• 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

p116-scalia-and-ginsburg-on-elephant-credit-collection-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states_wide-5ee975956f977ccb942031499ecd95c77ce14437.jpg

4a13d0ddd4da5d917ea33234047e86a8.jpg
 
No kidding. I couldn't believe she said that. Last time we had an election, the left lost. Big. So don't run that tripe up the flagpole.
Exactly what Bernie is talking about with his "revolution" rhetoric. This is what the country looks like when the angry white 23% of eligible voters steer the ship
 
I figure Obama will do the smart thing and nominate a moderate like Sri and force the Pubs hand. If they delay or refuse to hold hearings, they'll be castrated all the way to the election over it and moderates or independents will go for the Dems hands down if they haven't decided that way already. If you are a mod/independent and watched that clown show Saturday night, I don't know how in the world you would vote for one of those idiots.
 
No kidding. I couldn't believe she said that. Last time we had an election, the left lost. Big. So don't run that tripe up the flagpole.

Huge difference in the type of election though. There is a long history of the president's pick for a Supreme Court justice getting confirmed by the senate regardless of ideology as long as he/she is considered qualified for the position. There is only a short history of Supreme Court nominees getting blocked by the opposing party in the senate for ideological reasons.

There is zero history of a Senate categorically refusing to confirm anybody just because the President is from a different political party. Can you say with a straight face that if there was a Republican president that Mitch McConnell would refuse to confirm their nominee on the grounds that the American people deserve a voice??

So don't talk about the midterm election having consequences. As long as the President nominates somebody qualified, the precedent that the voters would have had in mind while voting in both elections is that the person would be confirmed
 
Presidents are elected for 4-year terms, not 3-year terms. Obama won a national election in 2012 by 5 million votes. Those voters "hired" Obama for 4 years....not 3 years....and they are entitled to have a president for the full 4 years of his term....just as whomever is elected this November should be entitled to a full 4-year term. The argument that a president should not make presidential decisions in the 4th year of a 4-year term is ridiculous on the face of it.

Ted Cruz is a total scumbag.
 
Huge difference in the type of election though. There is a long history of the president's pick for a Supreme Court justice getting confirmed by the senate regardless of ideology as long as he/she is considered qualified for the position. There is only a short history of Supreme Court nominees getting blocked by the opposing party in the senate for ideological reasons.

There is zero history of a Senate categorically refusing to confirm anybody just because the President is from a different political party. Can you say with a straight face that if there was a Republican president that Mitch McConnell would refuse to confirm their nominee on the grounds that the American people deserve a voice??

So don't talk about the midterm election having consequences. As long as the President nominates somebody qualified, the precedent that the voters would have had in mind while voting in both elections is that the person would be confirmed

Yes

Presidents are elected for 4-year terms, not 3-year terms. Obama won a national election in 2012 by 5 million votes. Those voters "hired" Obama for 4 years....not 3 years....and they are entitled to have a president for the full 4 years of his term....just as whomever is elected this November should be entitled to a full 4-year term. The argument that a president should not make presidential decisions in the 4th year of a 4-year term is ridiculous on the face of it.

Ted Cruz is a total scumbag.

Yes on all accounts.

You Constitutional literalists are crazy.

and absolutely yes.
 
I figure Obama will do the smart thing and nominate a moderate like Sri and force the Pubs hand. If they delay or refuse to hold hearings, they'll be castrated all the way to the election over it and moderates or independents will go for the Dems hands down if they haven't decided that way already. If you are a mod/independent and watched that clown show Saturday night, I don't know how in the world you would vote for one of those idiots.

I hope they do filibuster and make complete asses of themselves. Makes it more likely the Dems win the Senate again this year.

Once Clinton wins the POTUS and the Senate is Democrat-led, the Pubs will really be in good shape then...lol.
 
They should just get some old Liberal to retire then offer up both sides their standard bearer for the next 30 years.
 
They should just get some old Liberal to retire then offer up both sides their standard bearer for the next 30 years.

Why? Nothing says the party who lost the last 5/6 Presidential popular votes should get the same input to the court.
 
This nominee will be among the most scrutinized in history. If Obama nominates someone with a super liberal paper trail, the Republicans will use it both as grounds for delaying the confirmation hearing (which they will do regardless) and as a referendum against the left to appeal to independent voters in the general.

Mid-term elections have consequences too.

Not on the President's constitutional authority. The GOP controlled Senate can demonstrate the consequences of the last election by voting down the President's nominees.
 
Huge difference in the type of election though. There is a long history of the president's pick for a Supreme Court justice getting confirmed by the senate regardless of ideology as long as he/she is considered qualified for the position. There is only a short history of Supreme Court nominees getting blocked by the opposing party in the senate for ideological reasons.

There is zero history of a Senate categorically refusing to confirm anybody just because the President is from a different political party. Can you say with a straight face that if there was a Republican president that Mitch McConnell would refuse to confirm their nominee on the grounds that the American people deserve a voice??

So don't talk about the midterm election having consequences. As long as the President nominates somebody qualified, the precedent that the voters would have had in mind while voting in both elections is that the person would be confirmed

Robert Bork says hello.

He wasn't not confirmed because Reagan nominated him. He was not confirmed because libs didn't like his ideology.

Turnabout, if it comes, will be fair play.
 
You Constitutional literalists are crazy.

I don't actually know any constitutional literalists, and I certainly haven't read any literalist posts on this thread. The closest post I've seen to literalism is Mystery Man's suggestion that the senate is required to approve of the president's nominee.
 
Robert Bork says hello.

He wasn't not confirmed because Reagan nominated him. He was not confirmed because libs didn't like his ideology.

Turnabout, if it comes, will be fair play.

Republicans have spent decades complaining about what they see as an injustice done to Bork and how wrong it was. So you do the exact same injustice you accuse the Dems of and are fine with it? And it wasn't because of Reagan that he was denied (Reagan had other justices approved), it was because of Bork.
 
In fact, Reagan got Scalia approved 98-0. That should tell you something about Bork.
 
Robert Bork says hello.

He wasn't not confirmed because Reagan nominated him. He was not confirmed because libs didn't like his ideology.

Turnabout, if it comes, will be fair play.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm forgetting history, but pretty sure after Bork was rejected they confirmed Anthony Kennedy (97-0), who was also nominated by Reagan, correct?

So that's not even close to a case of categorically refusing to confirm anyone because they did confirm somebody, just not Reagan's first choice. There is no parallel to what is going on now
 
He wasn't not confirmed because Reagan nominated him. He was not confirmed because libs didn't like his ideology.

The world would be a better place with a poll tax, huh?
 
Back
Top