Obama Nominates Merrick Garland for SCOTUS

[Fuck Your Couch]

Two former Obama advisors have said he is going to nominate someone that was approved be the Senate unanimously. If you believe they're still plugged in, that pretty much leaves Sri and Kelly.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Two former Obama advisors have said he is going to nominate someone that was approved be the Senate unanimously. If you believe they're still plugged in, that pretty much leaves Sri and Kelly.

Both should be easy confirmations under normal circumstances. Kelly puts pressure on Grassley to get out of committee. I probably wouldn't rule out Lynch just yet. This is very moderate decision making on the part of Obama. Wrangor do you consider this compromising?

 

[Wrangor]

Both should be easy confirmations under normal circumstances. Kelly puts pressure on Grassley to get out of committee. I probably wouldn't rule out Lynch just yet. This is very moderate decision making on the part of Obama. Wrangor do you consider this compromising?

I would like to see Obama publicly state he is looking to work with Republicans. I am not saying if he doesn't he is wrong, I just voted for Obama originally because I expected big things. I expected more MLK and less Al Sharpton. Doesn't mean that Sharpton is wrong for his method of advancement, just means that MLK changed history because he took the hard road.

I think the Senate shouldn't stall personally. I think that no matter who the nominee is, that he/she deserves an up down vote. But I would have a hard time making a call on whether Obama is truly making overtures without knowing the nominee. I want to make clear that if Obama nominates someone that has been approved unanimously by the Senate then they at least deserve a vote, and in my opinion would have to have some sort of smoking gun against them that was previous unknown to not be confirmed. My comments were more analysis of what WILL happen if Obama plays hard ball. He has every right to, but I don't think he should. Nominating someone that has been unanimously approved previously is a shrewd move. Whether it is a compromise or not is unknown.

 

[Junebug]

Examples? The Dem majority during the Bush years was definitely not this obstructionist.

How about filibusters by the Democratic Senate of 10 of W's lower court judicial nominees circa 2003 - 2005? Many of W's judicial nominees remained pending at the time of the 2004 election.

Or is it only nominees of Democratic presidents who are entitled to an up or down vote?

 

[PhDeac]

Wrangor, Obama has been what you wanted him to be. You've just been convinced he isn't. He hasn't been MLK or Sharpton. He's been Jackie Robinson.

And the Constitution outlines how he is supposed to "work with Republicans." He doesn't have to state it. The Constitution states it.

 

[DeaconSig]

How about filibusters by the Democratic Senate of 10 of W's lower court judicial nominees circa 2003 - 2005? Many of W's judicial nominees remained pending at the time of the 2004 election.

Or is it only nominees of Democratic presidents who are entitled to an up or down vote?

Recall what happened to the 4th circuit under President Clinton? And how that miraculously changed when President Bush was elected?

 

[Wakeforest22890]

I don't really care who did what when. That's over and the present reality is Obama will nominate someone and the ball is in the senates court to put a good faith vote up. Let's see what happens. I predict that no vote ever takes place but hope I'm wrong. Whoever controls the senate from either party should put a SCOTUS nominee to a yes or no vote in a timely fashion.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Wrangor, Obama has been what you wanted him to be. You've just been convinced he isn't. He hasn't been MLK or Sharpton. He's been Jackie Robinson.

And the Constitution outlines how he is supposed to "work with Republicans." He doesn't have to state it. The Constitution states it.

Maybe if Jackie Robinson hit .182 and played defense like Manny Ramirez.

 

[FuckmouthedRube]

Kamala Harris said she doesn't want the job, so there goes that theory

Was never going to happen. CA Dem machine cut a deal with AG Kamala and Lt Governor Gavin Newsom. Kamala replaces Boxer in the Senate in 2016 and Gavin replaces Brown as Governor in 2018. Kamala's a better human being, but not as ambitious or ruthless as Gavin. Her ceiling is VP. Newsom will run for POTUS in 2024, but has a messy personal life which make being part of a national ticket extremely problematic.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Wrangor, I think you have a somewhat distorted view of MLK in history. He was at his core more agitator than uniter. He was effective in uniting folks in agitation though. MLK was not murdered in cold blood because he was bringing too many people together.

 

[Junebug]

Recall what happened to the 4th circuit under President Clinton? And how that miraculously changed when President Bush was elected?

Yes. Bill Clinton unlawfully appointed Roger Gregory as a recess appointee, after the 2000 election, as the first African-American judge on the fourth circuit. Despite the fact W was under no obligation to reappoint him, and despite the fact Gregory's appointment would have expired within a year, W reappointed Gregory when he became president. I don't recall that same type of courtesy being extended to any of W's appointees who were not confirmed before 2009, but feel free to point out one to me if you know of one.

What, is that not what you were referring to?

Look, I know Rich Leonard, and I knew him during the time his nomination was stalled. What happened to him sucked. Jesse Helms was a real horse's ass, particularly when it came to judges.

The reality here is that both parties are obstructionist (and both parties suck) when it comes to judicial nominees. The present Senate does not have a corner on that market, and nothing they are doing here is out of bounds in the games of love, war, and politics. Both sides are right, both sides are wrong, and only time will tell which party has the better spin cycle on their stance.

 

[JuiceCrewAllStar]

MLK was also pretty socialist.

 

[Wrangor]

Wrangor, Obama has been what you wanted him to be. You've just been convinced he isn't. He hasn't been MLK or Sharpton. He's been Jackie Robinson.

And the Constitution outlines how he is supposed to "work with Republicans." He doesn't have to state it. The Constitution states it.

Why do you always tell me my opinion. He hasn't been what I wanted him to be. You telling me what to think isn't going to change my mind.

 

[Deacfreak07]

The reaction to Obama from the right has some parallels to the reaction to MLK, specifically the outsider who wants to fundamentally change our way of life rhetoric.

 

[Wrangor]

MLK was not murdered in cold blood because he was bringing too many people together.

That is actually exactly why he was murdered.

 

[Wrangor]

I don't really care who did what when. That's over and the present reality is Obama will nominate someone and the ball is in the senates court to put a good faith vote up. Let's see what happens. I predict that no vote ever takes place but hope I'm wrong. Whoever controls the senate from either party should put a SCOTUS nominee to a yes or no vote in a timely fashion.

I agree that the nominee deserves a vote. Bad break for conservatives, but you can only play the hand you are dealt.

 

[Deacfreak07]

In this specific situation, I can't imagine a President King asking for permission to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court. Therein lies my disappointment with Obama. I wanted a radical, and I got a compromising moderate.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Antonin Scalia Dead at 79

That is actually exactly why he was murdered.

Not exactly. He was murdered for being an agent of change, and not just for racial issues either, his opposition to the Vietnam War and his positions for wage equality. He was in Memphis organizing sanitation workers around wage inequality when he was shot. It bothers me how sanitized MLK has become by history.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia

WASHINGTON—Moving quickly to begin the process of filling the unexpected vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, President Obama spent much of the weekend compiling a shortlist of gay, transsexual abortion doctors to replace the late Antonin Scalia, White House sources confirmed Monday. “These are all exemplary candidates with strong homosexual values and proven records of performing partial-birth abortions, but am I missing anyone?” Obama reportedly asked himself while reviewing his list of queer, gender-nonconforming, feminist Planned Parenthood employees, all of whom were also said to be black immigrants. “I definitely have enough post-op transsexuals on the list, but it is a little light on pre-op candidates. And I should probably add a cop killer or two on here just to round out my options.” Sources later confirmed that Obama was attempting to rapidly narrow the list down to the single best nominee to submit to the Senate in hopes of wrapping up confirmation hearings before his choice had to leave to attend the Hajj pilgrimage.

 

[Junebug]

I agree that the nominee deserves a vote. Bad break for conservatives, but you can only play the hand you are dealt.

Why do you insist that the republicans play according to rules you know the Democrats would not follow if the roles were reversed? This isn't a moral issue, and, at this point at least, you don't gain anything by inventing right and wrong and then playing by what you have said is right.