Personally I think it is too bad that Obama nominated someone that was nominated by Clinton. If he would have picked someone that been nominated by one of the Bush Presidents it would have been a much better showing of good faith. Thoughts?
CNN You Reap What You Sow
CNN Obama's Last Fight
Fox News NRA Against Nominee
NPR Merrick Garland
Wiki Merrick Garland
MP Obama's Pick
CNN You Reap What You Sow
CNN Obama's Last Fight
Fox News NRA Against Nominee
NPR Merrick Garland
Wiki Merrick Garland
MP Obama's Pick
48 comments:
President Obama nominated a moderate judge who has earned widespread praise in the past from conservatives. He nominated a person who would be the oldest judge to go on the court since the Nixon Administration. Garland is a perfectly reasonable pick, one who was called a "consensus pick" by Orrin Hatch in 2010.
MP GOP Doubles Down
The opportunity to pick someone so recently praised by Senator Hatch was too juicy to pass up.
==Hiram
Let's "Bork" Garland.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/opinion/the-merrick-garland-nomination-a-new-bork-battle.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
--Hiram
sometimes your opinions are really dumb. Obama did a showing of good faith by nominating a moderate. I could probably easily find 5 or more columns/editorials praising Obama's nominee as moderate and very well qualified. Can you find even one mainstream opinion complaining that his choiceis is too liberal?
The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties has never been clearer
With Merrick Garland, Obama meets GOP halfway
Dear GOP: Stop playing politics and give Merrick Garland a confirmation hearing
Merrick Garland, Obama's Supreme Court pick, gives GOP a headache
Laurie, You can keep using VOX and Liberal Opinion Writers as sources however that does not mean they are stating things from a balanced perspective.
Here is the view from the NRA via Fox if you want a different perspective.
Now as for main stream reporting. I found this interesting... So how can one be on the Progressive Wish List and be a moderate? I am puzzled.
CNN Garland on Top of every Progressive's Wish List
"But there are definitely liberals disappointed with Obama's pick of Merrick Garland.
It's not that they don't like him: Across the board from the early days he was on the top of almost every progressive's wish list. But it's that progressives were hoping for something different. The Supreme Court already has several Harvard Law graduates and Jewish justices, they note."
I linked CNN, Chicago Tribune, and Washington Post, all very moderate mainstream news sources. I could find many more and if I am bored enough watching basketball I may throw in more links to entertain myself. ( btw my bracket is currently in 1st place as I picked both big upsets correctly)
also, if you would read left leaning news sources you would know the left is not at all happy that Obama picked such a moderate rather than a liberal justice. The lists on which he was near the top were speculation on who Obama would pick not who they prefer. Maybe I will throw in a bunch of links about progressives complaining about Obama's moderate choice.
I am still waiting for a link to a non right wing opinion that Garland is too liberal. I don't believe it can be found.
"In choosing Garland, Obama hopes he is making Republicans an offer they can’t refuse. He bypassed more diverse and clearly progressive choices likely to inspire the Democratic base in favor of a 63-year-old white man who in 2010 had been held up by Senator Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, as “a consensus nominee” for the Supreme Court." atlantic
I am going to spare you any more opinions on how he is a consensus nominee, as it is really a pointless waste of my time.
The Chicago Tribune is not liberal. They refused to endorse in the Democratic primary this year, and the only Democrat it has ever endorsed in the paper's history is homestate choice Obama.
John said it on MinnPost -- the only acceptable justice to him would have been a Scalia clone, providing example #23,746 that his so-called "moderate" stance is a joke. Only the black Democratic President would be expected to unilaterally capitulate in such a way.
But, hey, if you want a mainstream view, here's what the NRA thinks! (And never mind that judges the NRA loves also voted for the en banc hearing of Heller...)
so, John, I found a link for you that Garland is a moderate liberal and the GOP should oppose him because he will shift the court to the left and overturn conservative decisions.
Merrick Garland Would Shift the Court Decisively Leftward
I still think they should hold hearings and have an up or down vote
Laurie's Opinion Sources:
Ezra Klein
Steve Chapman
Washington Post Editorial Board
By the way... The CNN sources at least were from across the range as usual. This one is interesting.
"President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland poses a political challenge to both the Republican majority in the Senate and the administration.
Of course, Judge Garland is professionally distinguished, and eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. It would be very surprising for anyone to contest that point. But the question during this election year is whether the crucial seat vacated by Justice Scalia's death should be filled by this President or his successor.
It is entirely legitimate for the Senate to conclude that no matter who the nominee is, the lateness of the day and the stakes for the future of the Supreme Court require that the seat be left open until after the election. That is a political judgment, and a political challenge for both sides -- the Senate in justifying that stance and the President in countering it.
One thing that is absolutely clear is that there's no constitutional or other legal objection to the Senate's refusing to confirm, or even act on, the President's nominee.
Just as it was up to the President to choose whomever he thought best to fill Justice Scalia's seat, it is up to the Senate, and the Senate alone, to decide when and whether to have a hearing or a vote on that nominee. And the law simply has nothing to do with either the President's or the Senate's judgment about how best to fulfill their constitutional functions.
The Senate is perfectly entitled to conclude that the ultimate political measure of the ballot box should inform the Senate's resolution of that purely political question.
William Kelley is associate professor of law at Notre Dame Law School and a former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia."
Maybe it is time for AllSides SCOTUS
Sean,
I am fine with Obama's choice. He picked a slightly left of center nominee as is his right as a Left of Center President. I have no problem with that.
It is the Liberal folks here who are accusing the GOP of improper behavior.
By the way, I only posted the Fox News / NRA link to balance out Laurie's Links.
By the way here is the comment Sean alluded to.
"Our current President is not "pushing" someone through to the court. He is doing what the Constitution provides that he do: nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. He has nearly a year left in his second elected four-year term, and if he didn't nominate someone we would hear Republican cries that he's not doing his duty. The American people have spoken, twice: THIS man is the one we want in office until next January. We want THIS president to nominate a replacement for Scalia.
I now cry, with Eric and tens of millions of other Americans, that the Republicans in the U.S. Senate are not doing their duty, under the Constitution. They are determined to insult and obstruct our first black President and they don't care about insulting and disrespecting both an admired jurist and our Supreme Court as they insult the President." Constance
"Of course he is pushing for his Democrat based agenda. Just as the Senate Republicans are pushing for their Republican based agenda.
If Obama truly wanted to make this happen in 2016 he would have nominated a Justice more like Scalia. Instead he is happy to make this a political issue in an election year, just like the Senate Republicans.
By the way, the voters also chose the Senate and apparently they want the Senate to ensure the SCOTUS stays fair and balanced. I am also disappointed that he did not nominate an acceptable candidate and we will need to hear about this for months." G2A
Now I see nothing here that advocates that "Only the black Democratic President would be expected to unilaterally capitulate in such a way."
Let me repeat that I do not care what Obama or the Senate do regarding this issue. I am just pointing out that Obama chose to nominate someone that would be unacceptable to the GOP Senate at this time... And the GOP Senate is choosing to resist his action.
They are both doing what they think is best for the country... No problems here.
By the way, if the NRA can convince enough of us gun owners that this nominee supports taking our guns... He will have a hard time getting confirmed. We country folks do love our guns. :-)
If Obama truly wanted to make this happen in 2016 he would have nominated a Justice more like Scalia. Instead he is happy to make this a political issue in an election year, just like the Senate Republicans.
By appointing a qualified, centrist who is beloved by many Republicans, President Obama chose not to introduce politics in this particular process. It is Republicans who have made the decision to not review any candidate nominated by President Obsma regardless of personal qualities who have made the process political. This was their choice, one they didn't have to make. They could have "Borked" him. Had hearings, perhaps torn apart his record on guns, made the case that he was personally awful and voted him down. This would have not been a purely political approach but Republicans rejected it. At least they have so far.
--Hiram
"Now I see nothing here that advocates that "Only the black Democratic President would be expected to unilaterally capitulate in such a way.""
I daresay that there is precisely zero chance that you would expect the same of a Republican President were the roles reversed. And if Democrats did what Republicans were doing, you'd be posting daily threads about how terrible they were.
If the Senate takes no action on a nominee this year and the Democrats win the Presidency, will you suggest that the Republicans should drop their objections to whoever the new President nominates because they rolled the dice and lost?
Democratic senates have often approved Republican nominees to the court. Think of it as the Biden rule, when Joe Biden chaired the committee that gave Judge Robert Bork such a full hearing.
Republicans have attacked the legitimacy of President Obama's presidency in various ways. Refusing to consider the Garland nomination is an example of that. Why Republicans have chosen that particular strategy is a matter for speculation. Race is a factor, but hardly the only factor, and not even a very significant one. I kind of thing that this is the sort of thing that happens when a government, never particularly stable in the first place, just wears out. We really need to contemplate the possibility that when one of our two major parties, the one that controls the Congress, most legislatures and most governorship, rejects the legitimacy of the system, and accepts the idea that political leadership might be something that is decided in the streets of Cleveland, the system may have already lost it's legitimacy.
--Hiram
I think Republicans are on solid rhetorical ground by claiming they are only following "the Biden rule."
And I think the odds of Obama nominating even a centrist are about the same as his brokering peace with ISIS. He is absolutely incapable of such a feat.
I think Republicans are on solid rhetorical ground by claiming they are only following "the Biden rule."
then why aren't they holding the hearings for Garland that Joe Biden held for Robert Bork?
"And I think the odds of Obama nominating even a centrist are about the same as his brokering peace with ISIS."
Hasn't he done this with Garland? A candidate who was supported for the Supreme Court by Senator Hatch?
--Hiram
Sean,
If this were a white Republican President and a black Democratically controlled Senate I would be saying the same thing...
"Let me repeat that I do not care what "Bob" or the Senate do regarding this issue. I am just pointing out that "Bob" chose to nominate someone that would be unacceptable to the Democratic Senate at this time... And the Democratic Senate is choosing to resist his action.
They are both doing what they think is best for the country... No problems here."
I just find it amusing that you see this as proof that I am not a moderate... And that somehow you think Obama's race matters to me in any way... :-)
The Republican Senate is abdicating their responsibility, plain and simple. It's amazing all the ink that has been spilled to try and justify them not doing their job.
Tell me, John, how long would you keep an employee who refuses to do part of his/her job that is detailed in his/her job description?
Joel
The Senate's job is to "advise and consent." They have chosen to offer the advice that Obama not nominate anyone, and withhold their consent for such. Where is the problem?
Now, from a political "optics" point of view (never the right way to do anything), the GOP /could/ simply announce that they will start the hearings for Judge Garland "soon" but they are busy with other matters, and it will probably be mid-November or so before they can get it scheduled.
We all know that Obama put this guy up as a sacrificial lamb, anyway, just to make Republicans look bad for denying him a hearing. Simple, crude partisan gamesmanship.
There's nothing "moderate" about the Republican approach, John. The Senate hasn't refused to even hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee since the Fillmore Administration, over 160 years ago.
The President is acting as he has for all of his high court picks. He nominated a mainstream judge who served as a former prosecutor and has a record as being friendly towards law enforcement, who would be the oldest judge added to the Court since the Nixon Administration (so he's not going to spend 30+ years on there like Clarence Thomas will, for instance).
There's no equivalence here. One side is smashing the way things are done. Your refusal to call them out on it shows your moderate tag to be a lie.
And how about you answer this:
If the Senate takes no action on a nominee this year and the Democrats win the Presidency, will you suggest that the Republicans should drop their objections to whoever the new President nominates because they rolled the dice and lost?
IAWS
the president usually picks a center left or center right nominee and the senate confirms. If the pres picks a far right or far left nominee the senate sometimes votes no.
the senate always holds hearings and takes a vote.
If one reads Biden's full statement about election year nominees they would know that Biden supports following this typical process.
Joel,
I am not sure the "employee is not doing their job". Apparently the time schedule for this is pretty open to interpretation or we would not be having this discussion.
If this was a Union Teacher we would have to prove and correctly document significant wrong doing for a long time before they could be fired. I am not sure normal hire/fire examples work with government positions.
Sean,
If the GOP Senate loses the bet on this one, it will likely be the Dem Senate... Now wouldn't that be ironic if the President was Trump and the Senate was controlled by the Democrats.
And if it stays Dem President and GOP Senate I expect them to continue negotiating to keep the SCOTUS balanced.
Now to the question I asked you on MP. Would you be satisfied if the Senate held hearings and rejected the candidate?
"And if it stays Dem President and GOP Senate I expect them to continue negotiating to keep the SCOTUS balanced."
Balanced? What does that mean?
Democrats have controlled the White House in 16 of the last 24 years. We should expect to see a leftward tilt with the courts, just as we saw a rightward tilt in the courts when Republicans had their better run with the Presidency.
"Would you be satisfied if the Senate held hearings and rejected the candidate?"
That would be far more honest, because the public would be able to judge Garland and the Senators that are critiquing him.
They have chosen to offer the advice that Obama not nominate anyone, and withhold their consent for such. Where is the problem?
the problem was that the senate was advising him to break his constitutional oath. The document is quite clear, it says, "he shall nominate". It gives him no leeway.
Beyond that, there is substantial grounds for quibbling. The language about "Advice and Consent" is in the second article pertaining to executive power, not the first article pertaining to legislative authority. It speaks of consent not review or rejection. All of this suggest to me was that the founders viewed the president as preeminent in this process, with Congress expected to go along unless something awful was happening. That, I believe, was the understanding during most of our history. It helps to explain why it didn't seem to occur to anyone at the time that Robert Bork should be denied a hearing.
--Hiram
"They have chosen to offer the advice that Obama not nominate anyone, and withhold their consent for such. Where is the problem?"
The problem is anti-government folks like you voting in anti-government politicians (Oh, the irony!) which leaves the intelligent people in this country (those that understand that government has a purpose other than making war) stuck with an anti-government.
Joel
"The problem is anti-government folks like you voting in anti-government politicians..."
Yep. People like me. People who think the government has usurped far too much power and authority for themselves and wish to elect people who will devolve power back to the States and to individuals. Or simply people who recognize that government does a few things well and a lot of things very badly, and want the government to quit doing those badly done, counterproductive things. You don't have to be "anti-government" to be pro-GOOD-government.
Sean,
I am fine with the Senate tossing him on his not supporting the 2nd amendment. Most voters like with me will be fine with it also. So I agree, let's schedule the hearing !!!
"I am fine with the Senate tossing him on his not supporting the 2nd amendment."
What evidence is there of that?
"...let's schedule the hearing !!"
I'm fine with that, too, so long as the schedule is somewhere around Thanksgiving.
As for evidence pro or con on how he might rule on issues like the Second Amendment while on the bench... Remember the days when judicial candidates were not supposed to discuss such matters, and where polite Senators didn't feel obligated to ask? The only question was, and perhaps should be, was whether this judge saw his job as interpreting the Constitution or treating it as an excuse for whatever the heck he or she wanted to rule?
I mentioned that over at MP that it sure would nice to have a SCOTUS ruling where we did not know how 8 of the 9 Justices would rule... Imagine how powerful that Centrist Justice's ruling is?
1 or 2 humans gets to decide how ~320 million people will behave. That has to be a great rush or a great burden depending on the Justice's personality and attitudes.
In the case of LGBT marriage, that justice was able to over rule the view 100+ million people and dozens of states who were against it.
In the case of Citizens United that justice was able to change politics in America against the will of 100+ million people and I assume many States.
Yes I think is worth a big drawn out fight...
I think the problem with judicial restraint is that it's boring. You put all these high powered intellects in a room and then expect them to be a rubber stamp for the other two branches of government. Despite all the good intentions in the world, that is something that seems to stop happening after a year or two. For all CJ Roberts talk about being just an umpire, after a year or two watching the game behind a mask he begins to take it into his head that batting clean up isn't that hard after all.
--Hiram
Wouldn't it be great to have 6 or 7 "strict constitutionalists" on the bench? Then we could pretty much know how the majority would rule in every case, and the "centrist" judge wouldn't be overruling half the country. After all, that's Obama's job. :-/
Wouldn't it be great to have 6 or 7 "strict constitutionalists" on the bench?
It poses all sorts of questions. Did the founders intend that the constitution be construed strictly? Did they fight hard to include the bill of rights in the constitution in the hope that it would be understood mean as little possible?
The idea of "strict constructionism" emerged in the 60's as a reaction to the Warrent Court. How would advocates of strict constructionism apply their views to the decisions of that time. Would they allow searches without warrants? Would they deny counsel at trial? Would they allow police to force confessions? Would they bring back the segregation of our children by race in public schools? How does strict constructionism look in hindsight?
--Hiram
I think it is best summed up with the somewhat tongue-in-cheek complaint about "too much law, not enough justice." In particular, I think the Miranda warnings were good but the application of it has been a gross miscarriage of justice. Discarding evidence simply because it was found "improperly" results in criminals "getting off on a technicality" and that should not happen. What SHOULD happen is that the justice system should first find the TRUTH. If the knife was found in your sock drawer, with your bloody prints on it in the victim's blood, and we have iron-clad motive and opportunity evidence, you go to jail (or death row). THEN, if necessary, we have a trial to determine if the police were out to "get you" and violated your rights to do so, in which case the police are punished appropriately. Miranda is fine, but the Exclusionary Rule is improperly construing the constitution, IMHO.
As for hindsight, I think you can't go wrong with strict construction, but courts have gone wrong many times without it. Legislation can always override the court, unless the courts set out to make law on their own, outside the Constraints of strict construction.
Post a Comment