U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

The backlash from conservative voters, Republicans say, would be far worse than the small gain from going through the process with the nomination.”

This is what I have been trying to say.

One thing I wonder is what the benefit is to the GOP of just not even holding hearings, as opposed to just voting no? Is it that they think enough GOP senators could be turned on the right pick so they want the committee to prevent that from even happening? Or is it more of a psy-ops move?

“He said he thought many Americans would see the inherent unfairness of Republicans’ denying Garland a hearing. … ‘I chose a serious man and an exemplary judge,’ he said.”

yeah, maybe back in the 70s or something. in the cursed year of our lord 2016, it's more like this:

-most of the country isn't paying attention.
-of those that are paying attention, 99% already thought "wow mitch mcconnell is even more of a fucking asshole than i previously thought, weird!", or "obama is evil and there's no way he should shove another SC justice down this blessed country's throat, what with only 11 months to go until the next president takes office, my heavens, god DAMN i'm really stupid, hey i wonder what THIS household object tastes like if i boil it and mix it in with pancakes!"
- there are maybe 50 or 60 people, maybe 100 tops, that were paying attention, on the fence, and will now be newly astonished at the choice of Garland and the GOP's continued refusal to do anything. so obama's right, i mean he is going to definitely win the hearts and minds of those several dozen people
-

otm except the people being astonished at the GOP refusing to do anything clearly aren't paying attention

xp "We will not hold hearings" = a (very thread-bare) principle. "We will vote no" = we don't like this guy that we would have otherwise liked, because the president nominated him.

the whole "let the american people decide this" thing is so gross

yeah the american people decided in 2012

The smartest people on the left should look up actuarial tables on cancer survivors RBG's age.

They don't want hearings because it would give the nominee too much public exposure and make it difficult to defend voting him down. It's much easier to say they are not going to follow the process at all because of some bullshit about the will of the people

Jim Newell of Slate seems convinced Garland's a "prop":

Merrick Garland, the appellate chief judge whom President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court, is not going to become a Supreme Court justice before the election or probably ever. One imagines that both he and Obama are aware of this. He is a prop, chosen to spend the next eight months as a prop.
Jim Newell Jim Newell

The proof is in the basic description: Garland is a 63-year-old white man with a centrist inclination. If Obama were selecting a Supreme Court justice whom he genuinely expected to be confirmed, Garland’s nomination would constitute political malpractice. He is too old, too unreliable, too much a creature of the statist center, and he brings no diversity to the bench. No offense to him, of course. But he knows this, and he knows that his nomination exists largely as a political lever against Republicans.

http://www.theonion.com/article/defiant-mitch-mcconnell-holds-merrick-garlands-sev-52575

lol

Jim Newell of Slate seems convinced Garland's a "prop":

Merrick Garland, the appellate chief judge whom President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court, is not going to become a Supreme Court justice before the election or probably ever. One imagines that both he and Obama are aware of this. He is a prop, chosen to spend the next eight months as a prop.
Jim Newell Jim Newell

The proof is in the basic description: Garland is a 63-year-old white man with a centrist inclination. If Obama were selecting a Supreme Court justice whom he genuinely expected to be confirmed, Garland’s nomination would constitute political malpractice. He is too old, too unreliable, too much a creature of the statist center, and he brings no diversity to the bench. No offense to him, of course. But he knows this, and he knows that his nomination exists largely as a political lever against Republicans.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:38 PM (29 minutes ago)

part of me doubts a jurist as well-respected and distinguished as garland would consciously agree to partaking in this sort of political theater for the better part of a year -- during which he removes himself from the 2nd circuit!

but all of the "what if" bases are going to be covered by some journalist or another, and if this board is known for one thing it's blind faith in obama's decision-making and political instincts

the DC circuit, i mean

the DC Circuit's known for one thing: its blind faith in Obama's decision-making and political instincts

Does he have to quit his current gig? I wasn't aware of that as a requirement.

he's not quitting, just sitting out while he's the nominee. and no, it's not required -- i read the other day that alito and roberts continued to file opinions while their nominations were under consideration

Is replacing nino with this guy really taht much of a loss

we've been over this

Is replacing nino with this guy really taht much of a loss

― Ecomigrant gnomics (darraghmac), Thursday, March 17, 2016 2:36 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

gtfo

he's not quitting, just sitting out while he's the nominee. and no, it's not required -- i read the other day that alito and roberts continued to file opinions while their nominations were under consideration

― k3vin k., Thursday, March 17, 2016 6:32 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tbf with the clerks these guys have they probably only do high level edits

Cool thx guys

liptak takes the microscope to garland's record: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/merrick-garlands-record-and-style-hint-at-his-appeal.html

His most charged cases, involving national security and campaign finance, were as likely to disappoint liberals as to please them. He has repeatedly voted against detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and he joined in a decision after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United that gave rise to “super PACs.”

In more run-of-the-mill cases, he was apt to side with workers claiming employment discrimination and against criminal defendants who said their rights had been violated.

Throughout, Judge Garland’s opinions were models of judicial craftsmanship — unflashy, methodically reasoned, attentive to precedent and tightly rooted in the language of the governing statutes and regulations. He appears to apply Supreme Court precedents with punctilious fidelity even if there is reason to think he would have preferred a different outcome and even where other judges might have found room to maneuver.

the toyota camry of supreme court justice nominees

does it seem like right wing media isn't talking a lot about this whole thing? like when it does the GOP talking points are obviously parroted but it also seems like they are quieter on this than some of the more left-leaning media. trump & the primaries obviously sucking way more energy but also perhaps maybe because mcconnell's argument is trash and people know it? idk i could be majorly off -- i don't have cable for example so i don't know what fox news or others are saying, they could be talking about "the american people should have a voice" all the time. but NRO Corner has only had just a couple of columns about this, one by john yoo lol, my local right wing AM radio is has not mentioned it all week

GOP knows they don't have majority public opinion behind them, they prefer to bury this

right that's kind of what i figured

plus SCOTUS followers are basically us and the Beltway.

yeah i always find dubious the claims that nominees should be selected in part by their ability to rally certain voters

these groups are into trying to rally voters

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-plan-push-to-force-hearings-on-supreme-court-nomination/2016/03/17/97983d40-ec5b-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_garland-hill-920pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

That has given outside groups a central role in the coming fight, especially on the Republican side. Most prominent among them is the Judicial Crisis Network, which has coordinated the conservative response to the Scalia vacancy and has pledged to run millions of dollars in television ads to derail Obama’s nominee.

The group issued talking points Tuesday that said Garland would support “a laundry list of extreme liberal priorities, like gutting the Second Amendment, legalizing partial-birth abortion, and unleashing unaccountable bureaucratic agencies like the EPA and the IRS.”

America Rising Squared, a GOP-aligned opposition research organization, had been working with the Judicial Crisis Network and the Republican National Committee to investigate potential nominees. Brian Rogers, the firm’s executive director, said Wednesday that he now had about a dozen researchers digging into Garland’s background; some will be deployed across the country to vet the judge.

“The White House is planning a big coordinated effort, and we need to, too,” Rogers said.

The president’s mobilization call Thursday was organized by the Constitutional Responsibility Project, a nonprofit group formed by several former top Obama staffer. The group includes Stephanie Cutter, Julianna Smoot, Anita Dunn and Amy Brundage, all of whom worked both on his campaign team and in the White House.

The new tax-exempt organization, which is aimed at providing a platform for hundreds of groups to share information, has planned a series of events over the congressional recess, including a MoveOn Day of Action on Monday, with more than 50 grass-roots events outside senators’ offices, and a robust social-media campaign.

In Ohio, teachers will aim to put pressure on Sen. Rob Portman (R) with “Do Your Job Learn-ins” in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Lima. In Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, nurses, firefighters and union members will call on Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R) to meet with Garland and hold a hearing on his nomination

America Rising Squared

America Rising Prime was already taken?

http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/84/ed/23/84ed2366ea80475c58edf760e9e5b0ba.jpg

http://statici.behindthevoiceactors.com/behindthevoiceactors/_img/chars/char_533.jpg

Hill Rodhimus Prime

some Dem counter op should just name itself America Rising Cubed

sinking ship: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/03/18/mark-kirk-is-first-republican-senator-to-call-for-vote-on-garland/

Further complicating matters for Kirk is that Garland grew up in Illinois, in a Chicago suburb only a few miles from the border of the congressional district Kirk used to represent.

lol that's a good out. "Well, I just figgered, him bein' a home-town feller and all, well, a man oughta give him a fair shake and such."

Sam Nunn : Clarence Thomas

Not surprised with Kirk, thought he would give in pretty easily. He's going to have a hell of a fight against Duckworth in November, he's didn't need this held against him.

Yeah, ever since his stroke Kirk has been the first to kave.

Nina Tottenberg sez "zero chance" Obama withdraws nomination after/if HRC wins.

this was a dumb hill to die on, i look forward to shameful joy in seeing this resistance atomize as people realize they're gonna look moronic to their constituency

kirk is running for senate in a liberal state, he's also a centrist (one of the few) by disposition, so this isn't surprising in the least. but it gives a few other GOP senators some wiggle room, i think.

Senator Franken admirably bangs his head against a wall (the wall being Orrin Hatch):

https://www.facebook.com/senatoralfranken/videos/972614816157734/?fref=nf

Curious to know what freaked out Klobuchar so much that Franken had to reassure her mid-scold.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/us/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-mitch-mcconnell.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

sounds good to me!

ha, they've boxed themselves into a corner.

Vituperative jiggery pokery

“I can’t imagine that a Republican majority Senate, even if it were assumed to be a minority, would want to confirm a judge that would move the court dramatically to the left,” he added.

imagine how horrific a judge would have to be to replace Antonin Scalia and not move the court dramatically to the left

they'd have to appoint grover norquist or something