• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama Nominates Merrick Garland for SCOTUS

Junebug, do you believe Senate Republicans should refuse to vote on appointees nominated by Democrat Presidents?
 
egbJXCp.png
 
They thought the same thing. That's why we can amend it.

To the contrary, the fact that the constitution has a process for amendment indicates that the framers thought it shouldn't be de facto amended by a "living constitution" hermeneutic.
 
I agree that there's a mechanism for amending it, but like I said on another thread earlier this week - when in this era of polarization that has been increasingly bad since the 1980's will we ever have an opportunity to amend the Constitution in any meaningful, substantive way?
 
Junebug, do you believe Senate Republicans should refuse to vote on appointees nominated by Democrat Presidents?


He will dodge or hide behind something like "Democrats would do it too"
 
I'm no literalist of the Constitution by any means, but where in the Constitution is an order that if something is "firmly established as an institution...it...become constitutionally mandated?"


The Court has recognized that an arrangement of the balance of power between the branches can become so set in stone that regardless of whether it was the arrangement the founders intended it nonetheless has become constitutionally mandated. NLRB v. Noel Canning is a recent example. There the court essentially said that since Presidents had used recess appointments in a certain way, and the Senate has acquiesced in that use, for most of our nations history that even though the scope of that power was unclear at the time the constitution was drafted, it was now clearly constitutional.

Scalia objected to this reasoning in his concurrence (Case was ultimately decided on another matter) but he was in the minority.
 
To the contrary, the fact that the constitution has a process for amendment indicates that the framers thought it shouldn't be de facto amended by a "living constitution" hermeneutic.

The whole "living constitution" dig at liberal justices is vastly overblown, IMO. The drafters of the constitution used some vague as shit words and phrases not because they were lazy but because they realized that some of those words would take on different, potentially expanded, meanings over time.

The Founders would be horrified at "originalism" (Scalia wasn't really an originalist fwiw, Thomas is by far the closest of any modern justice). The constitution was as much aspirational as it was foundational. Limiting the effect of its protections to how those protections were understood in the late 1700's flies in the face of everything the document stands for.

Finding that "due process" or "cruel and unusual punishment" covers more than it did over 200 years ago is not believing in a "living constitution", and the founders certainly did not intend for the amendment process to be used to update society's understanding of what the words of the constitution meant.

Conservatives favor a literal limited view of the constitution not out of principle but because 1780's social values are more preferable to them than 2016's social values.
 
I'm going to assume Scalia's death during a Dem presidency means God wants the court to be more progressive.
 
Antonin Scalia Reportedly Dead at 79

RC's last paragraph is dead on.

ITC, especially since this is going to drag on into the Sanders administration.
 
I agree that Obama should nominate someone that was unanimously appointed to a lower court by the Senate recently. That will inflict the highest political price for Pubs trying to deny a vote. They fell over themselves to claim no vote before Obama nominated anyone because they know if Obama nominates the right candidate it would be hard to stand against that specific candidate. Obama can't give them the gift of nominating someone with a hint of controversy or contention to give them another excuse.

And regardless, even a moderate taking Scalia's spot on the bench shifts the court massively.

And as others have said, the worst possible scenario for Pubs still stems from this course of action, as they pay a political price in a huge election for a blatantly obstructionist attitude, a label which they have been trying to shed, and an even more liberal judge ends up taking the seat next year.
 
I agree that Obama should nominate someone that was unanimously appointed to a lower court by the Senate recently.

"Sure we unanimously confirmed [] for [], but the Supreme Court is a completely different position for which [] just isn't appropriate/qualified."
 
I mean, that's a likely response but the public is not buying that the #1 breeding ground for Supreme Court Justices is a completely different position or someone like Sri isn't qualified.

Someone like Sri's resume looks like it was hand crafted to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
 
I agree that Obama should nominate someone that was unanimously appointed to a lower court by the Senate recently. That will inflict the highest political price for Pubs trying to deny a vote. They fell over themselves to claim no vote before Obama nominated anyone because they know if Obama nominates the right candidate it would be hard to stand against that specific candidate. Obama can't give them the gift of nominating someone with a hint of controversy or contention to give them another excuse.

And regardless, even a moderate taking Scalia's spot on the bench shifts the court massively.

And as others have said, the worst possible scenario for Pubs still stems from this course of action, as they pay a political price in a huge election for a blatantly obstructionist attitude, a label which they have been trying to shed, and an even more liberal judge ends up taking the seat next year.

Jane Kelly is an interesting choice here to put pressure on Grassley.
 
It is interesting that the board libs are not advocating for the best person to become justice, but the one that would inflict most damage to republicans if blocked.
 
It is interesting that the board libs are not advocating for the best person to become justice, but the one that would inflict most damage to republicans if blocked.

Well since the republicans showed their hand and already vowed to block it based on blind party politics of course you should inflict the most damage.
 
The weird part is that the 'Pubs have the votes to stop anyone they don't want. Cruz or Rubio wouldn't need to filibuster anyone. Despite that McConnell and Grassley have already boasted they won't ever even allow a vote. Sri and Kelly weren't recently confirmed with zero disapproval because they were partisan hacks. Why shouldn't Obama nominate either and make the 'Pubs explain why they're obstructing?
 
The weird part is that the 'Pubs have the votes to stop anyone they don't want. Cruz or Rubio wouldn't need to filibuster anyone. Despite that McConnell and Grassley have already boasted they won't ever even allow a vote. Sri and Kelly weren't recently confirmed with zero disapproval because they were partisan hacks. Why shouldn't Obama nominate either and make the 'Pubs explain why they're obstructing?

Because then all the senators would have to explain a no vote that was a yes a few years ago.
 
I agree that Obama should nominate someone that was unanimously appointed to a lower court by the Senate recently. That will inflict the highest political price for Pubs trying to deny a vote. They fell over themselves to claim no vote before Obama nominated anyone because they know if Obama nominates the right candidate it would be hard to stand against that specific candidate. Obama can't give them the gift of nominating someone with a hint of controversy or contention to give them another excuse.

And regardless, even a moderate taking Scalia's spot on the bench shifts the court massively.

And as others have said, the worst possible scenario for Pubs still stems from this course of action, as they pay a political price in a huge election for a blatantly obstructionist attitude, a label which they have been trying to shed, and an even more liberal judge ends up taking the seat next year.

Part of me thinks that Senate Pubs are simply posturing in order to get Obama to nominate a more moderate justice. They know that Dems are favored to keep the White House, so pressuring Obama might be the best way to keep the new Justice on the moderate side.

But if Obama nominates Srinivasan it's going to be very politically difficult for Senate Republicans to refuse him an up or down vote. Also hard to see him getting voted down if he were given an up or down vote.
 
FWIW Sri was pegged as Obama's next nominee by lots of people 3 years ago when he nominated to the D.C. circuit. I've read articles on him as the next nominee from 2013. So even without the political subtext he was a favorite.

I think if the pubs were posturing it would be their smartest move, but I don't give them that credit.
 
The next President will likely nominate 3 justices, two of which are liberal and one is a moderate. Red team has obviously been reading a YUGE part of Art of the Deal in hopes of getting a moderate pick from Barry, but there will be plenty of opportunity to set a standard for the court
 
Back
Top