Nomination of Merrick Garland for SCOTUS

Sen Flake grilled on today show today. Showed quote of other conservative Senator who supported nomination in 2010, stating what a perfect liberal nominee he is, but is now against giving him a hearing. Flake basically admitted there is no legitimate reason to deny him a vote and it was political maneuvering. The hosts weren't all that friendly on the subject.

Keep in mind this isn't a hardcore news show. It is what my Republican wife watches as she gets ready for work, and it usually has more stories about puppies and movies than politics.
 
Flake basically admitted there is no legitimate reason to deny him a vote and it was political maneuvering.
Click to expand...

I will admit that I have an ideal of how the Sup Ct might work. That ideal isn't the current reality.

The Court's composition is a political product from a political executive subject to approval by a political body, the Senate. In that context, noting the political motive of a maneuver doesn't rob it of legitimacy.
 
Look at this issue from the other end.

Why would you think that the next POTUS would set forth a worse candidate?
Click to expand...

First if you look at Garland's long record you will see that he leans as conservative as you could possibly hope for from a Democratic POTUS. He is 63. He is not in his 40's like Kagan was when she was appointed. The quality of his "legal mind" is well respected by people on both sides of the aisle.

I have a hard time believing that HRC is going to appoint someone his age with his moderate record. More than likely if the Congress blocks this nomination and HRC wins, which if Trump is the Rep Nominee is very likely, the odds that we will see a much younger more liberal judge will likely be the next choice. Add to that a change in control in the Senate and you can almost guarantee it. I believe 100% that HRC will appoint a 40 year old liberal who we will be stuck with for over 25+ years.

Obama knows this. His appointment is a calculated move which like it or not is brilliant.
 
Hold on here...while everybody is asking "would he overturn Heller?" I don't think that's the main issue.

We have circuit splits right now on both "AWs" and shall-issue/may-issue CCW. Those cases are going to end up at The Supremes at some point.

Those are the two biggest remaining questions on the scope of the 2nd in the post-Heller world.
 
Enjoin a committee
Let him have his 2 days of lip flapping.
Vote him down with no comment.
lather, rinse, repeat until you get one you like.

"Gee Mr. President, we're following the constitution and voting on all the nominees that you're sending.... send us better nominees."

Keep it quick and brief and final. Eventually, after enough slaps on the face, the Pres will stop wanting to be embarrassed.
 
D47, history suggests that the Senate doesn't work that way. As an institution, it lacks the stamina for more than one kerfuffle.

Following Bork, Kennedy was confirmed unanimously. After the Renquist fight about whether he should be the new Chief Justice, Scalia was unanimously confirmed.

If the Senate is true to pattern, it would either follow hearings with a confirmation of Garland, or after rejecting Garland they would show what true statesmen they are by giving the next nominee almost no scrutiny.
 
From a tactical point of view, it might be best to agree to a hearing scheduled in June or July and then keep it in committee till Nov 9th. If Clinton wins, she would send someone worse to a Democratic Senate. In that scenario, the committee should approve him, send it to the floor and pass him asap. If Clinton loses, then Garland should be voted down in the committee.
 
Well, it looks like we all understand that SCOTUS has become a political arm of whatever administration is in power.

For that reason alone, any nominee who could or would be inclined to rule on anything other than the law and the Constitution should be voted down.

We need seven judges like Scalia, not one.
 
This really hacks me off about our system now; may have always been this way, I know, but it shouldn't matter what president nominated the judge or what that persons belief system is. But it does, and that's a sad state of affairs. All judges should interpret the laws without any political or personal motivations.....
 
And thus you have hit the bullseye! How do you change the constitution without using the process designed to do that. install politically minded judges who opinions are based more on what people want than what the document says. Case in point. "Separation of church and state" these words are not written in the 1st Admen. but will be the first words used when prayer or church is attempted outside private property. The phrase was used in an opinion of the court referencing a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a ladies group and it now seems to be part of the constituion. This was a man who would get up on Sunday morning an ride his horse from the White House to the Capital to attend church. Could that happen today? Think not!

The court is as corrupt as the rest of the government and until "We the People" get pissed off enough to fix it, it's not going to change.

IMO
 
RR said:
This really hacks me off about our system now; may have always been this way, I know, but it shouldn't matter what president nominated the judge or what that persons belief system is. But it does, and that's a sad state of affairs. All judges should interpret the laws without any political or personal motivations.....
Click to expand...

You should want to know something about a nominee's beliefs if only to confirm that they haven't absorbed a lot of the nonsense that is available in law school.

K said:
Well, it looks like we all understand that SCOTUS has become a political arm of whatever administration is in power.

For that reason alone, any nominee who could or would be inclined to rule on anything other than the law and the Constitution should be voted down.

We need seven judges like Scalia, not one.
Click to expand...

How fun would THAT be?

Abstaining from the political aspect of Sup Ct function would be one way to address the problem, which has been prominent since the 30s. I don't think it is especially effective if your opponent continues to function politically.

The current effort to bend the COTUS beyond its limits and to the political ends of those who don't especially like COTUS limits and structure has been around so long, it is the dominant strain in constitutional law. Addressing that effectively takes more than dispassionate review of case law
 
Jim March said:
Those are the two biggest remaining questions on the scope of the 2nd in the post-Heller world.
Click to expand...
Those may be the key RKBA issues on which we currently have circuit splits, but I respectfully submit that a larger issue pertaining to the 2A is not that of shall issue v. may issue, but that of "issue." How can a "right" purportedly guaranteed by the Constitution in language that clearly says "shall not be infringed [limited or restricted]" ever be subject to a licensing scheme, even if said licensing scheme is "shall issue"?
 
There you have it. Scalia, and perhaps even Thomas, would question the 'issue' aspect of it, as well as 'may' or 'shall'.

Garland, it appears, will not only come down firmly on 'may', but will prefer to say 'will not'.

Again, I'm with Doofus, to coin a phrase. Hold the hearing, vote him down, and demand better candidates who understand the Constitution and liberty. Turn the tables on the Administration entirely and make them defend their opposition to the Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment, but the rest of it, as well. Hate speech legislation? Prosecuting climate change deniers? Nope, that is not going to get past the Senate, make them squirm.
 
WVsig I agree. Garland is a far lesser evil than any who will be nominated by HRC. Yes, we can hope a Republican president will offer a more 2A friendly choice, but that seems less likely each day.
 
I think they should take due diligence to confirm this one and if they can't find reasonable fault to confirm him, they should confirm him. To stall without good cause would be a political error.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Mitch McConnell hadn't spoken so bluntly after Scalia passed, this situation wouldn't be as vulnerable for the GOP. But having drawn his line in the sand, that opened up the opportunity for Obama to pull a smart move, like nominating a fairly moderate justice that is highly thought of. Thus, if the senate should deny consideration, the outcome is bad for the GOP. If they do hold the hearing and then deny Garland, that will also look as though they are following through on McConnell's vow. Lose-lose for the GOP. :mad:
 
Let's steer clear of partisan electoral politics, folks. If your post contains words like "leftist," that's a clue that it will be deleted.
 
Colorado Redneck said:
If Mitch McConnell hadn't spoken so bluntly after Scalia passed, this situation wouldn't be as vulnerable for the GOP.
Click to expand...

If he hadn't announce the position, I believe you'd have seen many more repubs engaging in public conversation that would take for granted Garland's eventual hearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top