• 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

MysteryMen said:
1. That wasn't the question.

2. I am relatively positive no Dem majority leader would come out and say categorically that no nominees would even be considered
Click to expand...

Not majority leader, but still something for everyone...

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

"New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”...

"White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees."
 
DeaconBrews said:
We are going to build a big beautiful wall... with the money Plama takes from you
Click to expand...

So we take the current odds Trump wins the Presidency, and I'll bet that. That gives Juice a vig of the scenario where Trump wins the Presidency but beats Bernie in doing so (since in that case Trump doesn't beat Hillary).

Trump is 3.5 : 1 currently, so $100 if Trump beats Hillary to Palma, $30 to juice if he doesn't. Deal?
 
Last edited:
WFU71 said:
Not majority leader, but still something for everyone...

http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

"New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”...

"White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees."
Click to expand...

1. Leaving a vacancy open for a year could easily constitute extraordinary circumstances

2. There's a big difference between shifting from 5-4 conservative to 6-3 conservative as opposed to 5-4 conservative to 5-4 liberal.

3. It recognizes that there was a "presumption of confirmation" among Dems less than 10 years ago

4. It was still a dumb thing to say
 
I think Obama should nominate Paul Clement or Brett Kavanaugh. See if the Republicans would turn those guys down.
 
MysteryMen said:
1. Leaving a vacancy open for a year could easily constitute extraordinary circumstances

2. There's a big difference between shifting from 5-4 conservative to 6-3 conservative as opposed to 5-4 conservative to 5-4 liberal.

3. It recognizes that there was a "presumption of confirmation" among Dems less than 10 years ago

4. It was still a dumb thing to say
Click to expand...

5. I hope there is at least one current Republican who less partisan than Chuck freakin Schumer.
 
Where I come down (today):

McConnell screwed up royally by announcing first -- and within hours of Scalia's death -- that the senate wasn't going to consider an Obama nominee. He came across as obstructionist and Obama came across as measured and an innocent victim of obstructionism. That may come back to bite the republicans. The better play would have been to stay silent and deal with Obama's nomination once it was made.

Despite McConnell's mistake, I am still of the view that the senate is not constitutionally obligated to vote on Obama's forthcoming nominee; failing to do so would not materially impede the SCOTUS from performing its function. Sure, there will be some 4-4 decisions, but nothing in the constitution prohibits this, or even requires an odd number of justices (there have been times when we had an even number by statute.) Moreover, when the senate filibustered Abe Fortas, among the justifications that were invoked was the fact that he was nominated in an election year, which I admit was in the June timeframe. And, during W's presidency, Chuck Schumer also invoked this justification to argue that the senate wouldn't vote on a W nominee within 18 months of the end of W's presidency.

For these reasons, I think the decision about when a SCOTUS justice's death is transformed from "late" to "too late" is a purely political one. What is more, I have zero doubt that if the roles were reversed, the majority leader of a democratically controlled senate would have said the same thing that McConnell did (or something similar). I don't really like that this issue is reducible to pure politics -- and it certainly doesn't seem "fair" if I am to put myself in democrats' shoes -- but my conclusion is that if republicans make the decision that it is worth the expenditure of their political capital to stall the nomination, then the only grounds on which I can see to disagree with them is whether their balancing is correct. On that point, McConnell stupidly cost himself some credibility by throwing down the gauntlet first instead of subtly delaying, voting down the first nominee, and only *then* invoking the Thurmond rule, but at this point I'm not prepared to say his ultimate conclusion is wrong. Only time -- and the way the republicans in the senate handle the process -- will bear that out. I have little faith in them to handle it correctly, but i'm hopeful they'll surprise me.

Feel free to take the pos back.
 
Obama is going to go for ultimate troll move and nominate a living constitutionalist version of Bork.

And why shouldn't he? Cherry on top for his legacy.
 
MysteryMen said:
1. Leaving a vacancy open for a year could easily constitute extraordinary circumstances

2. There's a big difference between shifting from 5-4 conservative to 6-3 conservative as opposed to 5-4 conservative to 5-4 liberal.

3. It recognizes that there was a "presumption of confirmation" among Dems less than 10 years ago

4. It was still a dumb thing to say
Click to expand...

I find this post funny considering that not 3 hours ago you were accusing me of dodging.

Hello, pot.
 
How did I dodge? I pointed out the differences in the situation and then concluded by saying that despite those it was still a dumb proclamation
 
You did what we all do -- you defended a statement merely because it was stated by someone of your political persuasion. I do it too, but don't pretend like you don't.
 
wakephan09 said:
This is clearly a reductive question coming from a place of naivety, but the court was, until last week, made up of five right-leaning justices and four left-leaning justices -- why shouldn't that paradigm be reversed for a while? Would that really impact the very "stability of our legal system"?
Click to expand...

I think it would. The court has had a 5-4 (quasi-)conservative/liberal breakdown since at least early 1990s A lot of the seminal decisions over that time period -- cases involving the commerce clause, the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, fourth amendment cases, federalism, partial birth abortion, section 5 of the 14th amendment -- were 5-4 decisions involving interpretations of the constitution. It is generally thought that starie decisis is at its weakest in cases involving constitutional (as opposed to statutory) interpretation, so a 4-5 realignment could drastically alter decades-long expectations in many different areas of the law. Constitutional law, in particular, gains part of its legitimacy through permancy, and people order their lives, affairs, and businesses according to the laws in place at the time. I have no doubt that a 4-5 court would attempt to systematically dismantle all of the 5-4 holdings issued over the past 25 years. That kind of a sea change in the SCOUTUS could be monumental.
 
Yeah but that 4-5 shift occurs within the legal system. Again you're using your own bias to claim anything that isn't conservative is somehow outside the law. A liberal justice nominated by a democratically elected Democrat president and confirmed by a democratically elected Republican senate is exactly how the legal system works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top