• 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

ImTheCaptain said:
that won't happen, that congressional-seat penalty is a myth. the GOP's state-level machine is for real
Click to expand...

This is correct. That ain't the 2008 Obama Turnout Machine on this ticket, and America hedged its Obama bet by moving down ballot elections to the right from 2008 forward. No RNC Chairman has done more for state and local Republican politics than BO.
 
Last edited:
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...

So you want to make sure church and state are separate, but then you want to use religion as a primary basis for the nomination. Got it.
 
Sri's window is now through 2024. He may bet that Hillary will win and he'll get a shot in the next four years (the ideal time for him-early 50s). Why go through the process and potentially be damaged if you'll never be confirmed or even get an up/down vote? Not necessarily Obama's fault if Sri, Kelly, or Nguyen pass. Lynch or an older Latina nominee might be sacrificial lambs that help electorally.
 
jhmd2000 said:
This is correct. That ain't the 2008 Obama Turnout Machine on this ticket, and America hedged its Obama bet by moving down ballot elections to the right from 2008 forward. No RNC Chairman has done more for state and local Republican politics than BO.
Click to expand...

Hate and fear are powerful motivators.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Sri's window is now through 2024. He may bet that Hillary will win and he'll get a shot in the next four years (the ideal time for him-early 50s). Why go through the process and potentially be damaged if you'll never be confirmed or even get an up/down vote? Not necessarily Obama's fault if Sri, Kelly, or Nguyen pass. Lynch or an older Latina nominee might be sacrificial lambs that help electorally.
Click to expand...

Obama could throw his boy Big Al Diaz up there and the Republicans would have a hard time not confirming him given his professional background.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Obama could throw his boy Big Al Diaz up there and the Republicans would have a hard time not confirming him given his professional background.
Click to expand...

A former co-worker of mine is trying to get a "grass-roots" effort started to accomplish exactly that.

Diaz is a good judge.
 
I just don't see much value to be gained by lumping all the extreme religious minorities together in an "other" category for a representative. It's not like a Hindu is going to be a representative for the viewpoints of Muslims, Scientologists, etc...

I also question how moderate a Hindu that made rulings according to Hindu teachings would be. For example, aren't Hindus pretty socially conservative with regards to things like abortion?
 
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...

Desperately wanted the republicans to kowtow is a better description.
 
DeaconSig said:
A former co-worker of mine is trying to get a "grass-roots" effort started to accomplish exactly that.

Diaz is a good judge.
Click to expand...

I agree. He is also the perfect Obama candidate because he meets the liberal checklist but hits a lot of conservative points as well. Tough for either side to poke holes in.
 
Wrangor said:
Desperately wanted the republicans to kowtow is a better description.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Obamacare based on the Republican alternative to the Democrat favored single payer universal health care in the first place? Just using that plan as a starting point was already a major compromise. If the Republicans had been willing to deal, they could have gotten a lot more of what they wanted. Mitch McConnell thought the best strategy was to oppose everything Obama wanted to do.

 
WakeForestRanger said:
Wasn't Obamacare based on the Republican alternative to the Democrat favored single payer universal health care in the first place? Just using that plan as a starting point was already a major compromise. If the Republicans had been willing to deal, they could have gotten a lot more of what they wanted. Mitch McConnell thought the best strategy was to oppose everything Obama wanted to do.

Click to expand...


The individual mandate -- also a republican idea.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
that won't happen, that congressional-seat penalty is a myth. the GOP's state-level machine is for real
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they are as strong on state-wide Senate races. They certainly won more than they lost in 2014, but they don't control the states quite like they control the Congressional Districts. The House is absolutely bombproof for them from the left. It's just going to keep lurching right with primary challenges motivating dumb behavior. Make no mistake, the posturing around this appointment is more connected to fear of being primaried that anything.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Trying to pull Olympia Snowe's vote does not constitute "bipartisan".
Click to expand...

Why would she even get a vote now? I would think Obama took her off his contact list when Angus King replaced her.

Susan Collins, OTOH, is the 1st Pub senator who has said she would not automatically deny a floor vote. She's not running this year, fwiw. Ayotte, OTOH, is running for re-election and came out firmly behind McConnell. Not sure that was her smartest move.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
There's no reason for the nominee to be any sort of compromise. Obama can nominate whoever the fuck he wants. That's the way it works. When Thurgood Marshall stepped down, the left whined that his nominee should be black and liberal and Bush "compromised" by giving them Clarence Thomas. It is the way the cookie crumbles. Let him nominate whoever he wants and vote it up or down. Maybe have a nice drawn out confirmation hearing.
Click to expand...

For all the crazy shit you can say about ELC, he's no whiner.
 
gotta save the unborn, man. This is bigger than the constitution or anything, its dead babies.
 
Junebug said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Strom was the only one to even bring this up, and to claim it had anything to do with his opposition to Fortas is laughable given Thurmond's vocal opposition to the Civil Rights Act (of which Fortas was an ardent supporter).

So basically the whole concept of not confirming nominees near the end of a president's term only originated as a weak cover for blatant partisanship (and really just blatant racism). At least McConnell is being an originalist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top