Judge Merrick B. Garland Named To Supreme Court

[AGBF]

President Obama named Judge Merrick B.Garland to The United States Supreme Court today.

From, "The New York Times":

“I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote,” Mr. Obama said. “If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair.”

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region

 

[liaerfbv]

YES. I am not very familiar with him so I cannot wait to dig in and research.

What are the odds he gets confirmed?

 

[the_mother_thing]

My gut says no go on it happening because 1) McConnell want to stick to his guns on this; and, 2) Garland apparently has an anti-gun record.

Puns not intended.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think you mean nominated and not named, right? I have never heard of this person, either. I would be surprised if Obama's pick would be appealing to the other party.

 

[AGBF]

I think you mean nominated and not named, right? I have never heard of this person, either. I would be surprised if Obama's pick would be appealing to the other party.

I did mean nominated, but as for your point about President Obama picking someone appealing to the Republicans, I will refer you to this. It is excerpted from, "The New York Times"

"Mr. Obama had twice considered Judge Garland for the Supreme Court during his first term, and some aides viewed him at the time as an 'in-case-of-emergency-break-glass' candidate who they should save for a future vacancy where they needed a nominee who was broadly acceptable to Republicans. That future appears to have arrived.

A few Senate Republicans have suggested recently that if Mrs. Clinton is elected in November, they might be more open to considering Judge Garland as an alternative to a more liberal Clinton nominee."

Deb

 

[the_mother_thing]

A few Senate Republicans have suggested recently that if Mrs. Clinton is elected in November, they might be more open to considering Judge Garland as an alternative to a more liberal Clinton nominee."

Deb

It is quite a risky gamble for the GOP ... a lot of "what ifs".

 

[Maria D]

A few Senate Republicans have suggested recently that if Mrs. Clinton is elected in November, they might be more open to considering Judge Garland as an alternative to a more liberal Clinton nominee."

Deb

It is quite a risky gamble for the GOP ... a lot of "what ifs".

"Open to considering"...wow, what a step up for the current GOP leadership, to actually do their job of considering instead of refusing to even entertain the thought that Obama's presidency is legitimate!

 

[Maria D]

YES. I am not very familiar with him so I cannot wait to dig in and research.

What are the odds he gets confirmed?

Zero, if Mitch McConnell gets his way. Here was his statement:

"The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court's direction," McConnell said in a statement. "The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next President nominates, whoever that might be."


He has no intention of even considering the qualifications of the nominee of President Obama, only the "next president."

What are the odds that McConnell has control over the senate GOP?

 

[liaerfbv]

A great article from the Yale Law Journal that makes the argument the Senate's refusal to act on the nomination can in fact be interpreted as acceptance of the appointment.

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/1129_pb467jtz.pdf

Delightful!

 

[ksinger]

A great article from the Yale Law Journal that makes the argument the Senate's refusal to act on the nomination can in fact be interpreted as acceptance of the appointment.

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/1129_pb467jtz.pdf

Delightful!

Beyond delightful!

 

[House Cat]

My gut says no go on it happening because 1) McConnell want to stick to his guns on this; and, 2) Garland apparently has an anti-gun record.

Puns not intended.

Do you think, with the current "election crisis" that it is wise for McConnell to play his same old games with Obama?


These games of his are partially responsible for creating the Trump monster in the first place and people in the Repubican Party are becoming very wise to that fact. McConnell should watch his step. His party is at risk for dissolving. Look at everyone scrambling to vilify Trump in any way that they can as a way to preserve the party. Everyone is in a panic. And Now you think that McConnell will stick to his same crap?

Sigh. That would be truly tragic.