• 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

DistrictDeacon said:
And why is the nominee all of a sudden supposed to be a compromise? Was that the requirement for the last 250 years?
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to compromise. The Senate also doesn't have to vote. They can stall this thing out until a new president comes in. Thats kind of the way politics works. You use your leverage to forge compromise. If neither side wants to compromise you have a stalemate. In this case a stalemate would mean Obama doesn't get to nominate someone (his downside) while the Senate/Republicans would have to face the music on being obstructionist (their downside). I would rather the two come together and forge a compromise. That is only going to happen if Obama takes the first step. The Republicans aren't going to, so if he wants to heal the wounds he needs to be the one to make the effort. If he makes the effort I Think the political ramifications for Republicans will be intensified next election, so in my opinion it is both preferable, and politically beneficial to reach out to Republicans to help consult. Whether he truly intends to take their advice or not, he should do it, and try to paint them into a corner.
 
Obama desperately wanted a bipartisan deal and was stonewalled. That's why there were numerous bipartisan meetings but at the end Republicans decided not to work with Obama and the Dems. Did you simply not follow the news?
 
Wrangor said:
I would think this is a perfect opportunity for Obama to nominate a moderate to the court and work with republicans on the choice. Both sides should be grown ups. If Obama nominates without input then I have no doubt the senate will block it.

Obama has made it a point to lament the angst of our political system. He know has an opportunity to make a major play in that direction.
Click to expand...

Srinivasan is a textbook moderate

Or by moderate, do you mean a moderate conservative?
 
Wrangor said:
I would think this is a perfect opportunity for Obama to nominate a moderate to the court and work with republicans on the choice. Both sides should be grown ups. If Obama nominates without input then I have no doubt the senate will block it.

Obama has made it a point to lament the angst of our political system. He know has an opportunity to make a major play in that direction.
Click to expand...

Great in theory, but Obama's taken way too much crap over the last eight years and has plenty of scars to prove it. Can't blame him for not trusting the current GOP. Trump was 15 when Obama was born and he still claimed Obama was born in Kenya and faked his birth certificate. I'd prefer that Obama nominated Sri or Kelly, but he probably nominates Lotetta Lynch instead. Sri and Kelly sailed through confirmation, but Lynch is the only one confirmed by the current Senate.

Doubt that any of the three will be confirmed, but GOP's playing with fire. No guarantee that GOP wins the WH or even holds the Senate. Have little doubt that Hillary or Bernie would nominate someone more liberal than those three. GOP wins big with a 2016 win, but they're totally hosed if they don't and they don't have a back up plan.
 
Wrangor said:
I think they are looking at the evidence. Obama talks a good game about cooperation and then does whatever he wants.

I am not going to defend the republicans actions. They have been terrible on cooperation as well, but Obamas first action was to cram ACA down the gullet. At no point has their been honest effort for cooperation from either side. Obama even uses SOTU addresses to take serious pot shots at the other side.

There is no evidence that either side will cooperate. So both sides instead uses the tools they have to attempt to neutralize the other. There is no reason to get indignant when both sides are doing the same thing.

I would hope that Obama would nominate a moderate, smart justice, and I would hope that the senate would confirm him/her. I doubt that happens on either side. Sometimes the coin flips in the opponents favor and that is what happened for republicans.
Click to expand...

Of the candidates mentioned, which would you consider moderate choices? Is any justice who is pro-choice, considered moderate to you?

Wrangor said:
He doesn't have to compromise. The Senate also doesn't have to vote. They can stall this thing out until a new president comes in. Thats kind of the way politics works. You use your leverage to forge compromise. If neither side wants to compromise you have a stalemate. In this case a stalemate would mean Obama doesn't get to nominate someone (his downside) while the Senate/Republicans would have to face the music on being obstructionist (their downside). I would rather the two come together and forge a compromise. That is only going to happen if Obama takes the first step. The Republicans aren't going to, so if he wants to heal the wounds he needs to be the one to make the effort. If he makes the effort I Think the political ramifications for Republicans will be intensified next election, so in my opinion it is both preferable, and politically beneficial to reach out to Republicans to help consult. Whether he truly intends to take their advice or not, he should do it, and try to paint them into a corner.
Click to expand...

What the shit is that? One side has literally come out and said they won't vote on anyone regardless of who is nominated, but it's the other side that has to make the first step to compromise. What exactly does that "first step" look like? Obama, sending McConnell a letter saying "who would you like to nominate to the Supreme Court?"? That's a weird position to stake out.
 
Wrangor said:
He doesn't have to compromise. The Senate also doesn't have to vote. They can stall this thing out until a new president comes in. Thats kind of the way politics works. You use your leverage to forge compromise. If neither side wants to compromise you have a stalemate. In this case a stalemate would mean Obama doesn't get to nominate someone (his downside) while the Senate/Republicans would have to face the music on being obstructionist (their downside). I would rather the two come together and forge a compromise. That is only going to happen if Obama takes the first step. The Republicans aren't going to, so if he wants to heal the wounds he needs to be the one to make the effort. If he makes the effort I Think the political ramifications for Republicans will be intensified next election, so in my opinion it is both preferable, and politically beneficial to reach out to Republicans to help consult. Whether he truly intends to take their advice or not, he should do it, and try to paint them into a corner.
Click to expand...

Yep. This is politics.

This is complete conjecture, but I've always thought of Obama as a guy who cares more about social issues than economic/labor issues. To that end, a nominee with supposed pro-business leanings that would rule in favor of social progress on a couple cases per term makes a lot of sense.
 
Obama should put up Sri. He's pretty much perfect. Unanimous approval, bipartisan politics, first Hindu and Indian-American, Stanford not Yale/Harvard, worked under Bush and was popular with pubs then, defended Enron and Exxon to piss off the liberals, defended anti-deportation and police accountability to piss off pubs.

Just have Bernie and Hillary respond to the nomination by offering examples of ultra-liberals they'd choose instead once in office. If the choice becomes that or Trump's sister, Sri starts looking pretty damn good all of a sudden.

Obama going ultra-lib here doesn't make a lot of sense, unless any legit candidate would simply refuse the appointment considering the buzzsaw they'll run into and only fake candidates would think it was worth going through.
 
DCDeac said:
Obama should put up Sri. He's pretty much perfect. Unanimous approval, bipartisan politics, first Hindu and Indian-American, Stanford not Yale/Harvard, worked under Bush and was popular with pubs then, defended Enron and Exxon to piss off the liberals, defended anti-deportation and police accountability to piss off pubs.

Just have Bernie and Hillary respond to the nomination by offering examples of ultra-liberals they'd choose instead once in office. If the choice becomes that or Trump's sister, Sri starts looking pretty damn good all of a sudden.

Obama going ultra-lib here doesn't make a lot of sense, unless any legit candidate would simply refuse the appointment considering the buzzsaw they'll run into and only fake candidates would think it was worth going through.
Click to expand...

Aren't Hindus like 0.7% of the US population? Why would that be a selling point?
 
It's a pretty ballsy move by the Pubs to come out and say they will block regardless for a couple of reasons.

1. Obama is much more likely to nominate a moderate who favors liberal social ideas than either Hillary or Bernie.
2. What the Republicans are doing now looks absolutely awful to most independent voters who are intelligent politically. That's a big issue with the Presidency and Congress elections coming up.

If I'm the Republicans I let Sri in instead of rolling the dice that Rubio, Cruz, or Trump wins the presidency against Hillary.
 
PhDeac said:
Obama desperately wanted a bipartisan deal and was stonewalled. That's why there were numerous bipartisan meetings but at the end Republicans decided not to work with Obama and the Dems. Did you simply not follow the news?
Click to expand...

Trying to pull Olympia Snowe's vote does not constitute "bipartisan".
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Aren't Hindus like 0.7% of the US population? Why would that be a selling point?
Click to expand...

Diversity? Religious non-Christians are trending towards 10% of the population. Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, etc - they're all under 2% individually but together they're a significant portion of the country. Unless you're not really into that whole separation of Church and State thing. Technically I'd think out of 9 justices if you're basing it off population you'd go 5 Christians, 3 non-religious, and 2 religious others for 2016/17.

Mainly I think it adds credence to his being a moderate.
 
PhDeac said:
Obama desperately wanted a bipartisan deal and was stonewalled. That's why there were numerous bipartisan meetings but at the end Republicans decided not to work with Obama and the Dems. Did you simply not follow the news?
Click to expand...

Anyone who does not understand that is a total idiot. Obama even gutted the bill by removing the public option in an attempt to get the Republicans to engage.
 
DCDeac said:
Diversity? Religious non-Christians are trending towards 10% of the population. Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, etc - they're all under 2% individually but together they're a significant portion of the country. Unless you're not really into that whole separation of Church and State thing. Technically I'd think out of 9 justices if you're basing it off population you'd go 5 Christians, 3 non-religious, and 2 religious others for 2016/17.

Mainly I think it adds credence to his being a moderate.
Click to expand...

If you're lumping Jewish justices with them then there are already three non-Christian justices. The current Christian justices are also all Catholic who make up just 22% of the US population.

Why would being Hindu lend credence to him being a moderate?
 
Last edited:
palmab03 said:
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?
Click to expand...

In.
 
If no vote is allowed the republicans get exactly what they deserve if they lose the senate and don't win the White House. The most liberal anti-gun pro abortion nomination possible. Additionally if the republicans win the White House but lose the senate with this bullshit happening why not come out and say oh I don't think 4 years is enough time either we refuse to ever hold a vote.
 
that won't happen, that congressional-seat penalty is a myth. the GOP's state-level machine is for real
 
Deacsfan27 said:
It's a pretty ballsy move by the Pubs to come out and say they will block regardless for a couple of reasons.

1. Obama is much more likely to nominate a moderate who favors liberal social ideas than either Hillary or Bernie.
2. What the Republicans are doing now looks absolutely awful to most independent voters who are intelligent politically. That's a big issue with the Presidency and Congress elections coming up.

If I'm the Republicans I let Sri in instead of rolling the dice that Rubio, Cruz, or Trump wins the presidency against Hillary.
Click to expand...

What the Pubs don't get here it that anyone that considers themselves either moderate or independent is smart enough to see what they are doing by obstructing and will probably punish them come election time. This is where it would likely affect the down part of a ticket in say Mizzou where they might vote for a Pub but instead go for HRC and in turn vote for Kander (D) over Blount (R) for that Senate seat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top