U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

oh i misread that tweet -- yeah, if they're going to wait til november anyway this would make no sense unless obama just really wants another justice in there as part of his legacy

wow. such dimensional. very chess.

Right I get making that deal if you get Garland now, but in November/December after Democrats have already won?!?! What's the upside then? It's been vacant for nearly a year by then, what's another month or two.

ughhhhhhhhh

This deal, it's a terrible deal. The worst deal I have ever seen. It's a disaster. We're gonna make a much, much better deal, and replace Garland with something way better.

This judge, let me tell you something, I know lots of judges and the guy is a loser. I dunno, maybe we should boycott the Supreme Court, I'm just throwing it out there.

I wonder what would happen if Obama said "y'know, if the Senate doesn't give my nominee a hearing... I don't know, but I represent millions of people, there's a good chance there would be riots. I think there's a very good chance there could be riots"

I say there's a 40% chance he would be shot immediately

otm

when I think about it, I consider it a minor miracle he hasn't been assassinated already.

It appears as though the Secret Service has gotten a lot better at protecting presidents lately.

Garland is a step up in that he doesn't believe in the literal devil burying dinosaur bones to fool people about the age of the earth

Anthony Anderson's monologue from the riot episode of Black-ish when describing watching the Obamas walk down the street during their first inaugural parade and being paralyzed by fear that they were about to be shot brought back some severely unpleasant memories of watching that footage and thinking the same thing.

Anthony Anderson's monologue from the riot episode of Black-ish when describing watching the Obamas walk down the street during their first inaugural parade and being paralyzed by fear that they were about to be shot brought back some severely unpleasant memories of watching that footage and thinking the same thing.

Yikes! Surely this has faded?

... The past seven years have given us Treyvon Martin, Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Freddie Grey, Aiyana Jones, Sandra Bland, Kimani Gray, John Crawford III, Michael Brown, Miriam Carey, Tommy Yancy, Jordan Baker, and the massacre in South Carolina, so no it has not faded.

yeah Trump's armed and violent followers are hardly a palliative

That's not even including major incidents I left out like Tamir Rice

christ what an asshole

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, has called President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland, and explained that no action would be taken in the Senate on the nomination, Mr. McConnell’s spokesman said.

Mr. McConnell also informed Judge Garland that they would not be meeting in person at the Capitol.

“Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House, the leader decided it would be more considerate of the nominee’s time to speak with him today by phone,” Mr. McConnell’s spokesman, Don Stewart, said in a statement.

“The leader reiterated his position that the American people will have a voice in this vacancy and that the Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the person the next president nominates. And since the Senate will not be acting on this nomination, he would not be holding a perfunctory meeting, but he wished Judge Garland well.”

Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House Rather than put Judge Garland through more unnecessary political routines orchestrated by the White House

ice cold

so what's gonna happen? is this actually gonna cost any senators their seats, or what?

they have no bargaining chips really, I mean sure they could hold out for all that time but i suspect they are going to play chicken with Obama and will eventually find an excuse as to why they decided to start confirmation hearings despite frequent assurances that they wouldn't, while also assuring that they were doing it not because Obama told them to but because *they wanted to*!

i'd think they'd at least wait through all the primaries before folding; the florida senate primary isn't until august 30, so hell why not wait another two months anyway

tbh i don't think the senate gop has any idea what it's doing -- they're just delaying in the hope that things magically improve somehow

yeah it won't be tomorrow but they'll wait until they can't keep the charade up any longer

is it playing chicken if both sides are prepared to total one guys car?

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/busted-pbs-features-trump-volunteer-sporting-white-supremacist-tattoos/

88 tattoo not even hidden from view.

My wife knows Garland too, I found out tonight

(She is a big fan and compared him favorably with Kagan)

Xxpost oops that was for other thread

the GOP is pathetic

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-garland-conservative-reaction

Washington Post Daily 202 column:

What worries the smartest people on the left is that McConnell will shepherd Garland’s confirmation through during the lame-duck session if Clinton wins, depriving the first woman president of her ability to pick a more progressive alternative. While Garland is 63, which means he has a relatively shorter shelf life on the bench, Hillary could pick someone who is still in her 40s.

Oops, just read the end of that TPM thing after I posted the Post comments

SCOTUS beat reporter Robert Barnes says it is probably accurate to describe Garland as “the most conservative Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president in decades.

His prosecutor background and some of his rulings on the D.C. Circuit indicate that he would not take uniformly liberal positions on criminal justice issues; on the circuit, he is more likely to side with the government than his liberal colleagues.”
• “Garland looks more like a left-leaning version of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.: a Midwesterner with double degrees at Harvard who clerked for the same circuit judge, moved on to work for Supreme Court justices, served on the D.C. Circuit and made friends on both sides of the aisle.”

OK but "left leaning John Roberts" is a meaningless, incoherent description.

I get the political expediencies of this nomination, but it's hard not to be disappointed. if the GOP had NOT pulled this stunt and the nomination process proceeded more or less as normal, would he have chosen Garland? probably not, though who knows (ugh i've internalized the worst aspects of josh marshall style writing, sorry). so it feels like rewarding the GOP for their complete idiocy. now the possible are outcomes are 1) GOP folds before the election and we get a relatively older justice that even fox admits that Garland is the most conservative nominee from a democratic president in the modern era, or 2) GOP folds after Clinton wins and appoints Garland in the lame duck session, which effectively grants them an extra decision point that they normally wouldn't have, or 3) GOP wins the election and blood flows from our tear ducts. Those are all weak outcomes imo.

i guess the counterpoint is that if he would have nominated someone that liberals were excited about, it would be a more effective GOTV issue for the GOP. but that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to go with Orrin Hatch's best friend, especially after waiting until after March 15 and seeing the state of the presidential nomination process

left wing law ppl i know think v highly of garland

What worries the smartest people on the left is that McConnell will shepherd Garland’s confirmation through during the lame-duck session if Clinton wins, depriving the first woman president of her ability to pick a more progressive alternative. While Garland is 63, which means he has a relatively shorter shelf life on the bench, Hillary could pick someone who is still in her 40s.
--curmudgeon

Again as per above if this gets to like September with no hearing/no vote I don't see why Obama wouldn't just withdraw Garland's name. This fear seems unfounded (aka Nina Totenberg sources might be making shit up).

-- In the Roosevelt Room yesterday afternoon, Obama privately made the case to leaders of 23 progressive groups that he did not sell them out. There are concerns about Garland’s moderate record and lack of a paper trail on certain issues important to supporters of abortion rights. “Obama emphasized he did not pick a nominee with an eye to pleasing a specific political constituency,” participants in the meeting told Juliet. “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.”

-- The short-term problem for Democrats is that nothing about Garland will gin up their base, especially women and African Americans. A Washington Post/ABC News poll last week found that 63 percent of Americans want the Senate to hold hearings. Only one-third approve of waiting until next year. But this doesn’t capture the degree to which most voters just won’t care. “GOP advisers agree that public and private polling shows a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of holding hearings and possible votes on the Garland nomination,” Paul Kane reports. “But at the same time, they say that the intensity level on this issue is low and that voters are focused on the economy and national security as the most critical issues. The backlash from conservative voters, Republicans say, would be far worse than the small gain from going through the process with the nomination.”

more from W. Post Daily 202

left wing law ppl i know think v highly of garland

same here

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