Merrick Garland to be nominated by Obama for Scalia's SCOTUS seat

[quade 3]

rushmc

History is your friend

Perhaps you should get to know "your friend" a little better.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,384]

>So we will let the voters decide then

Until your side loses. Then you will blame the "lamestream media" and "low information voters" just as you did last time.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-gizzi-orrin-hatch-obama-will-nominate/2016/03/13/id/718871/

Wonder how Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is going to backtrack from this one.

[quade 3]

SkyDekker

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-gizzi-orrin-hatch-obama-will-nominate/2016/03/13/id/718871/

Wonder how Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is going to backtrack from this one.

This is the sort of thing that happens to people who speak in absolutes.

I realize Ayn Rand devotes pages and pages and pages to the topic of never leaving any wiggle room, but this is the sort of thing that results.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>So we will let the voters decide then

Until your side loses. Then you will blame the "lamestream media" and "low information voters" just as you did last time.

It will be what it will be

Pretty simple

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

So we will let the voters decide then

The voters did decide. What's that popular re-election slogan again? Was it "Three more years!"? Nope, doesn't sound quite right. "Two and a half more years!"? No, that wasn't it either. Someone help me out here, how long were they electing him for?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

rushmc

Ah
yes there is

History is your friend

Ah, like what?

Heck, just out of interest how many times in the last 50 years (that was the time period being thrown around before, right?) has the issue of a Supreme court nomination even arisen in the last year of a President's term?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 3]

https://youtu.be/iK7-FCJ1O-A

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

jakee

***Ah
yes there is

History is your friend

Ah, like what?

Heck, just out of interest how many times in the last 50 years (that was the time period being thrown around before, right?) has the issue of a Supreme court nomination even arisen in the last year of a President's term?

This was bouncing around on FB a couple weeks ago. I don't think they limited it to 50 years. The answer was 21%. (no real surprise, the math says it should be 25%)

Never before has an opposition Senate refused to even consider a candidate. Some didn't make it out of committee, but the blanket "we won't even hold hearings" is unprecedented AFAIK.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

This is obstructionism, plain and simple. I would say the same thing if a Rep were in office.

WRJoe

but the blanket "we won't even hold hearings" is unprecedented AFAIK.

I find it idiotic - The Senate needs to do it's job. If he's truly just going to be a rubber stamp leftist vote on the court, then they have the ability to vote NO - formally, and under the current process

1 - Acknowledge the nomination
2 - hold interviews and hearings
3 - Vote (vote NO, heck - if he turns out to be objective and a good judge, maybe vote yes - who wants to take a chance on a Hillary or Trump nominee. They'll have 4 years to push the issue, Obama only has a few months to try to establish a judicial pick - if this one fails, he'll have to try to find someone more palatable to both sides instead of partisan games)

Seems they don't have the balls to trust their own members on this.

Heck - even going through the process instead of "we'll just ignore it until next spring" at least gives the illusion of taking process seriously.

This is coming across as a tantrum, not as a "solid Republican stand". They can 'stand strong' by holding a hearing and voting.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 18]

The Senate is doing the job exactly as Joe Biden said should be done.

Not confirming an anti second amendment nut is the correct thing to do

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,384]

rehmwa

I find it idiotic - The Senate needs to do it's job.

Agreed. If they don't want to confirm him, then hold a hearing, vote no and reject him. Simply refusing to do your job in most places (other than government, of course) would get you fired.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Not confirming an anti second amendment nut is the correct thing to do

Can you in any way back this up? Any decisions you can point to?

[Channman 2]

Ted Cruz now that would be a great choice. Now with that said, the Biden Rule, Chucky, Obama....and others are on record opposing Presidential nominations.

Therefore, what goes around comes around. Don't have to like it, just need to learn to deal with it.

[okalb 78]

rushmc

Not confirming an anti second amendment nut is the correct thing to do

That is fine, then they should hold hearings and not confirm him. That is how it is supposed to work. The problem is that they are more interested in making a stupid anti Obama statement than they are in doing their job. I have not seen anyone state that they MUST confirm the nominee. People just want them to do their job and hold the hearings. If the hearings show that he is not a qualified candidate, then they should not confirm. If he is qualified then they should. All anyone is asking them to do is hold the hearings, which it is their job to do.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[rehmwa 2]

rushmc

The Senate is doing the job exactly as Joe Biden said should be done.

Not confirming an anti second amendment nut is the correct thing to do

no - have the hearing, vote NO (do not CONSENT) in a clear and uncompromising way, then ADVISING the president on what would be a better selection criteria is what should be done

This is not a good choice for a judge - he tends to use his position to be a biased social warrior (example - NOT being a 2nd supporter is not per the law and intent - but it's deeper than just that) and supporter of the system instead of objectively looking at intent. It should be easy to vote no.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[headoverheels 291]

Merrick Garland "quote" in the Onion:

“Over the past 24 hours, I’ve read literally dozens of articles offhandedly mentioning how I’m the oldest Supreme Court nominee in more than 40 years and suggesting that I’ll be dead in the not-so-distant future, and, for me at least, that happens to be a little off-putting,”

[headoverheels 291]

rushmc

Not confirming an anti second amendment nut is the correct thing to do

Please provide 2 or 3 examples showing that Garland has a history of being "an anti second amendment nut," and not just someone that Obama nominated (and Hatch recently suggested).

[billvon 2,384]

>Please provide 2 or 3 examples showing that Garland has a history of being "an anti second amendment nut,"

No such examples exist, of course. The two actions he took that the right wing will focus on are:

1) In 2000, he agreed with the FBI that background check records should be destroyed after six months. (The NRA wanted them destroyed immediately, lest the FBI have an opportunity to verify the NICS system was being used correctly.)

2) In the Heller case, he voted to re-hear the case (which at the time was called Parker vs. DC.)

That's it. It's equivalent to a doctor agreeing to allow a patient to get a second opinion, then being labeled "Doctor of Death" by anti-Western-medicine critics because he wanted to delay his patient's treatment.

[quade 3]

Yes, but understand in the absolutist world of the NRA that means he's unfit to breathe let alone potentially be a judge.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Southsidedvr 0]

Take obama, Garland, and politics out of the equation. What is so wrong with waiting for a new president who will have to live down their nomination for 4 years vs someone who is going out and can throw up anyone?

I personally see many things that are not what the status quo is when politicans are leaving office especially sketchy pardons. I have no problem with waiting.

Now turn politics back on. I would be happy if he were nominated, but let the new president do it.

[wmw999 2,116]

A nomination early in an administration is likely to be far less centrist or moderate. Personally, I kind of like the thought of a centrist. If nothing else, they tend to have fewer agendas.

What if Hillary or Bernie is elected -- you want another young very liberal justice, or would an older more moderate one start to look better?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhreeZone 14]

Where is the line drawn? Is a president only able to make a nomination in the first 3 years? Only in a first term? Only in the first 2 years of a second term and all of the first term? What happens if there are multiple openings at the same time and we are in an election year? At no point does the constitution specify limits on when any president can make a nomination. Their nomination does not need to pass as evidenced by the number of failed justices in the past but they have never been denied a hearing just because it's an election year.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,384]

>Take obama, Garland, and politics out of the equation. What is so wrong with waiting
>for a new president who will have to live down their nomination for 4 years vs someone
>who is going out and can throw up anyone?

Well, the big thing that's wrong with it is it goes counter to how the US Constitution says the government should work.

By that logic, if Trump is elected, but he screws up royally in his first month, why not wait until he's replaced in four years before letting the next president pick a replacement?

[Southsidedvr 0]

I knew someone would miss the point, never would have thought you guys would be 3/3.