• 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

It didn't hurt them when it took there forever to confirm her. It wouldn't hurt them now and it would take her off the table to continue as AG for Bernie or Hillary.
 
and that's one of the key things here, at every turn obama and the dems have out-maneuvered the repubs from a national political standpoint. i think obama and the dems will leverage this as an opportunity to make a statement to voters at what the next court will look like. the repubs being the party of no on a moderate appointee would look horrible. they've already set themselves up to fail by immediately coming out against a nomination for over 11 months. so obama can nom a moderately liberal judge and watch them fall all over themselves to look bad right when they are looking at crowning a nominee.
 
RChildress107 said:
Just curious but what would be the argument against this?
Click to expand...

Junebug said:
As to the more pertinent question of whether this senate should give the forthcoming nomination from Obama an up or down vote before the election, I'm still thinking about it. As I have stated, I don't think it's constitutionally required for them to do so. Practically speaking, in the abstract, I do think there is some merit to an argument that, at some point in time before an election, a senate may justifiably refuse to vote on a president's nominee. If, for example, if Justice Scalia had died on January 19, 2017 (or even the first Monday in November 2016), and Obama immediately nominated someone, I think the senate could justifiably refuse to vote for the nominee. So, the argument would go, with delegates from Iowa and New Hampshire already having been awarded, we are now far enough along in the election cycle that eyes are forward to the new president and not backward to Obama.

That said, my present thinking is that we are not sufficiently close to a change in power that the senate should stall. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but 11 months just feels like an awfully long time to wait.
Click to expand...

Also, the senate may come to the conclusion that the political risk of delaying is outweighed by the harm to country created by giving the nominee an up or down vote. In these circumstances, I think that conclusion is probably within the senate's exclusive purview, and if you disagree you can do your best to vote the bastards out.
 
robert bork was a horrible candidate opposed by the NAACP and the ACLU. Bork was a racist, white-supremacist, who doesn't believe in privacy. America is much better with him not serving on the Supreme Court. If you don't like the nominee because of his past rulings, or views, fine. But to eliminate everyone is wrong.
 
The assumption has to be that there are enough "normal" republicans in the Senate as opposed to the crazy as fuck House that allowing an actual vote for confirmation would result in the majority needed. So if you are a crazy fucker like Ted Cruz or scared of the crazy fuckers that support Cruz you don't want to ever be put in the position of voting.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Junebug, names?
Click to expand...

I haven't given it much thought since the last vacancy, but I bet Mike Luttig would still take the job. You remember him, right? He was one of the ones Reid said would be filibustered if nominated back when O'Conner stepped down. Did you know that a nominee that is filibustered wouldn't get an up or down vote? Kindof like what the democrats did to Miguel Estrada on his nomination to the DC circuit court. Funny, I don't remember a liberal outcry then that the senate had a constitutional obligation to give him an up or down vote, but maybe I forgot it.
 
Junebug said:
I haven't given it much thought since the last vacancy, but I bet Mike Luttig would still take the job. You remember him, right? He was one of the ones Reid said would be filibustered if nominated back when O'Conner stepped down. Did you know that a nominee that is filibustered wouldn't get an up or down vote? Kindof like what the democrats did to Miguel Estrada on his nomination to the DC circuit court. Funny, I don't remember a liberal outcry then that the senate had a constitutional obligation to give him an up or down vote, but maybe I forgot it.
Click to expand...

Did Bush not fill the O'Conner seat?
 
What, in your mind, Junebug, is the number of months/days that should be a buffer between the end of the term that is safe for a president to nominate?
 
Junebug said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which in the end is kind of a stupid comparison, because Reagan then nominated Kennedy like four months later and he was confirmed 97-0. Today's republicans aren't just going to obstruct the first Obama candidate; they've threatened to obstruct all of them.
 
This is not comparable to Bork in any fashion. First of all Obama is not going to nominate someone with views on the record that are as extreme as Bork's. Second the president still was able to get a nominee that he chose through the Senate.

So stop drawing Bork parallels. The Dems refused to confirm Bork. The Republicans are refusing to confirm anybody. For a year. That is ridiculous and unprecedented
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top