U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

nominating anyone leftier would've given the McConnell et al's even more ammo for not approving the nominee. With someone like Garland, their response/messaging is confused, and they come out looking stupid. They can't go back on their "this is NEVER going to happen" nonsense, and their arguments for it are revealed as petty, partisan, and transparent.

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:55 PM (2 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes shakey i very well understand the political rationale for the pick

kickin' cans down the road + least risky paths = genius Democratic strategy of the ClintonColossus Era

nominating anyone leftier would've given the McConnell et al's even more ammo for not approving the nominee. With someone like Garland, their response/messaging is confused, and they come out looking stupid. They can't go back on their "this is NEVER going to happen" nonsense, and their arguments for it are revealed as petty, partisan, and transparent.

but they ALREADY were revealed as petty, partisan, and transparent. that was revealed for all to see just after scalia's death, when mcconnell courageously announced that there was no fucking way the GOP would participate in the appointment process, no matter who the candidate was.

yeah, and this nominee called their bluff on that

basically i'm with k3vin on this one. the political advantage of going with a centrist is temporary, and i don't think the obama administration needed any sort of help in making the GOP look completely terrible on this. they already looked terrible. the more important thing is the actual person who will sit on the court for the rest of their life

nominating anyone leftier would've given the McConnell et al's even more ammo for not approving the nominee. With someone like Garland, their response/messaging is confused, and they come out looking stupid. They can't go back on their "this is NEVER going to happen" nonsense, and their arguments for it are revealed as petty, partisan, and transparent.

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:55 PM (2 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The problem is that NONE OF THIS FUCKING MATTERS. THIS IS THE SOUND OF A POLICY WONK JERKING OFF INTO A SOCK. (not you shakey but whoever came up with this "strategy").

getting images of Sidney Blumenthal in a closet making quiet noises

Obama was always going to go with a centrist. Obama is a centrist and he clearly like Garland for a pick for a while now. The only complaint about Garland I "get" is that he's older but even that's kinda meh peeps live into their 80s now.

Yeah I've started to think the pick makes a lot more sense if you DO assume it's someone Obama would actually like to put on the bench.

inside the situation room:

http://i.imgur.com/8fz2qNB.jpg

that was uh the last paragraph in the ThinkProgress story Morbs. Obama likes this kind of judge on the bench.

*story Morbs posted, that is

Karl/k3vin - I guess I don't understand what ideal scenario you guys are arguing for. Obama nominating someone leftier just means that a lefty goes down as the sacrificial lamb. Why would that be preferable? Or do you think there was some way a more liberal nominee could actually get confirmed?

xp

like why on earth do you think someone leftier would actually get to the court

idk if obama picked him for cynical political reasons at all. my guess is it's a combination of 1. obama is a centrist lawyer and garland is a widely respected judge. 2. obama believes we should sit a justice asap for the sake of the health of our judiciary and nation and he thought this was his best shot of getting one through. 3. most candidates did not want to be nominated because of the republicans but garland is old and was willing to take the risk.

Yeah I've started to think the pick makes a lot more sense if you DO assume it's someone Obama would actually like to put on the bench.

― human life won't become a cat (man alive), Tuesday, March 22, 2016 5:14 PM (2 minutes ago)

yeah totally, i mean he's not going to nominate him unless he's comfortable with him being confirmed

yeah I think it's all those things albeit + the political maneuvering

also mordy otm

When it's over, Garland returns to his safe seat in the country's second most powerful court; all he has to watch is for the possibility that he'll get vilified by the right, which I don't think they're going to do because it's safer politically to keep quiet and heads low.

McConnell can keep repeating, "NO MEETINGS NO MEETINGS AAAHH AAH" and duck into his office.

Ugh centrists

Karl/k3vin - I guess I don't understand what ideal scenario you guys are arguing for. Obama nominating someone leftier just means that a lefty goes down as the sacrificial lamb. Why would that be preferable? Or do you think there was some way a more liberal nominee could actually get confirmed?

just a second, i have to go change socks. ok,

if someone leftier went down as the sacrificial lamb (which wouldn't be a foregone conclusion imo - as mentioned, the GOP already revealed themselves to have a completely indefensible stance on this with 24 hours of Scalia's death, so it's possible at some point in the year they finally give in and at least hold a hearing. but yeah, it's unlikely), then someone else could be nominated by clinton. at that point, after garland was shot down and the SC vacancy became a real election issue, she could use the argument of the republicans ("let the people choose") against them, and claim to have a mandate of sorts, especially in a trump landslide loss scenario. the downside of this strategy would be a supreme court with only 8 members, all the way up to Spring 2017.

http://i.imgur.com/oKOybnT.jpg

fuck, i mean i don't know. i just hate when the terrorists win

another thing -- i actually haven't seen anyone mention this, again probably because most pundits are also focused on the perceived chess match, but is there some rule saying someone who gets rejected by the senate (or, more likely, not considered at all) can't be re-nominated (or finally taken up) next spring with the new senate, with democrats potentially controlling the judiciary committee?

No rule at all. It happened with one of Hayes' justices, I believe.

i mean if obama nominates, idk, paul watford or someone, and the senate ignores the nomination (as they're doing now with garland), what's stopping the new senate from voting on him in 2017?

yep:

On January 26, 1881, President Rutherford B. Hayes nominated Matthews for a position as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Matthews was a controversial nominee, and as the nomination came near the end of Hayes's term, the Senate did not act on it. Upon succeeding Hayes, incoming President James A. Garfield renominated Matthews in March 1881,[1] and the Senate confirmed him by a vote of 24 to 23, the narrowest confirmation for a successful U.S. Supreme Court nominee in history. He served on the Court until his death in 1889.[2]

if someone leftier went down as the sacrificial lamb (which wouldn't be a foregone conclusion imo - as mentioned, the GOP already revealed themselves to have a completely indefensible stance on this with 24 hours of Scalia's death, so it's possible at some point in the year they finally give in and at least hold a hearing. but yeah, it's unlikely)

if they aren't going to approve Garland, why would they ever approve someone leftier, that they don't already like? idgi

then someone else could be nominated by clinton. at that point, after garland was shot down and the SC vacancy became a real election issue, she could use the argument of the republicans ("let the people choose") against them, and claim to have a mandate of sorts, especially in a trump landslide loss scenario. the downside of this strategy would be a supreme court with only 8 members, all the way up to Spring 2017.

um, this *is* the most likely scenario, and one Obama has set up. so again I don't get what scenario - one that would end up w a leftier nominee than Garland on the court - that you would prefer.

xp

btw we have Justice Matthews to thank for voting to extend Fourteenth Amendment protections to non-citizens.

it seems increasingly clear -- if you believe obama's statements, anyway, as he's reportedly said he's not going to withdraw him after the election -- that garland is going to be confirmed. whether it happens before the election, in the lame duck session, or in the next congress, he's probably getting confirmed

i mean look -- a democratic nominee is going to get confirmed to the supreme court. whether it's obama's choice or clinton's, it's going to happen. we could have done better than the most palatable option to republicans, is all i'm saying

Anybody think Obama would recess-appoint this guy?

I wouldn't be surprised if McConnell kept the Senate in session around the clock to prevent it

sort of don't think obama's dumb enough to do that anyway

if you believe obama's statements, anyway, as he's reportedly said he's not going to withdraw him after the election

I didn't see this tbh. I'm surprised you think Garland's going to be confirmed - what motivation would McConnell possibly have for eating crow and doing so?

If Obama leaves office w out Garland being confirmed, I'm not sure what the protocol would be. I assume Hillary could withdraw his nomination and put up someone else, if she were so inclined (I would think she might be but who knows).

um, this *is* the most likely scenario, and one Obama has set up. so again I don't get what scenario - one that would end up w a leftier nominee than Garland on the court - that you would prefer.

the difference is, the republicans have the option to fold by going ahead with the nomination process and confirming garland, and it would likely be the most conservative friendly nominee that they could possibly get, either out of obama or a clinton presidency. if obama would have nominated someone more liberal, that conservative-friendly fallback option wouldn't exist, and they'd be forced between going with obama's liberal nominee now or clinton's even more liberal nominee in spring 2017.

what motivation would McConnell possibly have for eating crow and doing so?

i figure he'd do it in the lame duck session when it'd be obvious to everyone -- especially the puppeteers -- that allowing clinton to pick someone else would be worse for them

I'm surprised you think Garland's going to be confirmed - what motivation would McConnell possibly have for eating crow and doing so?

they could confirm him during the lame duck, and spin it as "well america has spoken so i guess we'll go ahead and confirm this best case scenario option for conservatives"

so, in your ideal scenario, Obama nominates a more lefty nominee, and McConnell confirms that nominee in a lame duck session following the election in the fear that Hillary will nominate someone even leftier? that doesn't make any sense.

xp

xpost jeez, that's like the 3rd time i've done that today, sorry

"well america has spoken so i guess we'll go ahead and confirm this best case scenario option for conservatives"

except this is explicitly NOT the argument McConnell has been making, which is that the *next* President should fill the vacancy. wtf

"well america has spoken so i guess we'll go ahead and confirm this best case scenario option for conservatives"

except this is explicitly NOT the argument McConnell has been making, which is that the *next* President should fill the vacancy. wtf

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 5:49 PM (8 seconds ago)

if ol' mitch is known for anything it's acting in good faith, huh?

so, in your ideal scenario, Obama nominates a more lefty nominee, and McConnell confirms that nominee in a lame duck session following the election in the fear that Hillary will nominate someone even leftier? that doesn't make any sense.

xp

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 5:48 PM (1 minute ago)

omg dude!

here would be my preferred way of doing it: nominate someone better now. the senate either acts on it or they don't. then, after the election, they either act on it or they don't. then, if they don't, the new (democratic controlled) congress either confirms that person or president hillary nominates someone comparable

if ol' mitch is known for anything it's acting in good faith, huh?

I don't think he's going to relish explicitly repudiating his own very public statements, no

the only difference in outcome I see there is that the GOP gets more political cover during the election, how is that better? If you assume Garland's not going to get confirmed (which I am but you are not, apparently), the "someone better" getting confirmed scenario is still a likely option.

i'll just reiterate that for me the likelihood of garland getting confirmed, and the opportunity cost that represents for people whose rights depend on supreme court rulings, is greater than the (arguable) benefit of making the GOP look bad in november. the GOP was gonna play this game no matter who was nominated; the american public doesn't know a centrist from a liberal. in fact the campaign to paint garland as an extreme liberal are underway already. i don't see the difference

The likelihood of him getting confirmed is zero, though?

it's very obviously not

idk why it's so obvious to you and ... less so to most other people:
http://theweek.com/articles/613352/why-merrick-garland-never-supreme-court-justice

if clinton does elected -- which is what happens in most of the scenarios you guys are mooting -- she'll probably get at least one other supreme court pick. i mean god bless ruth bader ginsburg but it seems unlikely she'll be in there pitching at age 88.

er, does GET elected