Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should Merrick Garland be approved, yes I think so. Thee's no real checkered past for him. Will Garland be approved, no I don't think so. Why, the Republicans are obstructing a moderate pick who has been approved by many of the current senators and Mitch McConnell isn't even talking to him (obstruction isn't even a TEA Party playbook move now.)
First, a disclaimer. I am an ex democrat and republican contently living as a registered independent- so I have no axe to grind in this matter. Being an independent allows me to call 'em as I see 'em.
The President has nominated Merrick Garland, a left leaning moderate, as the next Supreme Court justice.
Should he be approved?
Will he be approved?
I say yes and yes.
Despite a general tradition ('general' meaning it has been broken) that Presidents do not nominate justices in their lame duck year, but they are well within their rights to do so. I have no issues with this. I mean, it's also their job to do so.
That said, the Senate has the right to either approve or disapprove based on whatever factors they so choose. That's their job. The two sides need to play together nicely to get this process accomplished.
If the Senate fails to act (ie, have their proceedings and vote) then I believe they have failed in their duties. This plays into the President's hands as it may very well cost 2 senators their office on reelection this year.
The President out flanked them by naming a moderate. Had he chosen another liberal activist the Senate would have simply voted that person down and most people would have agreed.
But now he has named a moderate (who leans right on issues of criminal law and left on all others) the Senate would be disingenuous not approving Garland. The last time this happened was when the Clinton was acquitted in his impeachment trial based solely on partisan politics.
So Obama has the drop on the Senate. Let's see how they wriggle on the hook.
I love politics!
Stop paying the Senate their salaries. See how fast that they will start doing their jobs.
Stop paying the Senate their salaries. See how fast that they will start doing their jobs.
We can't unless we have a Continental Congress to get an amendment to suspend Congressional pay. Trust me, I think they should lose pay for fiscal cliffs like other government jobs. The 27th amendment prevents that just as it prevents raises in Congressional pay.
You should do a little research instead of believing everything you hear.
OK, I did:
"Garland also notably voted in favor of en banc review of the D.C. Circuit's decision invalidating the D.C. handgun ban, which the Supreme Court subsequently affirmed. Garland did not take a formal position on the merits of the case. But even if he had concluded that the statute was constitutional, that view of the case would have conformed to the widespread view that, under existing Supreme Court precedent, the Second Amendment did not confer a right to bear arms unconnected to service in a militia. Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (2007) (see denial of rehearing en banc)."
"...the Second Amendment did not confer a right to bear arms unconnected to service in a militia."
Sure sounds to me like he does not believe the Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. It also sounds like he is unaware of the "unorganized militia" provision of Title 10, United States Code.
Either or both, IF true, makes him ineligible for confirmation, IMO.
I wonder how he would have voted on Heller vs D.C. had he been on the Court at that time?
"Garland also notably voted in favor of en banc review of the D.C. Circuit's decision invalidating the D.C. handgun ban, which the Supreme Court subsequently affirmed. Garland did not take a formal position on the merits of the case. But even if he had concluded that the statute was constitutional, that view of the case would have conformed to the widespread view that, under existing Supreme Court precedent, the Second Amendment did not confer a right to bear arms unconnected to service in a militia. Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (2007) (see denial of rehearing en banc)."
"...the Second Amendment did not confer a right to bear arms unconnected to service in a militia."
Sure sounds to me like he does not believe the Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. It also sounds like he is unaware of the "unorganized militia" provision of Title 10, United States Code.
Either or both, IF true, makes him ineligible for confirmation, IMO.
I wonder how he would have voted on Heller vs D.C. had he been on the Court at that time?
It sounds that way to you because you want it to. Re-read the bolded portion. He merely voted for a review. Nothing more.
And you clearly have no understanding of what qualifies or disqualifies a person from serving on the SCOTUS. Nowhere is it stated that a SCOTUS nominee must conform to your personal views or anyone's views. Their job is to interpret the Constitution, which was designed to be a living, changing document. And the fact that you think the most important qualification for a SCOTUS nominee is supporting unrestricted access to guns and the carrying of guns speaks volumes about you.
OP, where did you hear that he was "left-leaning"? Examples, please. Garland has demonstrated plenty of conservatism, especially in matters of criminal law. The progressive blogs I read are disappointed with the choice but support the president's right to do his job as it is defined by the Constitution.
Yes, easily. He is the Chief Judge of the second highest court in the land. If he is not fit to serve on the Court, then no one is.
Will he be approved?
I think so.
Senate Republicans have talked a big game here, but their hand is weak. Aside from the public favoring a vote on the nominee, there is the alternative: a Trump or Clinton appointment at the beginning of next year. Senate Republicans will not want either of Trump or Clinton appointing the next Supreme Court Justice, especially since Clinton's pick would be younger and more liberal.
Clinton is very likely to win. The Republicans have to take a bet: 63 year-old, left-leaning centrist appointed by Obama, or a greater than 50-50 chance at a strong liberal aged in the early to mid 50s appointed by Clinton.
The best case scenario for the Republicans is: wind out the clock on Obama; Trump, who the Republican establishment hates, wins the election; Trump's appointment=?
I simply don't think it's worth the risk to Republicans.
Yeah, a "moderate" who apparent has a history of being anti private citizen gun ownership.
IF that is true, then, IMO, the citizens of the United States do NOT need him on the Supreme Court, and the Senate should NOT vote to confirm the nomination!
Oh, so you are one of those one-issue, litmus-test voters?
Everything rises and falls on the issue of the 2nd amendment?
What the republicans need to do is accept it, hold a meeting, interview the guy and then WAIT till November. the guy is not a loony liberal such as Sotomayor or Kagan and certainly not like Obama or Lynch. So if the republicans lose the presidential race in November, they need to get together and affirm the guy as soon as possible. If they win, vote him down if they want.
The important thing to remember, is if the Hidebeast gets into the WH, she will appoint someone ten times more liberal than Breyer or Ginsburg (I know hard to do), such as an Obama or a Lynch. So at least deny her one of her future appointments and there will probably be two or three more.
But if they don't do a thing, I don't believe it will be a big problem to voters. Voters are more involved now with the economy. If Obama wanted to add a possible hurt to the republicans he should have sent in a minority to the senate. At least then he could say the republicans are being racists. With an older WHITE candidate he blew that possibility out of the window.
Any particular reason you quote my paragraph above, which referentially followed a paragraph about the Fortas nomination in 1968 and didn't say anything at all about Anthony Kennedy or 1988, and start complaining that the Kennedy nomination is irrelevant, as if I'd mentioned it?
I didn't. Nor did I refer to it even indirectly. I clearly stated that there hasn't been a high court vacancy in a President's lame duck year since 1968.
See that part of what I wrote that I highlighted above, and which you also quoted? See where I clearly state that, among others, President Reagan did not have a Supreme Court seat come up during his lane duck year?
So, again, why are you quoting me and taking me to task over Kennedy?
Let me repeat one more time for clarity. I didn't mention Justice Kennedy. Not only did I not claim that a USSC seat went vacant during Reagan's final year, I explicitly acknowledged that none did.
I quoted two people.
I posted about the first quote. Then I said "On to the second one", which was the second quote, which was yours.
Maybe next time i'll post a reply directly under the quote that i'm referring to in order to help the easily confused.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
