Obama to nominate Judge Merrick Garland to Supreme Court

Garland - a white, male jurist with an Ivy League pedigree and career spent largely in the upper echelon of the Washington's legal elite - breaks no barriers.
Click to expand...

What "barriers" are left to break?
 
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Obama's SCOTUS Choice a 'Lose-Lose'

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Obama's SCOTUS Choice a 'Lose-Lose'
By Sandy Fitzgerald | Wednesday, 16 Mar 2016

President Barack Obama's choice for the Supreme Court is possibly the "most conservative nominee" picked by a Democratic president in modern years, and it's obvious he was chosen to "pry loose Republicans," Judge Andrew Napolitano said Wednesday.
...
Napolitano said he knows Garland professionally, and described him as a "consummate Washington, D.C. insider" who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats.

"He was a prosecutor in the [President] George H.W. Bush office and nominated to court by President Bill Clinton," said Napolitano.
...
And, Napolitano predicted, Obama will use the nomination to "pry loose Republican senators in tough reelection battles who don't want to defend standing firm as part of their reelection campaigns, and he may succeed there.
...
https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/andrew-napolitano-obama-SCOTUS-nominee/2016/03/16/id/719388/
Click to expand...
 
The question that no one is asking.

This is the third Obama SC pick. So if this judge is so qualified to be on the Supreme Court.....why didn't Obama appoint him earlier? Why did he pick Kagan who was not even a judge instead of Garland?
 
qh4dotcom said:
The question that no one is asking.

This is the third Obama SC pick. So if this judge is so qualified to be on the Supreme Court.....why didn't Obama appoint him earlier? Why did he pick Kagan who was not even a judge instead of Garland?
Click to expand...

I read he's been on the short list for awhile.
 
Honestly guys, I think that the GOP should give this guy a hearing, and then allow somebody like Ted Cruz to rip him apart on his supposed "pro-law enforcement" tendencies, make the guy out to be some kind of Fascist who loves putting people in prison, and let the Dems try to defend it. Better yet, bring up any cases of black persons having their appeals denied by this guy and call him a racist. Make the whole Bork-incident look like a walk in the park and see what happens, if nothing else, it'll be fun to watch.
 
According to the US Constitution, Congress is required to give "advice and consent" to appointments the President makes. The President has presented his nominee. They are now required to decide to accept or reject the nominee. Congress should exercise their duties. If you like him, vote yes. If you don't like him, vote down the nomination. There is no precedent for waiting until another president comes along.

He[The President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Click to expand...

If they want to criticize Obama for not following the Constitution, they should set the example and follow it themselves.

If Ron Paul was president and Congress was doing that to one of his nominees, people here would be screaming about Congress messing with what Ron wanted to accomplish.

(I am not saying either way if he is a good or bad nominee- I don't have enough information on that).
 
Last edited:
Zippyjuan said:
According to the US Constitution, Congress is required to give "advice and consent" to appointments the President makes. The President has presented his nominee. They are now required to decide to accept or reject the nominee. Congress should exercise their duties. If you like him, vote yes. If you don't like him, vote down the nomination. There is no precedent for waiting until another president comes along.



If they want to criticize Obama for not following the Constitution, they should set the example and follow it themselves.

If Ron Paul was president and Congress was doing that to one of his nominees, people here would be screaming about Congress messing with what Ron wanted to accomplish.

(I am not saying either way if he is a good or bad nominee- I don't have enough information on that).
Click to expand...

They could advise and consent by telling Obama that we can do just fine with 8 judges in the SCOTUS for the next year, it's not like Obama has some divine right to have his commie appointments put on the bench. Then again, I think they should just give the guy a hearing, tear him apart and then vote him down. Screw Obama, he got his 2 goyim-haters representing less than 3% of this country, that's plenty.
 
Do your jerb Juan says! Constitution!

90% or better of the shit all three branches pull doesn't fit your request dooood.
 
They should do their fucking job. There's no reason the court should stand at 8 justices for the next 9-12 months. They could also just go lightning speed, have a hearing on this nominee tomorrow and vote him down. Make Obama keep putting up nominees till there's one repubs like. It's bullshit like this that makes people vote trump.
 
I think what Cato is trying to say is that if Hillary gets elected, she won't nominate people like Garland. She'll nominate some crazy affirmative action pick. Imagine the headlines reading something like this: "President Clinton Nominates First Black Transgender Lesbian to Highest Court in The Land!" That nominee would make Garland look like Thomas Jefferson.
 
Last edited:
spudea said:
They should do their $#@!ing job. There's no reason the court should stand at 8 justices for the next 9-12 months. They could also just go lightning speed, have a hearing on this nominee tomorrow and vote him down. Make Obama keep putting up nominees till there's one repubs like. It's bull$#@! like this that makes people vote trump.
Click to expand...

The only logical argument in favor of not even giving Obama's commie nutter nominees a hearing is that they are worried that some of their "moderates" might jump ship and one of them will slip through. Obama is going to whine about obstructionism until he gets his way, whether these stooges he sends to the senate are voted on or ignored, so maybe they should do their jobs.

Then again, I don't really see it as a tragedy if we have 8 judges for the next 9-12 months, I'd actually find it interesting to see a bunch of stalemates, maybe we could learn something about how partisan judges work and learn to see the SCOTUS as something other than an object of worship.
 
PaleoPaul said:
I think what Cato is trying to say is that if Hillary gets elected, she won't nominate people like Garland. She'll nominate some crazy affirmative action pick. Imagine the headlines reading something like this: "President Clinton Nominates First Black Transgender Lesbian!" That nominee would make Garland look like Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...

Who cares? Having a pinko sitting on the bench doesn't get better if he's white and doesn't have his genitals mutilated.
 
hells_unicorn said:
The only logical argument in favor of not even giving Obama's commie nutter nominees a hearing is that they are worried that some of their "moderates" might jump ship and one of them will slip through.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the only argument. But it is overwhelmingly powerful argument. Trust in the GOP to uphold Constitutional principles is at all time low. NOBODY believes that if votes were allowed, the GOP would reject the nominee. It is childish for sure, and embarrassing for the party, but it is the reality. GOP just can't be trusted with the power to hold a vote. We have to treat them like babies.
 
Trump said back in March he would get a list of ten people from the Heritage Foundation that he "would definitely pick from" for a supreme court nominee if he had the chance. Anybody seen that list? I haven't.

http://time.com/4266700/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominations/

Speaking at the construction site for his new hotel in Washington, D.C., Monday, Trump said he will make a list public in the next week of 10 conservative judges that he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court. If elected, Trump said, he would only pick from that list, which is being made in consultation with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“I’m going to submit a list of justices, potential justices of the United States Supreme Court, that I will appoint from the list,” Trump said. “I won’t go beyond that list. Some people say maybe I’ll appoint a liberal judge. I’m not appointing a liberal judge.”
Click to expand...

Do Republicans still think they will get a better nominee from Clinton or Trump for the court to replace Scalila?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
SCOTUS is formally asked to overturn gay marriage ruling
Replies
16
Views
103
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Trump’s global tariffs found illegal by US appeals court
2
Replies
35
Views
284
Voluntarist
Voluntarist
Swordsmyth
Supreme Court Allows Fuel Producers To Challenge California
Replies
0
Views
11
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Voluntarist
Federal Judge: Certify Riggs' Victory (NC Supreme Court Race)
Replies
10
Views
31
acptulsa
acptulsa
Swordsmyth
Supreme Court Smacks Down Biden Judge, Allows Trump to Resume Deporting Illegal Aliens to ‘Third-Party Countries’ – Including Places Like South Sudan
Replies
1
Views
17
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top