I did not vote for Flake but I have come to appreciate his reality based existence. If he keeps it real I may be voting for him when he’s up for re-election. Our Congress-hole Martha McSally, however, is just another soggy teabag at the bottom of the conservatard cup.
2 Likes
If the Democrats re-take the Senate by a solid margin (say, at least 3 seats, or 53-47), I’d probably agree, though that would be awfully unfair to Merrick Garland. Any smaller of a majority, however, and Garland may be the best Clinton can get.
If the Republicans retain control of the Senate, they can block whoever Hillary Clinton appoints indefinitely, saying something like “the President has the constitutional power to appoint justices, and the Senate has the constitutional power to reject those appointments if it sees fit.” There is nothing in the constitution that requires SCOTUS to have nine justices, or any specific number of justices for that matter.
And even if the Democrats get a 1 or 2 seat majority in the new Senate, they will have 5 senators from otherwise deep red states up for re-election in 2018. Some or all of those senators may have a hard time voting for a SCOTUS justice any more progressive than Garland.
Sometimes I wish Obama had nominated McConnell just to see what would happen.
4 Likes
What Obama should do is say “Vote on Garland now. You have until Oct 15 to vote. If you don’t vote by that time, I will be withdrawing his name and President Clinton can pick her nominee.”
4 Likes
President Obama should withdrawal his nominee the next day
Ugh. As for me, I think it would be horrendous were a fine man and honorable jurist treated so poorly for the sake of political vindictiveness. Judge Garland has been on Obama’s short list a long time. It’s my hope we’ll see him appointed to serve in SCOTUS.
10 Likes
Nobody really believes that the Senate is going to allow this seat to be filled, do they?
It’s an 8-member SCOTUS unless Dems can miraculously win a filibuster-proof majority.
4 Likes
I’d like to see Obama withdraw Garland’s nomination before the election and nominate someone who’s to the left of Garland but still to the right of someone Obama or Clinton would really prefer to nominate, sort of a “going once, going twice” kind of thing. Then watch the GOP wail and wring their hands about how Obama is playing games with his sacred Constitutional duty. Maybe do it once or twice more before the inauguration if they still won’t budge.
2 Likes
I hope that Garland withdraws his candidacy if the Senate does not confirm him before the November election.
Clinton can always renominate him if she chooses.
Garland should not allow his nomination to be a political football in the lame duck session of the Senate.
4 Likes
He added that the Senate’s position “ought to be to confirm the most conservative justice to replace Scalia,”
No it shouldn’t.
There is no formal or even informal agreement to make sure a “conservative” jurist be replaced by another conservative one. If that’s the case then assholes like Rehnquist would never have been seated (he was a conservative replacing a Warren Burger who had a very mixed record as it pertains to liberal/conservative positions).
Even when an asshole GOPer admits he and his colleagues are full of shit on one thing, they can;t help themselves form spewing some other absurdist bunch of crap mixed in with the admission.,
11 Likes
Geez, from the headline I thought he was saying they shouldn’t even confirm one if it does go to the next term. 
2 Likes
If we get a Dem Senate in January, I hope that filibusters over any and all Presidential appointments are forbidden and that the majority rules.
3 Likes
DUH!
more discription more more more more this crap commenting more more more more more
Don’t worry, Flake. The Freedom Caucus will make sure that you get the Liberal justice you don’t want when Hillary is sworn in next year. Your party hates the black guy more than they do the white woman.
1 Like
That’s exactly what will happen if Hillary doesn’t get a Democratic Senate majority. Republicans will not allow any Democratic president to appoint any Supreme Court justice ever again if they can hold onto the Senate. They are just that sour grapes.
1 Like
I’ve been thinking for some now, that as soon as we see the Senate move to confirm Garland, it’ll be an admission of losing the general.
3 Likes
Whatever happened to demanding the best and brightest? Republicans showed that doesn’t apply to them when they settled for Palin and now Trump.
2 Likes
Sorry, Mr. Flake: rien ne va plus! Lord, I would give my left nut (well, figuratively, anyway) to see Hillary appoint Obama to the court.
2 Likes
Yeah, or inconvenient, as earlier stated.
I disagree. Garland is the appropriate nominee for a Republican Senate and Democratic President. I don’t think that the Republicans have it in them to deny him the seat if Clinton wins, even if they hold the Senate.
although I like the idea–what I think really happens is that Garland gets approved in the lame duck session, if Hillary is elected. I just can’t see Obama (or Clinton) withdrawing Garland’s name at this point. By all accounts, he is qualified and would take the job seriously. Withdrawing him at this point, simply because we want a more liberal candidate, would cede the high ground of not playing politics with the Supreme Court, and would delay the whole process further. I have a hard time seeing Obama doing that.
3 Likes