Red Mosquito

Simple Torture wrote:

stip wrote:If Rs are panicking about Trump I wonder if they might be more inclined to strike a deal right now.

That seems to be the consensus among talking heads on TV. If Garland gets confirmed, he'd probably be on the court for 15-20 years. If Clinton wins the presidency and nominates someone younger, they could be on the bench for 35-40 years.

The GOP doubled down so hard and so early that they're going to have to swallow a good amount of crow if they change their minds.

So we have another Ivy League law grad (blah), but at least he doesn't come from a borough of New York. Also, he would up the number of Jewish justices to four--the poor Protestants can't catch a break after dominating the Court for so long.

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

stip wrote:If Rs are panicking about Trump I wonder if they might be more inclined to strike a deal right now.

That seems to be the consensus among talking heads on TV. If Garland gets confirmed, he'd probably be on the court for 15-20 years. If Clinton wins the presidency and nominates someone younger, they could be on the bench for 35-40 years.

The GOP doubled down so hard and so early that they're going to have to swallow a good amount of crow if they change their minds.

All three of these posts encapsulate my immediate thoughts when I saw that Garland is going to be the nominee.

Everything about the GOP right now is built around obstructionism so I don't think they can back down.

From Garland's wikipedia page -

In May (2010), Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said he would help Obama if Garland was nominated, calling Garland as "a consensus nominee", and that Garland would win Senate confirmation with bipartisan support.[30]

30. "Republican would back Garland for Supreme Court". Reuters. May 6, 2010. Retrieved March 16, 2016.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... QY20100506

Senator Orrin Hatch said he had known the federal appeals court judge, seen as a leading contender for the Supreme Court, for years and that he would be "a consensus nominee."

Asked if Garland would win Senate confirmation with bipartisan support, Hatch told Reuters, "No question."

"I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes. And I will do my best to help him get them," added Hatch, a former Judiciary Committee chairman.

Green Habit wrote:So we have another Ivy League law grad (blah), but at least he doesn't come from a borough of New York. Also, he would up the number of Jewish justices to four--the poor Protestants can't catch a break after dominating the Court for so long.

Religious persecution!!!

the republicans would be stupid not to confirm this guy. they're not going to get a better, more centrist choice with hillary. and they have to realize that trump will not be around after election day.

I can't wait until Hilary wins the election in November and the Senate Republicans scramble to approve Garland before she takes office, because all the Dems who are now complaining about how 'the Republicans should do their job and approve this president's nominee' are going to all of a sudden want to put off approving a nominee until next year so Hilary can choose a more liberal, younger nominee.

The Argonaut wrote:I can't wait until Hilary wins the election in November and the Senate Republicans scramble to approve Garland before she takes office, because all the Dems who are now complaining about how 'the Republicans should do their job and approve this president's nominee' are going to all of a sudden want to put off approving a nominee until next year so Hilary can choose a more liberal, younger nominee.

That eventuality has already been reported by NPR.

B wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:I can't wait until Hilary wins the election in November and the Senate Republicans scramble to approve Garland before she takes office, because all the Dems who are now complaining about how 'the Republicans should do their job and approve this president's nominee' are going to all of a sudden want to put off approving a nominee until next year so Hilary can choose a more liberal, younger nominee.

That eventuality has already been reported by NPR.

I can't wait!

The other potential problem for Republican senators caving on Garland is that some of them could face a primary challenge if they allow him to be confirmed. I can already see the attack ad: "Sen. [insert name] voted for the left-wing Merrick Garland, who is poised to take away your Second Amendment rights and make abortion legal in all circumstances!"

How can that not vote to confirm the hero that brought Timothy McVeigh to justice? Do they love terrorism?

How much influence did Ted Cruz have on this?

He does look a little Muppet-ish.

Green Habit wrote:The other potential problem for Republican senators caving on Garland is that some of them could face a primary challenge if they allow him to be confirmed. I can already see the attack ad: "Sen. [insert name] voted for the left-wing Merrick Garland, who is poised to take away your Second Amendment rights and make abortion legal in all circumstances!"

remember those opposite chicken-little arguments against Roberts and Alito?

B wrote:How can that not vote to confirm the hero that brought Timothy McVeigh to justice? Do they love terrorism?

I'd vote for whoever opposes the nomination on Timothy McVeigh related grounds.

Chris_H_2 wrote:the republicans would be stupid not to confirm this guy. they're not going to get a better, more centrist choice with hillary. and they have to realize that trump will not be around after election day.

Centrism has relatively little worth if judicial restraint and deference to the legislature are the highest values of the nominee. A far left nominee might at least do interesting things regarding criminal justice. An activist will find it hard to 'discover' new rights or obligations by themselves, and will be restrained by the rest of the court. Deference to the legislature is only useful if your party intends to write every important piece of legislature for perpetuity.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:The other potential problem for Republican senators caving on Garland is that some of them could face a primary challenge if they allow him to be confirmed. I can already see the attack ad: "Sen. [insert name] voted for the left-wing Merrick Garland, who is poised to take away your Second Amendment rights and make abortion legal in all circumstances!"

remember those opposite chicken-little arguments against Roberts and Alito?

Actually, I don't. I probably need to reread the discussion you and punkdavid had back when they were nominated back on the old board.

OK, a little more SCOTUS game theory here. Let's say the GOP does nothing with Garland, as they've been threatening to do mere minutes after Scalia died. Let's also say they get wiped out in November and lose the White House and the Senate. If you're the Senate Republicans, do you try to fast track Garland's nomination before January out of fear that Clinton will appoint someone worse? And if you're Obama, do you suddenly withdraw Garland's nomination before the GOP can act, saying in more polite words that "you wanted the next President to fill this seat, now your wish is coming true"? That would be incredibly unfair to Garland, but politics certainly isn't fair.

I do sort of feel bad for Garland, because I really don't see him ever rising to the court. Part of me hopes this is a long con and that if Clinton wins and the Republicans lose control of the Senate, Clinton nominates Obama (not that I want him to be a justice, but just to see the reaction).

Simple Torture wrote:I do sort of feel bad for Garland, because I really don't see him ever rising to the court. Part of me hopes this is a long con and that if Clinton wins and the Republicans lose control of the Senate, Clinton nominates Obama (not that I want him to be a justice, but just to see the reaction).

The reaction I want to see is Obama nominating himself to the Court.