• 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

The best part of one of my favorite Nino opinions. As much as I abhorred a lot of his personal views and some of the ways he moved the law, he was an incredible writer. I would give my left nut to be able to write like him

262ldnt.png
 
Junebug said:
You got Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy. Consider yourselves lucky. I don't think that will happen again.

Also, Kagan and Sotomayor are plenty payback.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understood the comment.
 
Tonight's debate was like an argument among a bunch of 4th graders....but there is a runaway winner for the biggest scumbag in that group. It isn't even necessary to mention his name. Everyone knows who it is.
 
It really is amazing how none of these guys have any ideas, just we need to stop the liberal agenda.
 
Obama will nominate someone solid and the GOP will step all over themselves performing an unprecedented year long obstruction. The optics will be terrible for the GOP.
 
PhDeac said:
So you believe that there's no one Obama could nominate who has the qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice?

Would you support waiting another four years to nominate a justice is Sanders or Clinton win the presidency?
Click to expand...

Please let Obama nominate himself just to troll Hillary.
 
Would republicans confirm HILLDAWG to take her out the race? Then Smilin Joe steps in to be our next POTUS. RBG retires, and Joe appoints BHO !
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Would republicans confirm HILLDAWG to take her out the race? Then Smilin Joe steps in to be our next POTUS. RBG retires, and Joe appoints BHO !
Click to expand...

You've got this backward. Hillary had Nino Foster'd so she can promise to nominate Barry, essentially putting a candidate back on the Dem ticket people don't hate. Smart move by Madame Secretary.
 
jhmd2000 said:
You've got this backward. Hillary had Nino Foster'd so she can promise to nominate Barry, essentially putting a candidate back on the Dem ticket people don't hate. Smart move by Madame Secretary.
Click to expand...

Miss Hilary*
 
While there's no constitutional obligation to advise and consent within a set period of time, it's probably just because there was never any serious contemplation of intentional obstructionism to prevent a sitting executive from having a good faith vote on their nominee.
 
Nah brah. I'm sure the original intent was for Senate to wait for a President elected by their party before considering any nominees.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
While there's no constitutional obligation to advise and consent within a set period of time, it's probably just because there was never any serious contemplation of intentional obstructionism to prevent a sitting executive from having a good faith vote on their nominee.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think this is true at all. To the extent that a delay in appointments/confirmations significantly impedes the ability of the Supreme Court to function as an institution I think it would definitely be unconstitutional - maybe not justiciable, but certainly violating the clear implications in the Constitution that the Supreme Court must be a functioning branch of government and that any actions taken by other branches that prevent it from functioning would be a violation of separation of powers.

I am not convinced that leaving the Court at eight members for a significant period of time would constitute a constitutional violation, but there are definitely constitutional limits on what Congress or the President could do to prevent vacancies from being filled.

Additionally some ConLaw scholars believe that a nine-member Supreme Court has become so firmly established as an institution that it has become constitutionally mandated (i.e. that Congress no longer has the power to decrease or increase the number of members of the court as it did in the early days of the country). If this is true, then failing to confirm a ninth member within a reasonable time would also be a constitutional violation.
 
Last edited:
Scalia is probably rolling over in his grave at the thought of a legislative body not fulfilling their constitutional duty
 
EatLeadCommie said:
How depressing. One thing for sure-- SCOTUS decisions won't be fun to read anymore.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this this morning, and I completely agree.

One thing about Scalia is indisputable: he brought personality to the Supreme Court. Given that the standard practice these days is to nominate jurists with insipid personalities and no paper trails (I'm looking at you, Roberts, and, to a lesser extent, Kagan and Sotomayor), I don't think we'll ever see the level of colorful opinions and discourse that we saw from the Court over the last couple decades.

Not that that should have any meaningful effect on the Court or society more broadly. I'll just miss it.
 
MysteryMen said:
Also this has huge implications for cases this term (and next if Republicans really aren't going to fill a vacancy until next February). Cases that would have been 5-4 traditional lineup conservative wins will now be affirmed by an equally divided court, and with the vast majority of the circuits controlled by liberal justices thanks to seven years of Obama appointments, that probably favors liberal decisions.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure 4-4 ties necessarily favors the left. You'd have to look at the data more closely to figure it out. Although the many of the circuits lean left at present, it stands to reason that the Court has granted (and would have granted) cert. petitions from the right-leaning circuits like the Fifth Circuit.

E.g., think of the Immigration imbroglio that was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit 2-1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top