SCOTUS nominee

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/16/who-is-merrick-garland-fast-facts-on-obamas-supreme-court-nominee.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Brennan, Chicago, DC appeals court. None of those things make me happy. Need to see a body of his work and his rulings.

[Darrell KSR]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/16/who-is-merrick-garland-fast-facts-on-obamas-supreme-court-nominee.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Brennan, Chicago, DC appeals court. None of those things make me happy. Need to see a body of his work and his rulings.
I will be interested in seeing if any of our local folks here have a take on him. I have no idea myself.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Why does it matter?

The Senate won't hold hearings anyway.

Orrin Hatch has been on record many times saying this is the guy Obama needs to pick. Even last week, he said, “The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

[suncat05]

Wanna place a friendly bet on that? As soon as 'ol Mitch starts taking some serious heat, and especially if any GOP Senate seats appear to be jeopardy, McConnell will fold like a pup tent in a tornado. Obama will get his way...........again.

[dan_bgblue]

Lots of info and links to cases in which Judge Garland has taken part

http://www.newsweek.com/who-merrick-garland-complete-legal-resume-437479

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Wanna place a friendly bet on that? As soon as 'ol Mitch starts taking some serious heat, and especially if any GOP Senate seats appear to be jeopardy, McConnell will fold like a pup tent in a tornado. Obama will get his way...........again.

I will never put my money on the spineless GOP Senate. Of course they will fold once the pressure cooker starts.

It's not about Obama getting his way, again. It's about the power of the Constitution working, and Democracy working. I doubt that is was Obama's plan for Scalia to die, but since he did, he swore an oath to perform the duties of the office and part of that is nominating a Supreme Court Justice when there is a vacancy. Democracy working successfully should be ALL OF OUR WAY.

[Doc]

Obama made the nomination. Constitution gives Congress the power to accept or REJECT that nomination

[suncat05]

Well, we will see how it plays out. I have almost zero faith in Congress to do anything good, and almost 100% faith that they will find a way to mess this up. It's Congress, it's what they do best.........create even more problems instead of fixing them.

[Catonahottinroof]

He's very anti-second amendment and that will seal his fate with this particular congress.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Obama made the nomination. Constitution gives Congress the power to accept or REJECT that nomination

You're right, but a majority of people are smart enough to understand that the intent of 'advise and consent' wasn't meant to obstruct and hope your party gets in office.

I don't understand why those people who are in favor of blocking this pick are doing so. It's a HUGE motivator for getting Democrats to the voting booth. Republicans are taking a mighty big gamble, especially when the party is on the edge of destruction, and really risk giving them control of everything for a long period to come.

It's going to be really funny when Hillary wins the election and nominates the most liberal person that she could find. It would also be really hysterical if she selected Obama. That's why you see Republicans saying that they'll move forward with the nomination process during a lame duck session. What a bunch of lame wimps.

[CitizenBBN]

Right or wrong, this may fire up the bases of the parties, but it won't impact the battleground voters in the middle.

The truth that both Trump and Sanders have tapped into, that Reagan tapped into years ago, is this: by and large Americans don't give a tinker's damn about the issues the Washington Beltway think are the center of the universe. They exist in a bubble there not unlike the old stories of the Chinese Emperors.

Well, as the Chinese saying goes, the mountain is high and the Emperor is far away. Americans see most of this as white noise. They can't possibly think less of Congress than they do now (both parties btw, they just dislike Congress), and Obama is a lame duck.

The GOP will try to use this to get their base out, using fear of Hillary picking to drive them, and the Democrats will do the same. But in the end the only people who really get it and care are already high-info voters who were going to vote regardless.

The truth is that Americans care about their day to day lives, who is going to make their lives better in their minds gets their vote. Stuff like the politics of SCOTUS are in fact hugely important, but it's not something most voters will care about, esp. the fringe voters that are the real nexus of the battle.

This issue will be a football for both parties. The GOP thinks it will do more to drive their base over the Democrats,and IMO they're probably right. The NRA will use it to drive their part of the campaign and honestly they're right, which way the 2nd Amendment goes absolutely rides on this pick, b/c right now it's 4-4 between people who think there is a right to self defense in this country and 4 who think we're freakin' sheep who only have a right to hope the good government shepherd does a good job with the wolves and try to not hurt the poor wolves when they dont' get there in time.

It's a calculated move, but I see the logic in it. Pro 2nd Amendment forces outnumber the anti-gunners and the GOP feels they lost the last election b/c the base didn't show up. If they can stoke the 2nd Amendment issue and even abortion and other issues the court controls they could have a good point.

In the battle of attrition I can see them the net winner on that one. But the numbers involved compared to the larger battlefield voter pool makes it likely to not be a deciding factor. In truth 2nd Amendment people are already scared of Hillary (it was Clinton who got the last gun control enacted), so this isn't the 800lb gorilla issue in the room.

That issue is the total dissatisfaction Americans have with the Washington culture and leadership.

Oh, and the idea that this wasn't always a political process is naive. In fact the case that established SCOTUS review of the other branches was full of politics, it goes back to the very beginning. The whole history of SCOTUS is interesting, and honestly the Founders by and large probably wouldn't see them as having near the power we've given them over time. Rightly so IMO, but it's still true.

[Doc]

You're right, but a majority of people are smart enough to understand that the intent of 'advise and consent' wasn't meant to obstruct and hope your party gets in office.

I don't understand why those people who are in favor of blocking this pick are doing so. It's a HUGE motivator for getting Democrats to the voting booth. Republicans are taking a mighty big gamble, especially when the party is on the edge of destruction, and really risk giving them control of everything for a long period to come.

It's going to be really funny when Hillary wins the election and nominates the most liberal person that she could find. It would also be really hysterical if she selected Obama. That's why you see Republicans saying that they'll move forward with the nomination process during a lame duck session. What a bunch of lame wimps.

If you want to understand why some would want to block a pick, I'd ask Barrack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy (well, you can't ask him now) Patrick J. Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, Ken Salazar, or Max Baucus who did it when Bush was President.

Here is a link (http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/). May this will help you understand. Its written from YOUR side. But I'm sure those were justified because they weren't obstructists. They were just looking out for the good of the country.

[KeithKSR]

You're right, but a majority of people are smart enough to understand that the intent of 'advise and consent' wasn't meant to obstruct and hope your party gets in office.

I don't understand why those people who are in favor of blocking this pick are doing so. It's a HUGE motivator for getting Democrats to the voting booth. Republicans are taking a mighty big gamble, especially when the party is on the edge of destruction, and really risk giving them control of everything for a long period to come.

It's going to be really funny when Hillary wins the election and nominates the most liberal person that she could find. It would also be really hysterical if she selected Obama. That's why you see Republicans saying that they'll move forward with the nomination process during a lame duck session. What a bunch of lame wimps.

The intent of all checks and balances is to obstruct. There was an explicit intent by the Founding Fathers to make governing a process that stifled unilateral rule.