Merrick Garland's Supreme Court Nomination

FiveThirtyEight's take is interesting.

I didn't see this posted yet, but it cuts to the quick.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

FiveThirtyEight's take is interesting.

I didn't see this posted yet, but it cuts to the quick.

That's an optimistic number of digits for the "day" counter.

Yonder wrote:
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?

No? As in NOT just like that?

Am I alone here in thinking that a successful Trump nomination probably doesn't end in a riot?

Jolly Bill wrote:
Yonder wrote:
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?

No? As in NOT just like that?

Am I alone here in thinking that a successful Trump nomination probably doesn't end in a riot?

I mean, it could end in a riot when Clinton takes the general as a result.

Demosthenes wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:
Yonder wrote:
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?

No? As in NOT just like that?

Am I alone here in thinking that a successful Trump nomination probably doesn't end in a riot?

I mean, it could end in a riot when Clinton takes the general as a result. :D

Sure, but that's unlikely to happen in July

Jolly Bill wrote:
Yonder wrote:
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?

No? As in NOT just like that?

Am I alone here in thinking that a successful Trump nomination probably doesn't end in a riot?

It's less likely, and I think the damage would be much less, but I can still see some celebratory rioting. Especially considering the distraught protesters that will also be in the area.

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.

I was purely meaning in the legal/constitutional sense - I'm not really familiar with the American system.

garion333 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

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

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

I can't decide whether to make a joke about how they managed to give Obama 7/8ths of this two terms, so that must be an improvement in race relations, or that 3/5ths is giving them too much credit, considering the Republicans have had a strategy "No, nothing, never" since day 1.

Or to just start updating my resume and look for IT companies in Commonwealth countries.

Democrats plan push to force hearings on Supreme Court nomination

Democrats began laying out an aggressive strategy Thursday to get Judge Merrick Garland considered by the Senate and seated on the Supreme Court, over what appears to be implacable Republican opposition.

The approach, which is being implemented in part by a well-organized group led by former aides to President Obama, involves targeting vulnerable GOP Senate incumbents for defeat by portraying them as unwilling to fulfill the basic duties of their office. The idea is to so threaten the Republicans’ Senate majority that party leaders will reconsider blocking hearings on Garland’s nomination.

“You’re going to be surprised at how hard we’re going to work to make sure this is on the front pages of all the papers,” Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters after meeting with Garland on Thursday.

I've already seen commercials against Kelly Ayotte in NH about this from the DSCC, so they're starting quickly. She's being primaried from the right however, with the election not until September, so I doubt she'll budge on this without a lot of pressure.

qaraq wrote:

I've already seen commercials against Kelly Ayotte in NH about this from the DSCC, so they're starting quickly. She's being primaried from the right however, with the election not until September, so I doubt she'll budge on this without a lot of pressure.

Yeah, I still see this as a lose lose lose situation for the Republicans. If they budge before their primaries they are really hurt from the right. The they budge after their primaries the Democrats get a victory pretty close to the election, and while they've relieved pressure from the moderates, they've also angered their base "in their moment of triumph" which may hurt morale and turnout with them more than it helps with the moderates. If they don't budge they get hit by the moderates and drive turnout on the left as much as they do on the right.

Just one of the many examples this year of how the GOP has backed themselves into a very tight space, and no matter how they get out it's going to be painful. Hopefully mostly for them and not as much for the country as a whole.

There is a fantastic interview with Obama by NPRs Nina Totenberg (who is a terrific Supreme Court reporter) on NPR

Why President Obama Picked The 'Only White Guy' On His Shortlist

Also there is the full version on YouTube

My take: I like what he says about this politicizing the judicial process. It opens the door to both parties turning the judiciary into a political process. People can argue that it already was but I disagree, politics has only dipped its toes into these waters, not swam in them.

Also, on a side note, it reminds me how much I liked Obama. He's a very smart man, it's a shame the Republicans sabotaged his Presidency but that's a topic for another thread

He's a very smart man

The longer he's allowed to talk, the smarter he gets to seem. I don't know that I've noticed that to such an extent with other politicians, but then not many other politicians are affiliated with my alma mater, either, so I may be teh bias.

Obama has always come across as professorial to me, which I like, but that doesn't usually make for good sound bites. Couple that with the current wave of embracing ignorance and mistrust of those who appear overly educated and we're back to having people zone out when Obama starts to talk at length about a subject. One liners have become about the level of tolerance for Presidential quotes. That's one thing that makes Trump so appealing. You can find a quote of his that aligns perfectly with whatever you're feeling. Just don't look for anything beyond that one-liner. I'd actually love to see an AI program that responded to all interactions with a Trump quote. I bet it wouldn't find too many situations it couldnt' address.

Obama has always struck me as the ultimate dinner party guest.

Not so much something new, but I needed to share.

A friend on Facebook (it starts like this so often) stated that he hates how the judicial nomination process is so politicized, and he wants SCJs to be elected instead.

After nearly spitting out my drink, we had a discussion where I proposed that:

1. Having every SCJ nominated by Executive branch.
2. Having every SCJ approved by the Legislative branch.
3. Having both branches know that they'll be stuck with whomever they pick.

Is about as apolitical as this government gets. It pretty much forces compromises to occur and achieves a balance of legal opinion which can change gradually over time inside the Supreme Court. It also means our government doesn't tend to take these decisions lightly... at least most of the time.

I don't like what's going on right now with the nomination process, but I have few if any problems with the process as it's designed.

Oh... and my friend backtracked on his position with a "Hmmm... I sort of agree." A facebook anomaly!

How would direct elections not be political? Would judges have billion dollar campaigns? "As we already said, money is speech, so keep talking..."

On Wait Wait Don't Tell Me this week, Peter Sagal said that Merrick Garland's name sounds like an old-timey Christmas tradition. "Hey, let's bring out the Merrick Garland and drink some nog!"

I keep thinking of the Final Fantasy bosses.

sometimesdee wrote:

I keep thinking of the Final Fantasy bosses.

You're not the only one

shoptroll wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

I keep thinking of the Final Fantasy bosses.

You're not the only one

-smacks forehead-

Now I know why his name keeps irking me! I feel like I fought him quite a few times on my Super Nintendo.

Just an update...nothing is happening but he certainly sounds like a good candidate.

ABA Calls Obama SCOTUS Nominee A Possible Perfect Human Being

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee (where Obama nominations go to wither away and die from Republican obstruction), Karol Corbin Walker, chair of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, wrote that in their opinion, Garland has no weaknesses.

He may be the “perfect human being.”

“The Standing Committee unanimously concluded that Judge Garland merits our highest rating and is ‘Well Qualified’ for appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

A “well-qualified” rating is the highest score the ABA Committee gives. Along with this highest rating, the report cited praise upon praise from various sources for Garland. “Judge Garland is considered a model lawyer, judge and person, who should be emulated.” “Judge Garland is a man of the highest competence and the highest integrity, and his temperament is an admirable one for any judge.” Garland is also known for his hard work and ethical conduct. He is beloved by both sides of the aisle.

Well, my original prediction was that they would approve the nomination sometime between now and the convention. We'll see how possible that is. It's really starting to feel like they have painted themselves in a corner and it's November or bust.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Well, my original prediction was that they would approve the nomination sometime between now and the convention. We'll see how possible that is. It's really starting to feel like they have painted themselves in a corner and it's November or bust.

I mean, given the absolute sh*tshow they're looking at for November, you would think they'd want to take what they can get now before they have even less agency in the process come January, but maybe that's just the logical thought... and thus why do that when there's Obama nominating him.

He may be the “perfect human being.”

These are things that make me suspicious in real life. In scripted narrative, they'd be a clear indication that he's going down.

He may be the “perfect human being.”

Someone needs to photoshop him into the Milla Jovovich role in the Fifth Element, stat.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:
He may be the “perfect human being.”

Someone needs to photoshop him into the Milla Jovovich role in the Fifth Element, stat.

MerrickGarlandMultipass - though my brain went to the Kwisatz Haderach first

wordsmythe wrote:
He may be the “perfect human being.”

These are things that make me suspicious in real life. In scripted narrative, they'd be a clear indication that he's going down.

Merrick Garland is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

Are we sure Trump didn't nominate this guy? He seems like Trump's kind of people. Only the best, really the most perfect, humans for Trump.

Chuck Grassley Says He Could Be Persuaded To Hold Lame Duck Hearing For Merrick Garland

But during a question and answer session at the Sioux City Rotary Club on Monday, he said he could change his position and hold a hearing between the November election and Inauguration Day if Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins the White House, and a majority of senators convinced him to do so, according to multiple reports.

So when he finally knows Hillary will be in, and perhaps even the Senate flipped, then he would consider Merrick? What a f*cking asshole.

I hope, pray, beg that if Dems do get the presidency and the senate they tell him for f*ck off and that Hillary will nominate someone far, far, far more left wing than Garland.