U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

I need some convincing that Dems "win" if Garland gets approved, I guess. If there's no likely scenario in which a conservative justice gets nominated either under Obama or the next president, then the "win" for us is getting a more liberal justice.

if McConnell thinks Trump will actually win (which he won't), he won't approve Garland. Then Hillary will win, the Dems will win the Senate, and Hillary will most likely nominate someone more lefty than Garland (and probably another woman, I wouldn't be surprised). But if McConnell is smart enough to accept that Trump is gonna lose, he'll cave on approving Garland. Dems win either way.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:54 AM (5 minutes ago)

the latter is sort of a qualified victory in that more or less takes place on the GOP's playing field. you're so easily impressed by obama's chess skills but someone on the other side could just as accurately say that the GOP threat of obstruction forced obama to choose a more centrist justice than he would have otherwise. in a sense, since scalia was never going to be replaced by someone of his ideological orientation anyway, that's a win for them

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/initial-thoughts-on-president-obamas-decision-to-nominate-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court/?postshare=9521458141503218&tid=ss_tw

this conservative thinks garland gets quickly taken up and confirmed after hillary beats trump in the general. (or maybe as it becomes obvious that trump will be the eventual (losing) nominee)

kevin otm, unless Obama also knows that Garland is secretly more left than he lets on or something.

You're assuming that any part of Obama thinks this nominee is going to go through rather than just sitting there making the GOP look terrible. "They could look better to some people (and worse to others) by not being obstructionist shitbags" was on offer for the last 7 years - the odds on it haven't changed.

#NoBorking.

^^^ piss off

that's all true, I just consider it a win in that any Dem nominee is *not* Scalia - the balance of the court shifts in favor of the left.

i don't think the two are mutually exclusive xxp

BUT DID HE GO TO AN IVY YES OR NO

that's all true, I just consider it a win in that any Dem nominee is *not* Scalia - the balance of the court shifts in favor of the left.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:11 AM (32 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Fate smiled on us when Scalia died, but failing to make the best of the situation is not a win. Getting another Kennedy when we could get a liberal is not a great outcome -- these guys sit for life and the political pendulum swings back and forth faster than they die off.

hatch on garland 6 years ago http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-hatch-idUSTRE6456QY20100506

Bad move if you care about criminal defendant's rights. Most don't.

I hate the phrase “impeccable credentials.”

anyone left of scalia shifts the median judge a ton, even if they're not super liberal

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/18/upshot/potential-for-the-most-liberal-supreme-court-in-decades.html

Οὖτις and AFarrell speak truth imo. If Senate Rs truly will not budge even an inch on an Obama nominee, then it doesn't matter whether Obama nominates Kanye West, Ted Cruz, or a leftover pork taco.

If Senate Republicans DO bother with hearings, and potentially even vote an Obama nominee out of committee, then those Senators will be massacred by rabidly frothing hardliners from their right, who regard any capitulation to the Hated Kenyan as treason. For various reasons it's better PR if they choose to self-immolate over a centrist choice like Garland than over, say, Lynch.

The next D president gets to nominate for Scalia's seat, the seat of the retiring RBG, or both. Hence the win/win prediction.

The next D president gets to nominate for Scalia's seat, the seat of the retiring RBG, or both. Hence the win/win prediction.

Alternatively, they never vote.

I hate the phrase “impeccable credentials.”
― Allen (etaeoe), Wednesday, March 16, 2016 1:20 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"incredible pectorals"

Re: "Never vote," as in never this year, never for the next five years, or never for the next nine years?

I know there's a right-wing talking point that nine is not a magic number, the court has done fine with eight or seven justices in the past.

But I'm trying hard to imagine the spectacle of one, two, three empty chairs on the court, with Republican obstruction the only obstacle - and that has no political consequences for the obstructers?

It partly depends how much you take the hated Kenyan stuff at face value. Sometimes it's hard to discern whether some portion of the GOP is still a sentient being or whether it's all just a mass of flailing, disembodied squid tentacles. I think it's dangerous to assume the latter though.

unless Obama also knows that Garland is secretly more left than he lets on or something.

OOOOH MORE VULCAN CHESS

It's worth noting that the three oldest justices on the Court now are two liberals and a centrist, and that the oldest conservative justice is only 67. This nomination is pretty much the only chance we have for a long time of a liberal majority court. And I think Clinton if she wins has a very good chance of only one term.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mcconnell-rejects-garland-nomination-scotus

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) flatly rejected President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, saying there was no point in the Senate “endlessly debating an issue where we don’t agree.”

“The American people are perfectly capable of having their say—their say—on this issue,” McConnell said from the Senate floor shortly after Obama’s announcement. “So let's give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide.”

“The American people may well elect an American president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration,” McConnell continued. “The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way our view is this: give the people a voice in filling this vacancy.”

McConnell suggested that the Senate would be better served working on issues that have some bipartisan consensus than what has become a fiercely partisan battle over the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s vacant Supreme Court seat.

“Instead of spending more time debating an issue where we can’t agree, let’s work towards the issues where we can,” the majority leader said.

someone slap that jackass

So we're back to plan Nominate Kanye.

Also flailing, disembodied squid tentacles seems about right imo.

let's all pitch in and sign him up for the same hunting club as Scalia

seems like a win for Obama - nominate a centrist and make the senate republicans look like the obstructive losers they are by rejecting him out of hand

JiG: precisely

But I'm trying hard to imagine the spectacle of one, two, three empty chairs on the court, with Republican obstruction the only obstacle - and that has no political consequences for the obstructers?

I doubt it’d be a spectacle. We’re in an election season and it’s been a minor and inconsequential issue! Moreover, US Court of Appeals has nine vacancies and US District Courts have 64 post-Gang of 14.

"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?