Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Obama nominates moderate, veteran judge for Supreme Court

+5
ZVUGKTUBM
Markle
knothead
2seaoat
gatorfan
9 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

gatorfan



Well now we get to see (again) how dysfunctional this Congress can be. Garland looks like a good pick.

President Barack Obama nominated veteran appellate court judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, setting up a potentially ferocious political showdown with Senate Republicans who have vowed to block any Obama nominee.

Considered a moderate, Garland, 63, is currently chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He was picked to replace long-serving conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died on Feb. 13.

"I've selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden.

"These qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration of leaders from both sides of the aisle (Democrats and Republicans). He will ultimately bring that same character to bear on the Supreme Court, an institution in which he is uniquely prepared to serve immediately," Obama added."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-obama-idUSKCN0WI03D

2seaoat



Good Man. He is much needed. If I were Trump, I would announce that if I am elected and the senate fails to nominate this moderate.....I will. I would be a bold move, and one that would endure him to the moderates in this country. It would be a brilliant move to solidify himself against the obstructionist in Congress who have been bought and paid for by special interests and campaign puppetmasters. In any regard, swing state senators like Kirk have already moved from the dark side. America gets that the courts cannot become part of the political process. Yes, there are substantive differences in the politics of Presidents, and yes....there are differences in judges, but this guy is loved by everyone......Harvard and a tough prosecutor who went after gang bangers and brought the OK bombing to a successful conclusion. Very encouraging.

knothead

knothead

Good choice by President Obama . . . . . .thanks for posting gator!

Markle

Markle

knothead wrote:Good choice by President Obama . . . . . .thanks for posting gator!

I hope the senate changes their mind and confirms Merrick Garland.

Lame Duck President Obama and his cabal are playing politics and NO ONE plays politics like President Obama.

If, by some perverse chance, a Democrat wins the White House we will have a young, nominee to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg appointed who will be there for forty years.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote: It would be a brilliant move to solidify himself against the obstructionist in Congress who have been bought and paid for by special interests and campaign puppetmasters.

Patently false narrative and revision. You seem to forget or ignore the populist movement to elect anti-establishment representatives in 2010. Why?

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

It is in this old fart's hands now.....

Obama nominates moderate, veteran judge for Supreme Court Mitch

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:It is in this old fart's hands now.....

Obama nominates moderate, veteran judge for Supreme Court Mitch

I object you your childish name calling.

However, I do agree that this "leader" needs a leader.

Guest


Guest

Good candidate offered by a sitting President whose job it is to appoint a nominee.

I totally agree that all presently running candidates for President make a press statement supporting this nominee.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote: It would be a brilliant move to solidify himself against the obstructionist in Congress who have been bought and paid for by special interests and campaign puppetmasters.  

Patently false narrative and revision. You seem to forget or ignore the populist movement to elect anti-establishment representatives in 2010. Why?

Do you mean the Fox-sponsored astroturf teabaggers?

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.salon.com/2016/03/16/obamas_gutsy_godfather_move_merrick_garland_nomination_is_as_big_a_gop_nightmare_as_donald_trump/?source=newsletter

Obama’s gutsy “Godfather” move: Merrick Garland nomination is as big a GOP nightmare as Donald Trump

Trump or Cruz is likely to go down in flames, taking GOP senators with him. So do they take the best deal possible?

In “The Godfather II,” the Corleone family lawyer Tom Hagen describes to his brother Michael how they’ve been tactically outmaneuvered by the old gangster, Hyman Roth. “Roth . . . well he — he played this one beautifully,” says Hagen, with more than a little grudging admiration.

Assuming they’re not throwing themselves out some of the higher windows in the Senate office building, a lot of Republican senators must be having similar thoughts about Barack Obama.

Obama’s decision to nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court is what in technical legal terms is known as a gangster move. It puts Senate Republicans in a basically impossible position – as if the 24 GOP senators up for re-election this November didn’t already have enough problems, what with the ticket almost certain to be headed by a full-fledged disaster of a presidential candidate. (It’s actually hard to say whether Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is less electable, but either of them is basically a worst-case scenario for down ticket GOP candidates.)

Consider: Just a half-dozen years ago, Orrin Hatch, perhaps the single most influential Republican senator in regard to judicial nominations, declared that Merrick would be “a consensus nominee,” and that furthermore there was “no question” that he could be confirmed.

Under normal circumstances, the choice of a thoroughgoing judicial moderate such as Merrick would be considered by Republicans a best-case nomination by a Democratic president – hence, Hatch’s eagerness to see him picked for the open seat that went eventually to Elena Kagan.

But these aren’t, to put it mildly, normal circumstances. Republican senators have agreed almost unanimously that they won’t consider anyone nominated by Obama this year, on the basis of the constitutional principle (like a lot of GOP constitutional principles, this one isn’t actually in the Constitution, and indeed has heretofore never been enforced, or even articulated) that a president shouldn’t try to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year.

Obama’s nomination puts these senators in a terrible bind. If they carry through with their we-just-made-it-up-on-the-spot principle, and refuse to even give an indisputably moderate nominee such as Garland a hearing, they will look like petty obstructionists to swing voters in their home states (engaging in petty obstruction tends to be the kind of thing that makes you look like a petty obstructionist).

On the other hand, if they relent and hold hearings, the pressure to actually confirm Garland will build, since the only argument against confirming him will be, essentially, that he’s not Antonin Scalia reincarnated.

Confirming Garland before next year, however, is almost out of the question. Such an act would throw the GOP base, already in the throes of the belief that they have been “betrayed” by RINO squishes, into a rabid frenzy that would make the average Trump rally look like graduate school seminar.

So Garland almost certainly won’t get a vote, or at least not until next year. But that decision in turn has a non-trivial chance of playing a role in flipping the Senate back to the Democrats. Indeed, the only scenario in which a vote on Scalia’s now-vacant seat is likely to happen this year is this one: October rolls around, and it has become all too clear to Senate Republicans that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is going down in flames, and that he will be taking a whole bunch of GOP senators with him. Only then, perhaps, may they decide that Obama has made them an offer they can’t refuse.

By then, however, they may well find that today’s offer has been withdrawn. In any case, no matter what happens, Obama will expect them not to take it personally. After all, it’s just business.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

****************

Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


MoveOn calls for Republicans to confirm Garland:

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/03/16/moveon-statement-president-obamas-nomination-merrick-garland-supreme-court

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Good Man. He is much needed. If I were Trump, I would announce that if I am elected and the senate fails to nominate this moderate.....I will. I would be a bold move, and one that would endure him to the moderates in this country. It would be a brilliant move to solidify himself against the obstructionist in Congress who have been bought and paid for by special interests and campaign puppetmasters. In any regard, swing state senators like Kirk have already moved from the dark side. America gets that the courts cannot become part of the political process. Yes, there are substantive differences in the politics of Presidents, and yes....there are differences in judges, but this guy is loved by everyone......Harvard and a tough prosecutor who went after gang bangers and brought the OK bombing to a successful conclusion. Very encouraging.

As you and the other far left Progressives here know and painfully know is that there would NOT be an obstructionist congress were it NOT for the massive FAILURE OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
MoveOn calls for Republicans to confirm Garland:

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/03/16/moveon-statement-president-obamas-nomination-merrick-garland-supreme-court

Lol... good one..!!

knothead

knothead

As you and the other far left Progressives here know and painfully know is that there would NOT be an obstructionist congress were it NOT for the massive FAILURE OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.

*****************************************************

Mr. Markle you do have a wonderful sense of humor . . . . . you should be doing a stand up act . . . . . lol! lol! lol!

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle wrote:As you and the other far left Progressives here know and painfully know is that there would NOT be an obstructionist congress were it NOT for the massive FAILURE OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.

Obama nominates moderate, veteran judge for Supreme Court Blah_b12

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Markle wrote:As you and the other far left Progressives here know and painfully know is that there would NOT be an obstructionist congress were it NOT for the massive FAILURE OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.

Obama nominates moderate, veteran judge for Supreme Court Blah_b12

Obama nominates moderate, veteran judge for Supreme Court Duct%20Tape_zpsb3cli3ah

Would the Tea Party have been able to elect so many Congressman and Senators if the administration of our Lame Duck President had been a rousing success?

Guest


Guest

Obama, biden, reid... et al took mcconnell's exact position when the shoe was on the other foot.

Lets just play by one set of rules and standards.

End of discussion. Right?

Markle

Markle

PkrBum wrote:Obama, biden, reid... et al took mcconnell's exact position when the shoe was on the other foot.

Lets just play by one set of rules and standards.

End of discussion. Right?

Politicians must REALLY rue the day that the internet began to enter politics. They must have had no clue that all the things they said were suddenly going to be able to be seen, coming from their very own lips by virtually anyone who wishes.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Which Supreme Court nominee did Harry Reid refuse to hold a hearing on the last two years of the Bush Administration (2006-2008)?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

The tactic is either on the table or it isn't. The pubs hold that power right now... I'm sure that's frustrating.

2seaoat



Our laws call for a hearing. I have no problem if senators after hearings vote and reject this Judge. However, power which is not within our constitutional framework, is plain and simple abuse. I have no problem with a filibuster.....but to immediately declare that a president with a year on his term cannot appoint a judge and that judge get a hearing.....that is not a constitutional framework, rather an abuse of power. If that is what Republican Senators choose to do, it is their call because raw power like a police officer pulling their gun and summarily executing a driver because he could not produce his driver's license is possible, but there will be consequences. I am optimistic that folks will engage their brains and hold even cursory hearings before voting to reject, but again to avoid their constitutional duty, or attempting ad hoc procedures not envisioned under our constitutional framework is a dangerous abuse of power. Most folks realize the same.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

PkrBum wrote:Obama, biden, reid... et al took mcconnell's exact position when the shoe was on the other foot.

Lets just play by one set of rules and standards.

End of discussion. Right?

That's not true, and you know it. You're always talking about ethics and equality, but you don't seem to demonstrate any of the above.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

The wingnuts will be shitting bricks if Hillary wins in a landslide in November and the Senate flips back to Democratic control. The retribution for not replacing Scalia in 2016 will be a stinging one, for sure; and there will be more to follow.

Is it really worth the gamble?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote: Our laws call for a hearing.  I have no problem if senators after hearings vote and reject this Judge.  However, power which is not within our constitutional framework, is plain and simple abuse.  I have no problem with a filibuster.....but to immediately declare that a president with a year on his term cannot appoint a judge and that judge get a hearing.....that is not a constitutional framework, rather an abuse of power.   If that is what Republican Senators choose to do, it is their call because raw power like a police officer pulling their gun and summarily executing a driver because he could not produce his driver's license is possible, but there will be consequences.   I am optimistic that folks will engage their brains and hold even cursory hearings before voting to reject, but again to avoid their constitutional duty, or attempting ad hoc procedures not envisioned under our constitutional framework is a dangerous abuse of power.  Most folks realize the same.

Wrong, it is the CONSTITUTION which calls for a hearing.  You might also note that it says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about...WHEN.



Last edited by Markle on Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

2seaoat



It does not have to say when. It just has to happen. Waiting to a new congress is seated is not delay, but abdication of a duty under the constitution. Hillary will probably put a forty something person on the Supreme court and thirty years from now folks will be saying that turtle from Ky was really...really....really slow.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum