• 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

Best chance of a confirmation hearing and vote is with Garland. There's not enough time between now and the election to get all that done (and I doubt either side would want a confirmation hearing this close to the election regardless) so Obama will have the interesting option of either withdrawing Garland under the theory of "Clinton won and now I'm actually a lame duck so I'm going to defer to the winner of this election as my Republican counterparts have so shrewdly suggested" or leave Garland up there and then make the GOP look somewhat foolish if they rush to confirm before Clinton even gets into office - showing that the whole thing about "wait for the 2016 election!" was a sham.
 
Obama can't get anyone younger and more liberal than Garland confirmed in the lame duck session. Cruz would filibuster. If the GOP loses the Senate, they'll beg Obama not to withdraw Garland.

Dem Senate will try and get some centrist bipartisan legislation passed immediately, which may get filibustered or shot down in the House. Will provide cover to end the filibuster and get a young liberal Justice confirmed if Obama/HRC withdraw Garland or 'Pubs refuse to confirm him.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Obama can't get anyone younger and more liberal than Garland confirmed in the lame duck session. Cruz would filibuster. If the GOP loses the Senate, they'll beg Obama not to withdraw Garland.

Dem Senate will try and get some centrist bipartisan legislation passed immediately, which may get filibustered or shot down in the House. Will provide cover to end the filibuster and get a young liberal Justice confirmed if Obama/HRC withdraw Garland or 'Pubs refuse to confirm him.
Click to expand...

I could see throwing a moderate out there for Scalia's seat and getting a commielib for RBG in the next 4 years. Of course the risk is more obstructionism forces your hand on a moderate or bust for RBG.
 
Pull the nominee. Win the Senate. Nominate Van Jones.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I could see throwing a moderate out there for Scalia's seat and getting a commielib for RBG in the next 4 years. Of course the risk is more obstructionism forces your hand on a moderate or bust for RBG.
Click to expand...

Replacing Scalia with a moderate is a net loss for the GOP, but much better than a young liberal. No guarantee that Dems control the Senate in 2017 (probable), but 2019 is dicey. Replace Scalia and RBG before 2019.
 
CreamyGoodness said:
If someone drives me to my precinct, stands in line and entertains me while I wait, and promises to buy me dinner afterwards, then I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump. Otherwise, I'm going to stay at home and skip this one.
Click to expand...

Will you do the same for Hillary, Cooper, and Ross? My treat!
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I could see throwing a moderate out there for Scalia's seat and getting a commielib for RBG in the next 4 years. Of course the risk is more obstructionism forces your hand on a moderate or bust for RBG.
Click to expand...

Kennedy is 80 and Breyer is 78. It's likely that one or both may off the SC by 2020.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I could see throwing a moderate out there for Scalia's seat and getting a commielib for RBG in the next 4 years. Of course the risk is more obstructionism forces your hand on a moderate or bust for RBG.
Click to expand...

Can't they just replace RBG with an RBG-bot?? it's the way of the future....
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Best chance of a confirmation hearing and vote is with Garland. There's not enough time between now and the election to get all that done (and I doubt either side would want a confirmation hearing this close to the election regardless) so Obama will have the interesting option of either withdrawing Garland under the theory of "Clinton won and now I'm actually a lame duck so I'm going to defer to the winner of this election as my Republican counterparts have so shrewdly suggested" or leave Garland up there and then make the GOP look somewhat foolish if they rush to confirm before Clinton even gets into office - showing that the whole thing about "wait for the 2016 election!" was a sham.
Click to expand...

The best part is that it would completely blow up the "no nominee gets confirmed late in an election cycle" narrative too
 
Paul Watford would be a great nominee for Hillary for Scalia's seat. Young, brilliant, diverse, fairly moderate, and clerked for a Republican judge in addition to RBG. Have a feeling she might want to nominate a woman though
 
RJKarl said:
Kennedy is 80 and Breyer is 78. It's likely that one or both may off the SC by 2020.
Click to expand...

Ginsberg and Breyer will likely retire in the next 2 years. (Ginsberg needs to asap.) I've read some conjecture that Kennedy and Thomas want to retire as well. Replacing Scalia and just 1 of those 2 in the next 4 years is going to alter the Court for quite a while. If she replaces both, you're looking at a 7-2 moderate/liberal majority.
 
That's an inevitable result if one party consistently struggles over a two to three decade period to put together a sufficient national base and campaign to win the presidency.
 
cville deac said:
Ginsberg and Breyer will likely retire in the next 2 years. (Ginsberg needs to asap.) I've read some conjecture that Kennedy and Thomas want to retire as well. Replacing Scalia and just 1 of those 2 in the next 4 years is going to alter the Court for quite a while. If she replaces both, you're looking at a 7-2 moderate/liberal majority.
Click to expand...

Replacing Scalia tips the balance of the court and should be a shit storm, but Garland would lessen the blow to the GOP. RBG's replacement won't shift the balance, but will definitely be a make up call (younger, more liberal). Breyer shouldn't be a big deal, but depends on timing. Kennedy and Thomas will be shit storms if HRC replaces them.
 
Junebug said:
Huh?

80-92 R
92-2000 D
2000-2008 R
2008-2016 D

Rs have held the presidency in 20 of the past 36 years.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was talking 1992-2020 since I was referencing a post about the potential 7-2 liberal/moderate advantage and Hillary is going to win. Dems would've held 20 of the 28 years and gotten the healthy margin because of it
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Jeff Flake suggests maybe it's time to move on Garland.
Click to expand...

Other than Mark Kirk, how many GOP Senators running in 2016 have called for action on Garland? McConnell's dug in his heels on Garland, but if 'Pubs lose the Senate, it's not in their best interests to pass on Garland.
 
wakephan09 said:
His crew immediately backtracked on it though. Like within a couple of hours.
Click to expand...

Because he wasn't supposed to let the cat out of the bag. He was supposed to wait until Hillary nominated somebody or a short list came out.

I think they realized they made a mistake coming against Obama's nominee before Scalia's body was cold.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
Because he wasn't supposed to let the cat out of the bag.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. I think he said it to shore up his Trumpian voter base for his campaign. I'd like to think the man hasn't entirely abandoned his professionalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top