this will play well. In fact, not blocking would hurt them far more.

Maybe the plan is to hold the ground until all their primaries are done, and then quickly confirm before the general?

I think it's more likely they confirm just before a brokered convention, which will immediately be drowned out by that insanity.

That'd be my bet as well. It's the ... conservative play.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Lol, I doubt he would do it, but I would love to see a bit of gamesmanship in the process.

Start with Merrick... after 4 or 8 weeks of no movement, withdraw the nomination and then nominate someone slightly more liberal.

4 to 8 weeks later... withdraw the nomination and then nominate someone even MORE liberal.

etc.

Keeps the obstruction in the news cycle, along with the media fascination with each new candidate and analysis of the current political climate. Actually, I'm loving this idea more and more, even if all Obama does is go down through his short list of 5 candidates over 7 months.

(Bane voice) "I will kill one anti-abortion bill every week until you see reason."

I suspect this dude is Obama's compromise choice nominated in earnest, but in practical terms he's a helmet held aloft in a window with a stick.

I suspect this dude is Obama's compromise choice nominated in earnest

Frustrating as it's been, that's Obama's MO.

wordsmythe wrote:
I suspect this dude is Obama's compromise choice nominated in earnest

Frustrating as it's been, that's Obama's MO.

And in any other political environment, it would be laudable.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Unless they are more or less giving in to the idea of a Trump nomination at this point... a contested convention that Trump wins leads to no riots and drowning news coverage.

Just like there are never riots when the local sports team wins, right?