• 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

Junebug said:
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.
Click to expand...

Kind of like the Court of the last 30 years attempted to systematically dismantle all of the holdings issued by the more liberal Warren Court?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
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.
Click to expand...

GOP has to figure out a way to delay long enough to get through the Senate primaries. By then, they'll know who their presidential ticket is, who their Senate nominees are, and what their chances are for POTUS and keeping the Senate. If they start hearings earlier, they end up with some unelectable Senate candidates. HRC or Bernie will definitely nominate someone they hate. Need an out in November if they lose the presidency and the Senate.
 
But they risk alienating their base if they start hearings after they promised they wouldn't during their primaries. That's especially true if Cruz or Rubio are on the ticket.
 
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...

That really isn't true. Obama made early efforts to work with the GOP, but they balked. And he ran on the ACA, and won, he was of course going to implement it.

The ecnomic recovery stuff in particular comes to mind. Here's an article re president-elect obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20repubs.html?_r=0
 
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...

During the Obama presidency the GOP's view of compromise and collaboration has been "Do it our way or we'll filibuster and then shut the government down!" That is a hostage negotiation, not an honest collaboration to find some mutually agreeable moderate policies. In this case with the SCOTUS nomination, the GOP has already declared they are going to blow the hostage's head off with out even know who the hostage is. They did it before Scalia's body was room temperature! Seems like maybe the GOP are guilty of not collaborating and compromising.
 
So for y'all micro-olds and olds: has a congress ever behaved this badly before? The emphasis is on "this" because whatever is happening (obstructionism, hostage negotiation, etc.) is simply unacceptable.
 
Strickland33 said:
So for y'all micro-olds and olds: has a congress ever behaved this badly before? The emphasis is on "this" because whatever is happening (obstructionism, hostage negotiation, etc.) is simply unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Strickland33 said:
So for y'all micro-olds and olds: has a congress ever behaved this badly before? The emphasis is on "this" because whatever is happening (obstructionism, hostage negotiation, etc.) is simply unacceptable.
Click to expand...

1856_brooks-caning-of-sumner.jpg
 
This is my favorite thing hidden within those results.

Thirty percent of all Republicans wish the South had won the Civil War. (Drilling down, we find that 61 percent of Ben Carson's voters are glad the North won, which at least means they're paying attention to their candidate.)

Does it mean they are paying attention? Since 39% of his supporters, despite the candidate being black, wish the South had won.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
This is my favorite thing hidden within those results.

Thirty percent of all Republicans wish the South had won the Civil War. (Drilling down, we find that 61 percent of Ben Carson's voters are glad the North won, which at least means they're paying attention to their candidate.)

Does it mean they are paying attention? Since 39% of his supporters, despite the candidate being black, wish the South had won.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that half of that 39% is "not sure", which is even worse. Pick a fucking side already.
 
PhDeac said:
But they risk alienating their base if they start hearings after they promised they wouldn't during their primaries. That's especially true if Cruz or Rubio are on the ticket.
Click to expand...

Can see both sides. Despite current posturing, Cruz would love the free platform of grilling an Obama nominee, especially if he were the VP nominee. All that goes away if he puts a judicial hold on any nominee.
 
Good point. That's a lot of Republicans turning down free publicity.
 
Kamala Harris said she doesn't want the job, so there goes that theory
 
It was a bad theory to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top