U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

"Getting another Kennedy when we could get a liberal is not a great outcome"

Uh this guy is not a Kennedy. He's William O Douglas and he's might be slightly to the right of the four liberal justices, but it's not like Obama is nominating an actual conservative.

William O. Douglas might've been the most liberal justice of the 20th century. Garland looks like a Souter type.

wow i thought i couldn't hate republicans more than i do but that mcconnell quote made me see red for a second. what a piece of shit.

yea

Is it wrong that I am hoping this obstruction continues so that they end up nominating one of my wife's classmates?

nah that's a o k

phew! #TeamKetanji

Sorry I meant not William O Douglas either.

It's ok if you humblebrag DJP, yes

saying there was no point in the Senate “endlessly debating an issue where we don’t agree.”

they've been endlessly debating obamacare for 6 fucking years

"[SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland] put himself through Harvard Law School by working as a tutor, by stocking shoes in a shoe store, and in what is always a painful moment for any young man, by selling his comic book collection," Obama said. "It's tough. [I've] been there."

ha

sometimes I love Obama

i once read an extremely soft, access-besotted RS interview w obama, and one of the hardhitting questions was what would you do if you had a day off being president and having been president, and he said he'd go to the beach and sit on the hood of his car and "drink juice out of a can" and i almost cried in blindsided empathy

they've been endlessly debating obamacare for 6 fucking years

and they don't agree! what are you a totalitarian

I had an argument with my dad about having the hypothetical chance to meet Obama; my dad was all "I don't need to meet him, he has far too many important things to do than meet me" and I was like "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE EMBEDDED INTO MY FRIEND CIRCLE IMMEDIATELY"

It seemed like the clearest definition of a generation gap I'd ever experienced within my family.

would totally hang out and talk old comics with the president

if I met Obama I'd advise him to stop reading so much Marilynne Robinson

shh quiet everyone – John Yoo has words.

President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court demonstrates a desire to compromise with the Senate, but it should not change the calculus of the Republican majority to keep Justice Scalia’s seat open. Garland is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, commonly described as the second-most important court in the land after the Supreme Court (and the bench on which Justice Scalia served first, as well as Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Thomas). He has a reputation as a left-of-center judge, likely more moderate that the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court.

Choosing Garland indicates that President Obama hopes a moderate choice can get through the Senate. He has put aside the opportunity to choose a nominee who had no chance, but could be a convenient point of attack in the presidential campaign.

Nevertheless, Senate Republicans should keep Justice Scalia’s seat open at least until the November elections. The Senate has rarely confirmed Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year, especially when opposite parties have controlled the Senate and the White House. The Constitution does not require the Senate to confirm anyone; it only requires the Senate’s advice and consent before the president can appoint a justice to office. The Republicans can await the outcome of the elections

sometimes I love Obama

yeah, if only he didn't hold office

y'know the one under which his DOJ has more than once reaffirmed John Yoo's sense of jurisprudence

would totally hang out and shotgun some

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/Inuxx/hawaiian-sun-drinks1_zpspy7xt3x2.jpg

with the president while haranguing him about john yoo

i like marilynne robinson! what's your beef w/ her, alfred?

I do too but he and Robinson held up three issues of the NYROB so they could share OK insights.

btw the aptly named Hot Air proffers these scenarios:

The conventional wisdom on Trump right now is that he’s a dead duck in the general election barring some sort of national crisis. I don’t agree with it, but it’s not out of left field: His favorable rating, for instance, is toxic and it’s an open question whether he could organize a national campaign capable of matching Hillary’s. If McConnell agrees with that CW, that Hillary’s a prohibitive favorite to win and that the backlash to Trump will hand Democrats the Senate, then refusing to confirm Garland now clears the path for Democrats to nominate and confirm a young hyper-liberal justice next year. Garland is already in his 60s and is no far-lefty; if Hillary wins big, liberals will insist that she exploit her mandate by engineering a new Warren Court. (Garland, ironically, clerked for the most liberal member of the Warren Court but he hasn’t followed the same trajectory as a judge.) So what do you do if you’re Mitch the Knife? Accept a quarter-loaf here by confirming a guy whose centrist credentials will be used to show just how unreasonable and obstructionist the GOP is in blocking him? Or risk having no loaf at all when Democrats win this fall and ram through whoever they want?

Another possibility: What if Trump wins the presidency but Democrats reclaim the Senate? Normally that would seem like an improbable outcome, but Trump could theoretically get enough Democrats and independents to cross over for him that he ends up beating Hillary even as those same Dems and indies hand a Senate majority to Chuck Schumer. In that case, even if Trump’s inclined to nominate a solid conservative, the nominee’s apt to get Borked. Trump may have no choice but to float a center-right justice, someone not wildly more conservative than Garland himself. And this assumes Trump’s true to his word that he’d aim for right-wing nominees for the Court. It may be that he wins the election and governs essentially as an independent, a la Mike Bloomberg in New York. How much better would his nominee be than Garland in that case, especially with Schumer exercising veto power?

This is why, contra my esteemed colleague, I think Garland will be confirmed. The question is when. At a minimum, McConnell won’t move on it until Trump’s nomination is assured; like I said up top, there’s too much risk of a voter backlash in the primaries to do it before then. He could move on it this summer, after Trump has clinched. Republican voters would still be outraged, but at that point the GOP establishment will quietly be working hand in glove with Trump to get him elected.

i imagine it'll be hard for mccconnell to walk back all "the american people must have a say!" rhetoric in order to allow a nomination

Mitch the Knife

gtfo w this

not to mention borked

#NoBorking.

John Yoo:

"The Senate has rarely confirmed Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year, especially when opposite parties have controlled the Senate and the White House."

Gee, did you ever stop to think that maybe that is true because it has come up so rarely? File this under "Lawyers Being Clever in Exceedingly Stupid Ways".

Especially when the nominees' last names start with G

I think the lefty angst I've seen over Garland is a little overdone, even leaving aside the likelihood that he'll never get a hearing. The NYT analysis pegs him right around Breyer ideologically, and there's no question anyone even slightly left of center would change the 5-4 calculus on most of the major divides. A Scalia-of-the-left is appealing mostly rhetorically, in the same way Scalia appealed to the right mostly rhetorically for most of his time on the bench.

Plus, if you're going to make somebody into a potential political sacrifice, I'd just as soon it's an old white guy, and save the other choices for when they have a stronger shot at being confirmed.

i think that hot air piece is 100% otm, which is why i thought nominating garland was risky

if garland were being offered solely as a sacrificial lamb, i'd love the pick. but, there's a serious chance senate republicans read the writing on the wall between now and january and realize he's the best pick they can possibly hope for. that would not be ideal for us

Why? "We" still get a justice in the Breyer-Souter mold, which is still better than Attila.

yea kevin otm xp

i'd almost say it is the more likely option that senate republicans will cave and confirm him, there is still plenty of time

btw didn't know this about failed Nixon appointee Harrold Carswell!

In September 1979, Carswell was attacked and beaten by a man whom he had invited to his Atlanta, Georgia, hotel room in similar circumstances.[18] Because of these incidents, Keith Stern, author of Queers in History, alleges Carswell to have been the first homosexual or bisexual nominated to the Supreme Court.

that's some real interpretative jiggery-pokery!

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1973/3/8/pinter-in-progression-pbnbight-school-landscape/

man Carswell's wiki entry is a treat

In defense against charges that Carswell was "mediocre", U.S. Senator Roman Hruska, a Nebraska Republican, stated:

"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.

no wonder Nixon liked him

some of the greatest artists ever are bland.

like Marcel Marceau, f'rinstance

or Raffi

I knew about Hruska's comments, didn't know Carswell was a sodomite.

Well: https://twitter.com/nprmontagne/status/710142777569492993

cutting their losses eh. lame duck session confirmation would also get them out of the "let the American people have their say" rhetoric. Of course, if Obama was smart and wanted to twist the knife, he would withdraw Garland's nomination after the election and get some commitment from Hillary to nominate someone else w her new Senate majority.

which would be a total dick move but oh the lolz

dick move but do-able. garland could withdraw citing ill health and exhaustion with the process or something in october. but don't count on any eight-dimensional chess game here, though maybe more than the usual one dimension might apply.

Not sure what benefit is for Obama getting Garland over during lame duck session... This sounds dubious.

Yeah I would think that Obama will withdraw Garland before then.

Not sure what benefit is for Obama getting Garland over during lame duck session... This sounds dubious.

― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Wednesday, March 16, 2016 4:20 PM (2 minutes ago)

shhhhh obama knows more about the law than us and is a master negotiator, just be happy!