Discussion for article #247514
Obama should be ashamed shilling for this cipher. I’m progressive, and I hope he doesn’t get on the court. Who needs another Kennedy?
GOP unwilling to play softball…
7 Likes
You have got to love the GOP’s latest antics. Waiting until after the election to give him a hearing. If Clinton wins they will appoint him ASAP to avoid someone more liberal being nominated. I don’t remember anything in The Constitution about that procedure.
13 Likes
You wouldn’t take Kennedy over Scalia? I would.
21 Likes
The President has once again outplayed the GOP when it comes to strategy. You too, apparently. There is absolutely nothing to suggest he is “another Kennedy” other than highly uninformed pundits.
29 Likes
Progressives shouldn’t fret too much. Pres. Clinton or Pres. Sanders will probably get 2-3 SCOTUS appointments with a Dem Senate Majority at least in her/his first term.
14 Likes
He’s left of Scalia – that’s an improvement. Do you really think Obama nominating a left of center (much less far left) jurist is going to accomplish anything? Even if a Democrat wins in November it is doubtful that someone truly progressive could get past the GOP with 8 years of experience in obstruction and now an even bigger chip on their shoulder.
That said, this pick is pitch perfect politics – if the GOP doesn’t consider him, they look like obstinate children and if they do, the court still moves left.
38 Likes
Pros and cons I suppose. Sure I would have loved a more liberal pick, but that would only play into the GOP’s “strategery” of claiming they couldn’t hold a vote because Obama was playing to his base during an election year. Garland is far to the left of Scalia, and probably to the left of Kennedy, which is fine.
Two possible scenarios that would give my joy:
-
After Garland meets with senators, Obama tells them “You have until June 30 to hold a vote. Afterwards I will withdraw Garland from consideration and you can roll the dice and take your chances in November”
-
The day after the election (assuming Hillary is elected), Garland withdraws himself from consideration due to “health reasons” (or something). This would be particularly great if the Dems take back the Senate.
25 Likes
Oh silly person . It’s in the Republican Constitution ®™ Truthiness version. Not the constitution that is actually there but the one you would like to believe is there.
15 Likes
Kennedy agreed with Scalia way too many times. Read your history.
Exactly . Ruth Ginsburg is probably waiting the outcome of the election before she retires . The GOP is so fractured now they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Unelectable Trump or Unelectable alternative? They have become so crazy they have no one on the bench that would appeal to moderates. We will win the Presidency
8 Likes
He’s not going to be on the Supreme Court. His nomination is designed to throw Republican obstructionism into high relief.
“If we come to a point where we’ve lost the election, and we can get a centrist like Garland in there as opposed to someone like Hillary Clinton might appoint, then I’d go for it," Flake said.
But that won’t happen: Obama can withdraw the nomination at any time, and if Hillary is president-elect all he has to do is quote GOP arguments - about letting the people decide - back at them.
There are plenty of non-brain dead Republican senators who can understand this, and if they were not living in mortal fear of their own lunatic base, they would probably accept this appointment now. A few of them might try, and still more might make Flake’s argument about a lame-duck appointment, but all that will accomplish is to further inflame the activists. The GOP is so entangled in its tactics that it has no way to respond to an actual strategic move.
30 Likes
You know GOPs are fretting right now over that very possibility. Trump being their nominee makes it an even bigger gamble.
8 Likes
Kennedy gave us marriage equality.
18 Likes
It’s amazing how the Republicans can say how despicable it is to play politics with the Supreme Court, then openly admit they are playing politics and will continue to do so. The only reason you would delay nominating Garland until a lame duck setting is if you are admitting you are hoping to win the Presidency and put a more conservative judge on the bench.
They couldn’t wait until Scalia’s body was cold before playing politics and saying they would refuse to nominate anyone because, according to them, it’s up to the next President. Now they can’t even hold their water for a day before saying that this guy is their backup plan if Hillary gets elected.
But they go on TV and wave their pocket copies of the Constitution, and their base believes they respect the document.
14 Likes
Hillary wins the election and Garland isn’t seated my guess he will have withdrawn himself or Obama will withdraw him saying; it should be Hillary’s choice. 
3 Likes
President Obama is smarter than Sen. McConnell? WHAAAAAAT?
14 Likes
You should be ashamed for commenting here and being so politically naive.
19 Likes
“[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Hatch told Newsmax. “He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”
Who can forget the respected and venerable Senator Hatch’s valiant “Long Dong Silver” defense of that great moderate jurist, Clarence Thomas?
Sorry that President Obama doesn’t live up to your stereotype of him, Senator.
14 Likes