• 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

Miers wasn't qualified. But agree there was no reason to vote against Roberts.

But the biggest pwning was the Bork fiasco. Okay, you won't vote for my 65 year old drinker and smoker? Well here's my 48 year old teetotaler instead. Kennedy has now been on the bench about 30 years.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Far from sold on Kaine, but would gladly trade an early Hillary impeachment for a Kaine presidency as long as 'Pubs allowed up/down votes on his judicial nominations. Bork, Thomas, Estrada, Miers, Liu, and Garland episodes were all embarrassing. Generally like Obama and Feinstein, but lost respect for both for refusing to confirm Roberts. Obama's empathy excuse was painful. Can totally understand voting against Thomas, but everyone else in recent memory has been eminently qualified even if I personally didn't like their politics. Nominate good candidates, propose pragmatic sensible policy solutions, run good campaigns, and take your lumps for doing otherwise. Fuck either side if they refuse to advance either Dem or GOP nominations because their party nominated shitty candidates who lost.
Click to expand...

Republicans essentially vetoed Miers
 
MysteryMen said:
Republicans essentially vetoed Miers
Click to expand...

Agreed. Wasn't qualified and W should have known that. Pops didn't do sufficient due diligence on Thomas. Bork was an idealogical scalp of an old guy. Estrada got filibustered because Dems didn't want a conservative Latino in the Supreme pipeline. Liu was the GOP revenge since they killed him in commitee. Now on the CA Supreme Court and still young enough to replace Scalia, RBG, or Breyer and become the first Asian Justice if Sri doesn't get there first. Calculated risk by GOP on slow playing Garland since Sri and Liu are younger and more liberal. Dem Senate and no filibuster and one or both gets confirmed before 2019.
 
Bork's actions during the Saturday Night Massacre along disqualify him from being on the Supreme Court. Those who had scruples and morals refused to act on Nixon's behalf that night. Bork didn't.
 
RJKarl said:
Bork's actions during the Saturday Night Massacre along disqualify him from being on the Supreme Court. Those who had scruples and morals refused to act on Nixon's behalf that night. Bork didn't.
Click to expand...

I don't respect Bork, let's be clear. But Dems at the time opposed him for his ideology as much as they did the SNM. And I remember thinking at the time that if they successfully kept Bork from the bench at the time that Reagan would retaliate by appointing a young conservative, which is exactly what he did. I would have much rather had Bork on there for half or less than half the years that Kennedy has been on the bench.
 
As much as...but what he did on SNM did disqualify him...it's even worse than an FBI Director injecting himself into a presidential election with no facts yet determined.
 
He had a confirmation hearing? Wow. That would be nice.
 
Junebug said:
Bork was not borked because of the Saturday night massacre. He was borked because of his views and because he attempted to engage Senators and answer honestly during his confirmation hearing.
Click to expand...

Did I say otherwise?

I said what he did on SNM disqualified him for a seat, and it should have.
 
Not remotely a done deal, but probable HRC wins and Dems control the Senate. Question would be 50 or 51 seats. As cville has pointed out, the replacement special election for Kaine's seat may not be a slam dunk. VA requires a replacement special election within a year. If Dems have 50 or 51 seats, GOP won't roll over on Garland in the lame duck session. Dems will blow up the filibuster in January and Garland will be off the table in favor of someone younger and more liberal.

Senate judiciary members have some inkling of RBG's and Breyer's timetables. Cruz is on the judiciary committee and is open to not confirming any Dem nominees before 2021. Sessions is a hard core Trump supporter. Mike Lee and Cruz are BFFs. Grassley, Hatch, Flake, and Graham may have to cut a deal with Dems. Possible that both RBG and Breyer announce retirements in the Spring to get confirmed before Kaine's replacement special election. Garland may be off the table altogether or only come back into play if Dems don't have a working majority after the special election to replace Kaine.

All moot if Trump wins, 'Pubs hold the Senate, or Dems have 52 Senators in January.
 
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...

JuiceCrewAllStar said:
In.
Click to expand...

Bump.
 
No Supreme Court nominee will ever get a hearing again from a opposite sided congress. Why should they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You guys shouldn't sweat this. We'll soon have a deal maker in the White House. Round up your best negotiators and start looking for middle ground.
 
SC DEAC said:
No Supreme Court nominee will ever get a hearing again from a opposite sided congress. Why should they?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that one party has principles and is committed to the bigger picture. We'll see in a couple months.
 
aocs3281 said:
You guys shouldn't sweat this. We'll soon have a deal maker in the White House. Round up your best negotiators and start looking for middle ground.
Click to expand...

Pro tip: he always starts with a big ask
 
aocs3281 said:
You guys shouldn't sweat this. We'll soon have a deal maker in the White House. Round up your best negotiators and start looking for middle ground.
Click to expand...

Do you want compromise?
 
Junebug said:
What do you mean by this?
Click to expand...

That the Republicans embarrassed themselves by putting partisanship above the Constitution. And I'm hoping that the Dems won't do that when given the chance next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top