PBO is announcing it now. YouTube stream here.
ETA: So far, the president is emphasizing Garland’s middle-class roots, public service focus and prosecutorial chops, including his work on the Oklahoma City bombing.
ETA2: Obama (paraphrased): “Presidents don’t stop working in the last year of their term, and neither should senators…I hope senators will act in a bipartisan fashion…I hope they’re fair.”
ETA3: Garland tears up when it’s his turn to speak: “This is the greatest honor of my life, other than when [my wife] agreed to marry me.”
ETA 4: And that’s a wrap. Let the wild rumpus begin!
Trentrunner
Really wish our MSM would use words like “unprecedented” and “historical” to describe the Senate GOP’s refusing to even consider Obama’s nominee.
CNN, for example, seems to take it as typical that the GOP is thwarting Obama. Sad.
burnspbesq
Garland is way overqualified to be merely a sacrifical lamb.
TaMara (BHF)
I’m having a crabby day, so let me be the first to say, Thanks Obummer – glad to see you nominating an old white guy to replace the old white guy.
Do you think this is just to Fuck with the Senate and this absolutely perfect nominee gets shot down,he picks someone much more controversial?
Betty Cracker
@Trentrunner: It is frustrating, but it seems PBO is aiming to change that with this nomination.
tommybones
What appears to be a shitty pick is no doubt the latest move in the 11-dimensional chess game! Last night’s hangover just got worse.
Yutsano
I’m actually okay with this. Something tells me Garland is the football for the GOP to turn down then Srivansian gets up to bat after his rejection. My prediction anyway.
gene108
@Trentrunner:
MSM are not exactly bullies per se.
They are the people, who hang around bullies and laugh at you, when the bully kicks someone, when they are down, because they think hanging around with the bully will make them tough.
dr. bloor
@TaMara (BHF): Because Scalia’s and Garland’s judicial records are indistinguishable.
We all wear plaid pants with white belts while playing golf as well.
Betty Cracker
@tommybones: Why is Garland a shitty pick? (Honest question — I don’t know much about the dude.)
peach flavored shampoo
I anticipate the GOP taking this statement completely out of context to argue that Merrick was responsible for acquiring the ammonium nitrate.
eric
@Betty Cracker: because he does not have a public option
Kropadope
@Trentrunner:
Well, without the context of the SCOTUS nominee part, I would argue that the GOP’s attempted obstruction of Obama is VERY typical.
TaMara (BHF)
@dr. bloor: I told you I was in a crabby mood. :-D
Matt McIrvin
Breaking: Barack Obama behaves like Barack Obama, gives Senate enough rope to hang themselves with through apparently conciliatory move.
I’d have preferred most of the other possibilities, and I don’t like that the guy is old enough that he’ll require replacement in just a decade or two. But this is definitely the “make the Senate look stupid” move.
Punchy
Merrick not ‘Merrickan enough to get a vote, eh? Where’s his flag pin? Is his middle name “Freedom”? He is really from Suburban Dallas, or just trying to fake it?
Robin G.
POTUS timed this perfectly.
“I know what you’re thinking: ‘Can we hold out for someone better?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all this primary excitement, I’ve kinda lost track myself. But being as this is an election year for the most powerful position in the world, and the next president is going to be either Hillary or Trump, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”
And then he moves into checkmate on his eleventh-dimensional chessboard.
OzarkHillbilly
@Trentrunner:
At this point in his presidency, can you say it is anything other than typical for them?
Kropadope
@TaMara (BHF):
I think we can cut Obama some slack, given that he tripled the female presence on the court, in part by nominating the first Latina.
tommybones
@Betty Cracker: Check at Scotus Blog for lots of info… it’s not pretty.
amk
@TaMara (BHF):
Guess all old white guys are the same?
FEMA Camp Counselors
@Betty Cracker:
I could see someone being disappointed if they wanted someone who was young and/or not a white man (Watford, Liu, Sri, etc)
He’s not a bad pick, but he also doesn’t break the mold that much. He’s still leagues better then Scalia though.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@TaMara (BHF): I think that this is leaving the more controversial picks to President Clinton in the hope that she’ll have a more receptive Senate.
C.V. Danes
Ever consider that maybe Obama just likes this guy for the Supreme Court?
I know we like to identify Obama’s game to some kind of multidimensional strategic genius and all, but I pretty much think that Obama just does what he does because that’s what he believes, good or bad.
Kryptik
@gene108:
They’re not the bullies, they’re the enablers. The toadies, the adults that say ‘boys will be boys’ in that dismissive sing-song fashion, and the authorities that decide the victim is as much to blame as the aggressor, if not MORESO, in ALL situations of said bullying.
MSM are the people that ensure this sort of shit perpetuates by running interference for the bullies and the assholes and ensure everyone around believes ‘this is just how this works’
Humboldtblue
@Yutsano: Well, maybe the GOP will kick Garland around like a soccer ball while they discuss who to bring off the bench for some free throws. We always knew Obama wasn’t going to be able to hit a hole-in-one with this pick, and he’s far from spiking the ball in the end zone after scoring a TD but maybe he’s just hit a triple and all it will take is for a few GOPers to breaks ranks and see his man across the finish line.
Shell
Wow, the birdies are really chirping away there in the Rose Garden. Can spring finally be here? (well, in DC
Robin G.
@Humboldtblue: I’m in physical pain right now.
Betty Cracker
@FEMA Camp Counselors: Love your nym!
MattF
What’s needed now is for this to become an issue in the Presidential campaign. Those ‘down-ballot’ votes need to become a subject of discussion… I can see it happening, but it’s up to Hillary.
gogol's wife
@C.V. Danes:
Yep.
amk
@C.V. Danes:
yeah, what with the majority in senate and all, he cudda done much, much better. #clueless
The Dangerman
63? WTF?!
ETA: I get this Dude never gets confirmed (if the Republicans allow any more Obama picks to sit on the USSC, they might as well just resign), but …
….really?
Elmo
Disappointed. Age bad. Optics not optimal, especially when it comes to energizing young people of color to come out and vote in Nov.
Oklahoma City bombing prosecutor screams “careerist functionary” to me, not “progressive thinker.”
The civil rights issues of the coming decades are not going to be best addressed by an elderly white male from a career background in law enforcement. They just aren’t.
TaMara (BHF)
Man, I thought we all had an understanding here…I was being sarcastic. Humor is dead.
Iowa Old Lady
OT but good news: Apparently the Vatican is removing its ambassador to the US because he blindsided the Pope into meeting with Kim Davis.
Trooptripe Traptrope
Obama used the former Republican mantra “up or down vote” twice in his speech! SPOT ON!
tommybones
Goldstein on Scotusblog said Garland is TO THE RIGHT OF SCALIA on some criminal justice issues. This is what a Democratic POTUS is pushing?
chopper
as I said in the other thread, garland is pretty crazy qualified for the job. chief of the dc circuit.
it seems like a slap in the face to the entire judiciary system for the senate to ignore his nomination. we’ll have to see how it all hashes out tho.
dedc79
Re-posting from prior thread: Judging by the freakout underway in the comments over at NRO, this pick was a wise one
chopper
@tommybones:
scalia was actually pretty good on some criminal justice issues.
Larv
Garland’s been on the short list for all of Obama’s SC picks, I believe. So I think that it’s mostly just that he likes the guy and thinks he’d be a good justice. But strategically, picking someone older might not be that bad of an idea. It might make the GOP more willing to deal if they know they won’t be stuck with him for thirty years. But also, Garland is at the peak of his judicial career, barring the SC. If this all goes south and the GOP goes through with it, it does less harm for Garland to be tarred as an unsuccessful pick. He’s not going anywhere, and he’s certainly too old for the next opening. So he’s a safe pick – he’ll be a good justice if the GOP caves, and it limits the damage if they don’t.
FEMA Camp Counselors
@Betty Cracker:
Thanks. When the revolution comes, someone will have to keep the Real Americans entertained with campfire songs and marshmallows in the reeducation camps.
It is a thankless job, but I am nothing if not a patriot.
nominus
The GOP is not smart enough to take the bone, I have a feeling that this is 0-FG Obama playing them again.
Matt McIrvin
I suppose the politics of it depends on whether Obama’s goal is to make the Senate knuckle under and actually get someone nominated; to make the Senate look like fools for holding out against him; or to make this a motivating issue in the 2016 election.
Garland is probably the best choice for the first and second goals but the worst for the third.
Mnemosyne
@tommybones:
I don’t see anything specific on Scotusblog. Please provide a link.
Gin & Tonic
@TaMara (BHF): Good thing you didn’t quote from Swift’s A Modest Proposal, because then some would think that was one of your recipe posts.
tommybones
@chopper: That may be true, but Garland to his right on anything is not something I am looking forward to.
chopper
@Larv:
also if this is his window and he misses it he still stays on the dc circuit which is pretty influential.
tommybones
@Mnemosyne: No link, it’s the liveblog….
dr. bloor
@Matt McIrvin:
The latter is true, but I don’t think Merrick is all that inconsistent with the sort of person Obama would be interested in putting on the court in any case. Obama likes him enough to have considered him previously, good enough (certainly as a replacement for Scalia), and getting “good enough” in place eliminates the possibility of having 8 years of work dismantled if an R gets the White House this fall.
Emma
@Iowa Old Lady: Don’t mess around with Francisco. That’s all.
Larv
@chopper:
Yes, exactly. Garland himself has less to lose, and may have been more willing than other potential nominees to go through this circus. It’s not just up to Obama.
chopper
@tommybones:
criminal justice issues are one of those areas where labels like “left” and “right” aren’t necessarily helpful. it’s often much more case-by-case as compared to say regulatory stuff.
I’m just saying let’s not start cutting our wrists quite yet.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@tommybones: can you identify those issues and explain how Garland is to the right of Scalia?
Face
Yeah, because “progressive thinker” is precisely what a radicalized, partisan GOP Senate would confirm. What color are the unicorns, ponies, and free blow in your part of the world?
Mnemosyne
@tommybones:
Okay, then I’m holding out for an actual reasoned blog post with links showing the arguments against him before I make up my mind, not comments tossed out during a liveblog. YMMV.
MattF
@dr. bloor: Also, Obama is simply not interested in making an ‘up yours’ nomination. As we should all know by now, that’s not his way of doing things.
Thoroughly Pizzled
@C.V. Danes: Agreed, 100%. Obama is a masterful strategist, but he doesn’t act in bad faith.
SiubhanDuinne
@TaMara (BHF):
Not for a minute. Even after all they’ve put him through for 7+ years, I think Obama is far too decent a man and much too conscientious about his Presidential responsibilities to make a nomination just to fuck with the Senate. That might indeed end up being a side effect or consequence, but I truly don’t think it went into his deliberations.
C.V. Danes
@amk: So your version of eleventy-dimensional chess requires Obama to put forth someone appealing to a Senate that is to the right of Atilla the Hun for what purpose exactly? The off chance that we can replace Scalia with someone who might be a little better than Scalia? To hope that a Senate that has shown no signs of self awareness might suddenly change its tune?
Better, me thinks, to pick someone more progressive to rally the Democrats, let the predictable Republican antics play out during the summer, and bring the candidate back out under a Democratic president and Senate as a mandate to carry out Obama’s choice.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Brian Williams just told me that appointing Jane Kelly (think I got that name right?) the Iowa native who could have made things awkward for Grassley, was seen as “too cute by half”. Was it indeed, BriWi? by whom? Your friends in the the Chinook pilot corps?
tommybones
@Mnemosyne: Fair enough. Let’s put it this way, there’s little indication so far that he’s a solid liberal, who will reliably swing the court to the left. That’s what worries me. It’s clearly a compromise pick, once again starting the battle from the middle, as is the Dems way.
Eric U.
Scalia was strangely inconsistent on civil liberties, as I remember. It would be nice to see a list of his greatest hits.
Chyron HR
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Well, you know, the liveblog, and also he’s a white male, so in conclusion Obama’s worse than Bush–he sold us out.
WarMunchkin
Too much reading into it. Obama isn’t playing 11D Chess. He’s just appointing a person he feels is qualified, full stop.
TaMara (BHF)
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: There were actually television ads running against her nomination this weekend, telling the senate not to confirm. I thought, WTF? It was very weird.
Brian Williams is an ass.
JMG
@WarMunchkin: I agree.
Kropadope
@tommybones:
It must be Scalia’s position that discovery of exonerating evidence doesn’t merit a re-trial. Merrick Garland, of course, is against even allowing first trials. He believes that criminal courts should simply defer to police and prosecutors and there should be no trial at all, just meting out punishment. /deludedfantasy
chopper
@Face:
yeah obviously the guy who prosecuted the most notorious right-wing terrorist of our time really must be anti-progressive.
Gardenfli
@C.V. Danes:
Agreed 100%
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@tommybones: so your idea is to nominate someone more provocative, who will make the Republicans really mad, and look racist and misogynists, and then the people will rise up, and…. God, I shouldn’t even start arguing with a choose-your-own-adventure amateur political strategist.
Ridnik Chrome
I was hoping for Paul Watford, myself, but if we have to have a moderate (and realistically I think only a moderate would have a real shot at being confirmed) I’d rather have Garland than Srinivasan. Srinivasan worked for Exxon-Mobil, for crying out loud. Yes, I’d like to see an Asian-American on the court, but I’d much rather it was someone like Goodman Liu.
SiubhanDuinne
Here’s Mitch McConnell speaking.
amk
@WarMunchkin: yup. KISS.
C.V. Danes
@Face:
Perhaps we’re better off taking a pass this time, then, instead of installing Scalia-lite (or Scalia-worse) for another few decades?
tommybones
And a 63 year old nominee is not exactly what we are looking for either.
amk
@C.V. Danes:
to pick someone more progressive to rally the
Democrats”progressives”.fixt.
El Caganer
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Actually I could see the President coming to this conclusion. It appears to me that he’s a lot more interested in filling the position, and filling it with somebody he considers qualified, than in jerking Yertle’s chain. Not that making Sen. Turtle retreat into his shell wouldn’t be entertaining.
dr. bloor
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I am so stealing this line.
C.V. Danes
@Ridnik Chrome: Yes. Word for word.
Thoroughly Pizzled
Jeff Toobin had an interesting anecdote in his fantastic Scalia obituary. Rehnquist would never assign Scalia opinions because he knew Scalia would lose O’Connor’s support. My guess is Obama wants someone who could work with Kennedy and Roberts, because a liberal firebrand could just be ignored by the Chief Justice we’re stuck with for a long time.
Obama probably doesn’t want any more Scalia types on the court – liberal or conservative. It’s just not in his temperament.
JMG
Garland is an expert on (and favors more aggressive) antitrust law.
dr. bloor
@C.V. Danes:
You understand that no one is going to take anything you say seriously as long as you refer to Merrick as “Scalia-lite,” right?
LAO
@tommybones: Scalia was, generally, very good on criminal justice issues — so far to the right, he ended up on the left. But quite honestly, it did not make up for the reminder of his decisions.
Also, as a general note — I practice in the 2d Circuit, which is considered a very fair, moderate circuit and often times I want to pull my hair out. There are no truly leftist Judges on the federal bench.
Steve in the ATL
@tommybones:
So, uh, do think maybe Obama checked into this before nominating him?
hellslittlestangel
It’s good to see an old white guy taking one for the team. Perhaps this will rehabilitate their reputation for being shiftless, entitled and cowardly.
tommybones
Look, if all we were looking for was a Justice that was to the left of Scalia, then that’s a pretty low bar.
Robin G.
@WarMunchkin: The choice, maybe, but the timing is total politics. He waited until Hillary and Trump were all but locks. Now McConnell has to look at the situation and wonder if he wants to play roulette with November — and even if he “wins”, whether what Trump offers will really be better than this.
Edited to add: Yeesh, what stuck this in moderation?
The Ancient Randonneur
@Mnemosyne: I think Amy Howe, in response to a question about the Apple v. FBI encryption case, said that Garland might actually be more sympathetic to the governments case than Scalia would have been. That in and of itself is not all that surprising but I think that particular case may have an atypical divide in the Court.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Mnemosyne: It was in the liveblog along with the comment “Justice Scalia had some interesting pro-defendant views in some Fourth Amendment and Sixth Amendment cases, so it’s certainly possible.”
hueyplong
C.V. Danes asks us to assume that Obama sweated out Supreme Court decisions for 7 years (including multiple cases on Obamacare), and then just punted the game away just so C.V. Danes could have a sad during a single news cycle.
That lame duck thing seems pretty self-destructive. .
Steve in the ATL
@LAO: I was at a CLE yesterday and we discussed the Maples death penalty case. Odd to see a couple of Sullivan & Cromwell lawyers drop the ball like that, and odder still to see SCOTUS reversing the lower courts on the missed deadline. Of course, Scalia dissented and of course Thomas concurred with him. Still waiting for the death penalty to be thrown out entirely.
LAO
@Eric U.:
My personal favorites (as a defense attorney) Crawford v. Washington, 542 US 36( 2004)
msdc
@Matt McIrvin: Making the Senate look like fools is a great motivating issue for the 2016 Senate elections. A couple extra Dem senators would be an outstanding gift to President Clinton.
Hoodie
@burnspbesq: I’m not so sure he’ll end up being one. Now that Trump has the inside track to the GOP nomination, GOP senators defending tough seats may have leeway from McConnell to move away from Trump and towards the center.
He is a fine choice on many levels, including impeccable credentials, old enough to not be demagogued as court packing, and leaves Srinavasan, Kelly and others still in play for HRC to nominate for eventually replacing Ginsburg and Breyer. Particularly intriguing is that he’s well known and probably respected by Roberts. Roberts might like the idea of working with a consensus builder like Garland than god knows who Trump might nominate or being marginalized if HRC is able to build an impregnable liberal wall in the Court. Roberts also may not like seeing Garland being crapped on by GOP senate. Roberts is a bit of a wild card for the GOP and is young enough to evolve leftward, particularly on social issues. Note that Obama made a point of bringing up Roberts.
Proceed, senators.
tommybones
@Steve in the ATL: No, I don’t trust that Obama isn’t perfectly happy with a centrist replacing Scalia, rather than a clear liberal.
Thoroughly Pizzled
@tommybones: What have Justices Sotomayor and Kagan done to ruin your trust in Obama’s judgment?
C.V. Danes
@dr. bloor:
Did I say that? What I said was anyone this Senate is likely to confirm: Scalia-lite or Scalia-worse.
Bill
@Yutsano: This.
tommybones
@Thoroughly Pizzled: I don’t “trust” politicians, nobody should.
Ridnik Chrome
Guys, Hillary Clinton is going to be the next president, and she may very well have a Democratic Senate as well. She will probably nominate Ginsberg’s replacement, and maybe Kennedy’s as well. That’s when we’ll get our solid progressive thinker…
msdc
@dr. bloor:
The real power move here is not that Garland is good enough as a replacement for Scalia; it’s that he’s good enough as a replacement for Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote on the court. Anybody to the left of Kennedy becomes the new swing vote almost regardless of their ideology (unless they are also to the left of, say, Sotomayor), and nominating a highly respected moderate makes it that much more likely that he’ll get his new swing vote confirmed – or else make the GOP look like the obstructionist maniacs that they are. This is a solid choice.
tommybones
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-merrick-garland-push-supreme-court-article-1.2566551?cid=bitly
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Well, I did.
tommybones
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-merrick-garland-push-supreme-court-article-1.2566551?cid=bitly
Here’s an early take….
LAO
@Steve in the ATL:
Me too!!!
Re: Sullivan and Cromwell lawyers, I really don’t find it so surprising. Just glad the majority of the Supreme Court did not hold the defendant responsible for his lawyers’ negligence (which is a recurring nightmare I have about my practice).
Scalia could be a dick on criminal justice issues — but sometimes he hit one out of the park for us.
Humboldtblue
@Eric U.: Garofalo at Salon gives us a breakdown
C.V. Danes
@hueyplong: I refer you to my statement here, asshole:
@C.V. Danes:
dr. bloor
@Thoroughly Pizzled: This. Honestly, were 7+ years into Obama’s presidency, and while we all certainly retain the right to criticize Obama’s picks and judgment, no one should be at all surprised by this sort of pick, even given the circumstances surrounding it.
He’s just not the leftist progressive droid some looking for. Never was, never will be.
JR in WV
Mitch shows he is still a racist, anti-American, fuck!
pseudonymous in nc
@Yutsano:
At least part of the vetting here will have been PBO asking the prospective nominee whether he or she could cope with nine months of slander, bullshit and being dangled on a string by the asshole GOP Senate caucus. Older Jewish Guy is probably in a better position for that than Younger Brown Guy.
But Obama’s a small-c conservative and an institutionalist about judges. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.
RaflW
What a f*king asshat:
So it IS all about Obama. What a poltroon. And a fool. ‘Cmon, PA, vote his ass out so that he can’t actually follow thru on this vileness.
C.V. Danes
@msdc:
Now that’s an argument that makes sense.
Betty Cracker
@tommybones: I don’t completely trust politicians either (some more than others, obvs), but it’s also not wise to trust hot takes. Garland has been a judge for a long time, so there’s a record to scrutinize.
JMG
It would be unprecedented, and judges live by precedent, but Roberts could get Garland confirmed all by himself. All he has to do is vote with the majority of the other seven judges this spring. A string of 5-3 losses on big issues would alter GOP minds in a hurry.
chopper
@Betty Cracker:
but I’m angry now!
RaflW
@pseudonymous in nc: That was my thought. I do think we need someone more like Srinivasan on the Court, but asking him to be a piñata for the GOP bullshit party is an awful lot. One suspects Garland can take the abuse (not that Srinivasan can’t, but asking a POC to step into that role is asking so much on a personal level…)
C.V. Danes
@dr. bloor:
Yup. No argument there.
kansi
@msdc: This is so true! Not having to cater to Kennedy may be the best thing that could happen to the SC in the last several weeks.
hueyplong
@C.V. Danes:
Just picking at you, and sorry you’re now having a mad as well as a sad.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
Well, here’s a bit from a 2010 review of Garland by SCOTUSBlog:
Bodacious
I don’t know much about Merrick, but I did shoot some nasal coffee when I heard Obama quoting Orrin Hatch’s over the top glowing approval quotes about the nominee. It was worth it right there; a clear jew-jitsu.
El Caganer
@RaflW: I’d be delighted to see him go. We enough problems with Tea Party types at the state level here; no need to let them fuck things up in Washington, too.
C.V. Danes
@hueyplong: Oh, I’m quite ok. Not above doing some picking myself :-)
Although tempers do flare up here at BJ on occasion!
jonas
Ugh. McConnell now going on and on about the “Biden Rule” which, as Biden himself has explained, had fuck-all to do with this particular situation.
Elmo
If people are thinking this guy gets confirmed before the lame duck, then I can see the satisfaction in the appointment. But if he isn’t going to be confirmed before the Repubs in the Senate know the outcome of the election, then there was no reason to pick a moderate.
The Repubs won’t confirm him if Hillary loses, and if Hillary wins, there’s no reason to waste the pick.
Sez me, anyway. If we aren’t going to get a confirmation before the election, then the opportunity to use this vacancy to help Dem electoral prospects was just thrown away.
Also sez me.
C.V. Danes
@kansi:
My dream would be for Roberts to become so marginalized that he just gave up and retired early. That’s my pony.
Patricia Kayden
Even though Mr. Garland’s nomination is dead on arrival, I’m glad President Obama exercised his right as the sitting President to nominate a qualified candidate which now puts the onus on the lazy, feckless Republican Senators to obstruct per usual.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
Another quote from that same article. This follows a review of criminal law cases before the DCCC:
Kropadope
@Patricia Kayden:
These takers need to stop expecting to get free government money while not working a day in their lives, amirite?
frosty
@RaflW:
Gave him a call today for an upperdown vote, no nonsense about election years or filibusters. I’ll give him another.
I’ll do my best to make this asshat a one-termer.
Face
Wow, if you read Grassley’s response, it can be interpreted as saying they’ll never consider a Democratic President’s nominee.
Obstruction and destruction is their modus operandi.
dr. bloor
@Elmo: Well, Obama can withdraw the pick at anytime, not that I think he’d do that to Merrick. I think he likes Merrick enough to be happy about his confirmation, no matter when it takes place.
I don’t really get the “lost opportunity” angle for the general election. How much more motivation do you need beyond making sure Ted Trump doesn’t get to fill the vacancy?
pseudonymous in nc
@RaflW:
Also, Srinivasan has two teenage kids, and though he’s already based in DC, it’s more of a wrench to have your career dangled on a string when you’re still raising a family.
Peale
@dr. bloor: Well, if you start from the position that Scalia was really a moderate and that Merrick is just Scalia, what difference does it make who makes the appointment.
Hildebrand
@Elmo: That they are obstructing even the ‘moderate’ nominee should make it even easier for Democrats to whack Republicans with this. Nominate a certified fresh liberal progressive and most folks just shrug it off as politics as usual. Obstruct this pick and now you will have even members of the press starting to ask questions. I think this pick becomes more and more difficult for the Republicans as the year, and the election season, grinds on.
burnspbesq
@Elmo:
No one will contest your right to have and put forth stupid, unfounded opinions.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@chopper: Scalia was generally on what I consider the correct side wrt 4th amendment issues.
@Ridnik Chrome:
The first is likely, but not at all guaranteed (after the convention, expect CNN and Fox and all the rest to train all barrels on Hillary and start firing for effect; they are going to do their goddamnedest to make sure Hillary loses because they hate her). The second is highly unlikely. I do not expect the Democrats to win back the Senate this term. They may gain some ground, but not enough to win an outright majority. Maybe 2018 if people get off of their goddamned asses and vote in midterms.
rea
@peach flavored shampoo: “‘including his work on the Oklahoma City bombing’ . . .I anticipate the GOP taking this statement completely out of context to argue that Merrick was responsible for acquiring the ammonium nitrate.”
Well, actually, he’s been accused of conspiring with the Clintons to cover up Saddam’s involvement:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/100426
p.a.
Too fucking old
MattF
@Face: Hm. What happens if more Justices die? Does Grassley the Senate would be justified in letting the Court go all-zombie? After all, it’s almost always nearly a Presidential year.
Elmo
@burnspbesq: I am persuaded by your brilliant counter argument. Really, I am. No further need to engage on this issue.
LAC
@C.V. Danes: Nooooo, that would be too simple and reasonable.
burnspbesq
@Ridnik Chrome:
News flash: lawyers work for clients. Cashing their checks is not an endorsement of their behavior.
Mnemosyne
@JMG:
This is why I’d like to see a full accounting. Scalia was enough of a libertarian that he was actually pretty good on defendant rights but sucked on everything else. If Garland is slightly worse (relatively speaking) on defendant rights but light-years better on corporations, abortion, and civil rights, is this a hill worth dying on?
Cacti
@TaMara (BHF):
Garland is an experienced, well-known, and generally respected appellate judge with a long paper trail, and a moderate judicial temperament.
He also happens to be 63 years old, and wouldn’t be on the SCOTUS bench for a half century.
He pretty much checks of all the boxes of least controversial nominee possible, and I’m guessing that’s why President Obama led with him.
Jeffro
@dr. bloor:
1) agree…Obama can withdraw the pick but probably wouldn’t and probably shouldn’t…he can remain steadfast and calm, helping accentuate the contrast with GOP senators (especially the incredibly dumb Toomey). Whipping picks in and out of there looks like he’s chasing their approval. Sticking with this well-regarded, relatively moderate, somewhat older than usual pick is beyond smart.
2) also agree…not a lost opportunity here…if the pick stays up for grabs because a GOP Senate won’t do its job, that’s energizing to the Dems (especially the donor base)
dedc79
@Ridnik Chrome: “Srinivasan worked for Exxon-Mobil”
I always find this line of argument curious. Nobody would judge a surgeon for operating on the CEO of Exxon. But a lawyer who once represented Exxon must be the devil.
O. Felix Culpa
@srv:
One of the few sensible things out of Trump’s mouth. Will there be any more Clinton/Sanders debates? Apart from the dem nomination being nearly moot after last night, is there any point to rehashing the same unimaginative (and generally stupid) questions from the moderators?
Patricia Kayden
@Grumpy Code Monkey: “(after the convention, expect CNN and Fox and all the rest to train all barrels on Hillary and start firing for effect; they are going to do their goddamnedest to make sure Hillary loses because they hate her).”
Hasn’t the media been going after Secretary Clinton and her husband since the early 1990s? What can they come up with that’s new and effective against her? I don’t think anyone sensible on our side is going to be fazed by any more highlighting of her “scandalous emails” or involvement in Beghazi!!!!
Anne Laurie’s brilliant post about voting for Secretary Clinton even if she did x, y and z still stands out for me as capturing the feelings of most Democrats.
LAO
@dedc79: It’s the same type of smear used by the Right against former defense attorneys.
Steve in the ATL
@dedc79:
Is that what you meant to say?
Mnemosyne
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism:
OT, but thanks again for the link to the Jefferson picture from Daveed’s Instagram. I shared it with my Hamimaniac coworkers and now we’re all squeeing in a register that only dogs can hear.
;-)
Mike J
@O. Felix Culpa: DWS arglebargle thumb on the scale snork!
bearcalypse
@RaflW: But it would have been the perfect choice to turn a majority of the south asian voting block against republicans.
Steve in the ATL
@O. Felix Culpa:
I would reply “until you give a relevant, coherent, and substantive answer”
Steve in the ATL
@LAO: And yet Righties are happy to vote for former prosecutors, who represented the greatest evil of all–the government!
MazeDancer
Garland is so widely respected and so completely qualified. Lawyers love, love, love him. His being a white male, while not the first demo choice of most of us, actually erases politics on Mr. Obama’s side. There is nothing political about this choice.
Flawless credentials and no political aspect to his demographics means Garland’s nomination allows all the politics to be revealed on the GOP side. They fell into the trap because it was their only argument: It’s about process not the person. That’s another way of saying: We’re the obstructionists.
Listening to Garland’s resume – argued the First Amendment in High School, worked his way through law school, gave up a partnership for public service – seeing the tears and hearing how he loves his wife and family, I went from, gee, wish it was someone else, to love him! And then realized why Mr. Obama chose him.
This is Garland’s only chance at the Court. And he’s willing to fight for the Constitution one more time. That’s impressive, too.
Hillary will bring the lefties if we bring her the Senate.
dedc79
@LAO: Exactly. Prosecutors and defense attorneys both play essential roles in our system and we shouldn’t be generally disparaging either. If he was a lousy prosecutor, or if he overstepped legal/ethical bounds, that would be one thing.
LAO
@Steve in the ATL: I know, I find it mildly amusing until I have to appear before one. My best guess, is that half the bench in the EDNY and SDNY are former AUSAs.
Enhanced Voting Techinques
@tommybones: What’s you point? A solid moderat replacing a blinded by the Right wanker like Scalia is a radical swing to the left. At lest Garland doesn’t think slavery was awsome.
Steve in the ATL
@dedc79:
Well now you’re just being silly!
LAO
@Steve in the ATL: Is there such a thing?
Cacti
@burnspbesq:
Burnsie, I’m going to have the rare moment of agreement with you.
The attorney’s oath and/or codes of professional conduct in most every State say that a member of their Bar should NOT refuse a prospective client’s case out of malice or any personal consideration.
Our duties as legal counselors come before our personal feelings.
O. Felix Culpa
@Mike J: Haha! Love it.
On the SCOTUS topic, I think the President’s pick is fine. I’m amazed he found a qualified judge who’s willing to be a sacrificial lamb in this situation. Obama gets to do the job we elected him to do, which is to make difficult judgement calls which will never satisfy everyone, not even those on his side. To try to do so would have outcomes like in Aesop’s fable of the Man, Boy, and Donkey.
Mnemosyne
@bearcalypse:
From the last polls I saw, South Asians are already with us thanks to Trump. I think the only Asian-American holdouts for the Republican Party are Vietnamese-Americans, and that may be a So Cal phenomenon.
Cacti
@Enhanced Voting Techinques:
I’m equally certain that Garland doesn’t believe the term “person” as used in the 14th Amendment excludes women, as the late Nino Scalia did.
O. Felix Culpa
@Steve in the ATL: “I would reply “until you give a relevant, coherent, and substantive answer””
In other words, when hell freezes over.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@Elmo:
Are there any specific decisions or opinions of Garland’s that have you concerned? Or are you just pre-judging the man based on his age and ethnicity?
Amir Khalid
@srv:
Per TPM, Kasich is saying that if Donald’s not going then he’s not going either. Which leaves the national party with a choice between showing Ted’s Backpfeifengesicht all night long and no debate at all — i.e. capitulating to the Donald. If it does the latter, its authority is destroyed. Too bad, though; it lacks the will or the power to punish the Donald in any meaningful way.
jonas
Garland is a very middle of the road, non-provocative choice whose confirmation would be a no-brainer if we didn’t have the political polarization that we now do. A solid majority of the country believes he should be given a hearing. The question is whether GOP senators from blue or purple states will give a shit. What do they fear more? Independents and Democrats turning out to vote against them for stonewalling, or getting primaried from the right because they didn’t stonewall enough? Probably the latter.
Once again, Republicans never, ever pay any price for their egregious failure to actually govern competently.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@Patricia Kayden:
I expect to be orders of magnitude worse this time around, and I expect it to work. The non-stop Benghazi/email nonsense has done damage to her reputation among the people who don’t really pay attention to politics.
The only thing saving our ass right now is that Trump is slapping the rest of the GOP with his dick.
D58826
@Matt McIrvin: If trump/teaparty/gop obstructionism/additional scotus picks between 2017-2021 (remember RBG is 83) aren’t enough reasons to motivate the young folks and minorities then I don’t think anything will, including a minority SCOTUS pick by Obama.
Mike J
RareSanity
Good grief knee jerk reactors here should click on that NRO link @dedc79 posted. Once there, read the comment section and hopefully appreciate that your comments, are the EXACT mirror image of comments over there.
Over there, Merrick is a card carrying liberal…also, there is no such thing as a “moderate liberal”, so this guy is practically a communist.
Geez, take a deep breath and stop freaking out.
kc
@Robin G.:
Is this satire? I honestly can’t tell.
O. Felix Culpa
@Mike J: Just called. Got an answering machine. Left a message. Let’s keep the calls going.
D58826
@Grumpy Code Monkey: Actually it has already started (if it every really stopped). The RNC and Judaical Watch are filing a number of suits to gain access to all of HRC’s papers while at STATE along with the papers of any one who had any contact with her. They also want to interview any one who had contact with her. The ‘justification’ is to allow for a proper vetting of the candidate but in reality it’s a fishing expedition. Without a doubt there is an e-mail somewhere that they can twisty into treason.
bearcalypse
@Mnemosyne: I don’t think being against Trump counts as being against Republicans. It’s easy for minorities to vote against Trump, but it would take an act of congress to turn them against an entire party. I mean, they get to trot out Jindal and Haley each time they need tokens.
jonas
@Amir Khalid:
Lol:http://www.theonion.com/video/brutal-anti-cruz-attack-ad-just-30-seconds-candida-52562
Ridnik Chrome
@burnspbesq: Okay, maybe I was out of line with that one. But my general impression of Srinivasan is that he was the most conservative of those under consideration for the nomination…
Mnemosyne
@bearcalypse:
That doesn’t mean that South Asian voters as a whole vote Republican. As I said, last polls I saw showed South Asians firmly inside the Democratic Party. I’ll see if I can dig up a recent poll, but I’m a little handicapped on the phone.
As far as elected politicians go, I’ll put Californians Kamala Harris and Ami Bera up against any Indian-Americans the Republicans can drag in front of the camera.
Mnemosyne
@bearcalypse:
Here’s a link from NPR: How Asian-American Voters Went From Republican to Democratic.
O. Felix Culpa
@O. Felix Culpa:
I’ve forwarded the number to friends and family. I don’t know how much influence such calls have, but it’s worth the few minutes’ time to let the Judiciary Committee know that there are people in significant numbers who want the Senate to perform their Constitutional duties.
Mary
@Grumpy Code Monkey: Interesting factoid that has me confident about the Senate – most of the vulnerable Republican seats are in states that have never (or not for decades) voted one party for President and the other party for Senator in the same election.
TriassicSands
@Trentrunner:
I think you mean “historic,” not “historical.”
satby
@MazeDancer: Well said.
Germy Shoemangler
Meghan McCain: ‘People hate President Obama because he sacrificed’ Judge Garland’s career
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/meghan-mccain-people-hate-president-obama-because-he-sacrificed-judge-garlands-career/
dedc79
@Germy Shoemangler: “it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
O. Felix Culpa
@Germy Shoemangler: Huh. She blames Obama. Go figure.
Elmo
@Grumpy Code Monkey: mostly pre-judging based on status as former prosecutor and reputation as leaning pro-law enforcement in criminal cases.
The age is disappointing because I want to lock up the seat as long as we can. (And yes, there’s an element of “terrible food, and such small portions!” In that complaint, but I am large and contain multitudes.)
Kropadope
@Germy Shoemangler: She’s just a believer in the Republican principle of victim blaming.
divF
@Germy Shoemangler:
Nonsense. He is the Chief Judge of the DC District Court of Appeals. USSC is literally the only position that would constitute a move up.
Mary
@Germy Shoemangler: That might be a somewhat (but not really – because they can always say no) legitimate claim for one of the younger nominees, but Garland is near the end of his career. It’s extremely unlikely that he would be nominated for any future vacancies.
Germy Shoemangler
How dare Obama do his job?
Thanks Obama.
Robin G.
@kc: Mostly I was just amusing myself with the idea of Obama playing magic chess in a Dirty Harry outfit. But I do think the timing was immensely strategic. Last night was the death knell of any establishment GOP hopes for a non-Trump nominee (aside from possibly Cruz, which in the eyes of the Senate might be worse). So given that their alternative options for filling this vacancy will be a Hillary nominee, a Trump nominee, or a Cruz nominee, Garland’s got to be looking a lot better than he would have otherwise. Whether it works or not, who knows, but it’s pretty brilliant.
Germy Shoemangler
I feel like Meghan and others like her are just phoning it in at this point. Lights are on, camera’s running, microphone’s live… start talking! Say whatever shit pops into your mind: “uhh… it’s Obama’s fault”
Mnemosyne
@Elmo:
Though I’m sure it will piss off the libertarian-leaning among us for me to say this, defendant rights are not the be-all and end-all of a Supreme Court justice. Things like abortion rights, voting rights, and anti-trust regulations are important, too. If I were forced to choose, I would pick someone who is a solid vote to uphold Roe v Wade over someone who shares Scalia’s opinions on both abortion and civil liberties. Especially if it’s someone who will probably have a (relatively) shorter time on the court.
MCA1
@MazeDancer: Quite right, I think. There could be a broader political/electoral aspect to this, whether intended by PBO or not, too. There’s been this bubbling resentment on the Right that’s boiling over into at least the Presidential race, and gaining expression in the plaintive cries of middle class whites complaining about privileges going to minorities, reverse discrimination, and everything on the Left being identity politics. Some would argue this move is just appeasing that ridiculous emotional tantrum of a dying demographic, but I would argue it neutralizes one of their outlets for rage. “Are you kidding me? The President you claim is all about racializing everything and fixing for more polarization and race riots and whatnot has nominated a 63-year-old white guy for the Supreme Court. Get over yourself.”
Cacti
Predictably, Kos is bleating about Garland’s nomination being “a lost opportunity”.
Hmmm…whose political instincts should I trust? Two-term POTUS, or lefty blogger? Tough call.
(/snark)
Central Planning
@dedc79: So I had to go check out NRO:
hahaha!
dedc79
@Central Planning: Yeah, it’s hard to say which thread is better. The one where andrew mccarthy announces Obama’s pick, or the one where torture enabler John Yoo begs senate republicans to stand firm.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
WORSE THAN BUSH!
HE SOLD US OUT!
BUSH’S 3 TERM!
IMPEACH!
WE MUST STOP FASCIST
SOTOMAYORKAGANWHOMEVER!Elizabelle
Haven’t read the thread, but there’s something that saddens me a bit —
seeing Judge Garland standing in the springlike sunshine in the Rose Garden, appointed to a great opportunity.
Judge Garland shows up every day for work, and does his job, to the best of his ability.
Meanwhile, his fate is in the hand of Republican obstructionists who have one of the cushiest work schedules known to man, wonderful wages, benefits and retirement.
And a lot of them don’t even want to do their job here, as U.S. Senators.
As obstructionists, of course, they are working overtime. As usual.
Judge Garland is a human being. How strange it must be, to be appointed and wonder if you will ever even get a hearing or a fair appraisal.
mak
@Larv: Your statement that Garland isn’t going anywhere raises another possible consideration: Garland is the chief judge on the second most important court in the country, and probably THE most important court when it comes to federal rules, regs, and administrative agencies. Don’t know if Garland is the vindictive type, but if he is, it won’t be the President or Democrats that the 10th most important judge in the country will blame for having the opportunity of a lifetime dashed.
Peale
@Central Planning: Well, I guess we could go all Jefferson and make sure power always rests with Virginia planters. Much more closely aligned with what he was thinking.
Elmo
@Mnemosyne: I agree with you if we have to pick. I just didn’t think the “all of them, Katie!” option should be out of the question.
bearcalypse
@Mnemosyne: Hmm, that is still talking presidential politics and not congressional/local politics – especially when they throw in that part about swinging back republican for mid-term elections.
Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class
Here’s a thing – I’m only a nuts and bolts divorce and business lawyer, unconcerned and untrained in the weighty, deep principles of constitutional theory, but it occurs to me that under the actual Constitution, whenever the Vice President wants, he can sit down and preside over the Senate. That presumably includes entertaining waivers of rules, etc.
Given that we’re talking about the world’s most pathetic, preening, self-important-to-the-point-of-grandiousity civil body, I’m wondering if it could really be so easy as Joe sauntering in and saying “I’m presiding today. Anybody got any motions for the floor?” He could follow that up with a big grin.
Librarian
@Peale: Actually, Jefferson wanted to take power away from Virginia planters. He opposed the 1776 Virginia constitution because it wasn’t democratic enough.
Phoebe
I would prefer a former criminal defense lawyer.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@msdc: Ah, I like that reasoning. Thanks for pointing it out.
Cheers,
Scott.
Frankensteinbeck
I expect Garland to be confirmed. I’m not sure of it, like I was sure Jeb:( was a fucking loser who could never win, but I expect it to happen. For the last few years McConnell has been screaming ‘I won’t even consider it!’ defiance in public, then rolling over on those issues. I expect Garland to follow Obama’s pattern of being exactly someone he wants for the job, not a sacrificial lamb. He’s only a chess move choice in the sense that being a good president is guaranteed to send the Republican Party screaming off the rails. Like Kagan and Sotomayor, Garland will be dedicated to existing law and the constitution, look disappointingly moderate before confirmation, and turn out to be refreshingly liberal. I suspect, and it’s only my impression, that this happens because reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Mnemosyne
@bearcalypse:
Congressional/local politics are tougher to judge and would have to be looked at state by state or even district by district. For the most part, Asian-Americans are a very small percentage of the electorate, and South Asians are an even smaller portion of that, so I don’t know if actual studies have been done.
Anecdotally, commenter lamh36 (who is not Asian, but lives in New Orleans) says that she’s heard that Indian-Americans in the state feel that Jindal embarrassed them with his incompetence, but I don’t know how that translates electorally.
Librarian
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class: That’s right, VPs used to preside over the Senate on a routine, day-to-day basis. Truman was presiding when he was found out that FDR died.
dedc79
@mak:
This is a point that often gets lost in discussions of the Supreme Court.
Because of how few cases make it to SCOTUS, and because so many appeals of federal rules/regs go through the DC Circuit, most of what the DC Circuit rules ends up standing.
jl
@Mnemosyne: the link is bad.
I think the GOP has lost younger Vietnamese. A lot of younger Vietnamese are in my classes. Immigration is just as sensitive issue with SE Asians as it is with Hispanics. Maybe not in terms of concern about a huge undocumented population. of same ethnicity or nationality. But a lot of people with relatives who will be affected. Also, a surprising number of kids from immigrant families whose citizenship is still in process, and they are totally freaked out by any talk of indiscriminant deportation or any undocumented people, or increasing legal hurdles.
I think some older Vietnamese still hold a grudge against Democrats. But that is like a lot of nationalities. Older Greeks, Latvians, Armenians, Eastern Europeans etc., still mad at GOP or Democrats for doing their country wrong decades ago.
Anyway, I know dozens of younger Vietnamese, and all either Democrats or Independents.
Mnemosyne
@Elmo:
Depends on if this is only strategy or someone that Obama actually wants to be appointed. It sounds like Obama has always been impressed with him and he’s been short listed several times before, so I’m willing to wait and see. I seriously doubt Obama would appoint anyone who wouldn’t be a solid liberal on 90 percent of everything, even if that means that Reason magazine won’t agree with him on defendant rights.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Grumpy Code Monkey: I don’t expect to see a single seat flip. Dems are MIA for Senate races, even more so for the House. Apparently all we as a party are capable of is staring at Trump’s hair and shitting our pants.
SiubhanDuinne
@Botsplainer, Cryptofascist Tool of the Oppressor Class:
Joe could carry that off with aplomb, and I’d love to see him try. I know the VP’s powers are quite restricted, and I think enumerated (break tie votes, preside over Electoral College votes, and I think that’s it — all else is custom and tradition). But I seem to recall that Dick “Dick” Cheney muddied the waters by claiming that he wasn’t subject to laws governing the Administration because he was actually an officer of the Senate, and then turned around and claimed he wasn’t subject to Senate regulations because he was part of the Administration. Don’t recall any details, though, and I’m sure it had nothing to do with a SCOTUS nomination.
schrodinger's cat
@Mnemosyne: I haven’t met a single South Asian person who has anything good to say about Jindal. Just this morning my writing buddy from Bangladesh called him a fucking disgrace.
mak
@SiubhanDuinne: Oh, I suspect that Garland’s politics was one of many factors that were considered, including: the fact that 7 of the Senators on Judiciary voted for him to the DC Circuit, and are on the record stating what a swell judge and person he is; the fact that he’s been in DC for past 20-some years and is no doubt plugged in with a lot of people with easy access to Senators and high ranking R aides and string-pullers; the fact that the Senate refusing to even meet, let alone vote on, a judge universally held to be a moderate will illustrate — to not only to lefties, but also to independents and even sane Rs — just how outrageous the R Senators’ actions are.
Note that a liberal nominee would not have served this purpose, but would only have lent credence to R suspicions that Obama wants to pack the court with wild-eyed socialist liberals, and would give the obstructionist Senators cover among the above-mentioned sane people. Heck, the fact that he’s a white man might even lead to confusion among some of the tea-trumpentariat who won’t understand why the Senate won’t approve a white guy who wears glasses just like their smartest friend.
I suspect that Obama’s discussions with McConnell and Grassley were weighty considerations, too, as were the discussions with the potential nominees themselves. No doubt Garland is walking into this with his eyes wide open. And a plan. And his phone.
schrodinger's cat
I think Obama’s nomination is pretty smart. He has taken Mr. Srinavasan’s “exotic” heritage off the table. Did anyone see the modern day orientialist article that NYT had about Srinavasan’s ancestral village in India.
SiubhanDuinne
@Librarian:
I once knew that about Truman, but had forgotten. But I’m not sure I ever knew that it used to be routine. I wonder when, and why, it changed. Given LBJ’s history of power in, and love for, the Senate, you’d think he would have seized the opportunity to preside as often as possible.
dedc79
@SiubhanDuinne: I think it had to do with his refusal to respond to a FOIA request
SiubhanDuinne
@mak:
I agree with all of this. I didn’t mean to suggest (which I’m afraid, by omission, I did) that no political considerations went into the pick, or that Obama doesn’t know full well there’s a big “trolling McConnell and Grassley” component to the announcement, or that Garland doesn’t know what he’d getting into. I was just objecting to the implication that Obama’s primary objective was to give a big “fuck you” to the Senate. I believe his primary objective was to name a qualified, confirmable person whose judicial ideas largely conform with his own. Any trollery is a delightful side benefit, and I expect he’ll enjoy watching the Senators tie themselves in knots trying to defend their behavior.
SiubhanDuinne
@dedc79:
Sounds right. Thanks.
Elie
@mak:
Good points you make there… good points
SiubhanDuinne
@mak:
Excellent point!
shortribs
I don’t get the “he’s too old” comments. He’s 62, if he’s in half-decent health he’ll likely be there for 20 years! In 20 years I’m fairly sure I’d like to see all of the sitting judges replaced.
NR
More of Obama’s famous eleven-dimensional chess at work.
So Obama nominates the justice the Republicans want, but they say that they will only confirm him if and when the Democrats win the next presidential election. At which point we would be able to appoint a more liberal justice.
What the fuck is this? If the Republicans were going to give him a fair hearing and confirmation vote now, that would be one thing. Just as Obama won the presidency in 2012, the Republicans won the Senate in 2014. But for Obama to appoint the justice the Republicans want knowing that they’ll only confirm him if they lose the election? Talk about giving away the store.
Germy Shoemangler
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/florida-governor-tells-fellow-republicans-lets-all-unite-around-trump/
Brachiator
@Mnemosyne:
@bearcalypse:
There was a good program about this recently on public radio station KPCC.
The Republicans smartly are trying to groom Asians as political candidates. The Democrats had previously concentrated on getting Asian voters, but are getting smarter about this. At one time, polling developed by Democratic strategists would not even try to make distinctions between various Asian American communities. They would also ask questions like “are you a member of a union,” which was sometimes just stunningly irrelevant. The GOP, on the other hand, would focus on small business owners and say, “you know, what we offer is a good fit for you since you have a small business.”
The recent focus on presidential politics has tended to push state and local political outreach stories to the side.
BTW, Harmeet Dhillon, Vice Chair of the California Republican Party, was born in Chandigarh, capital of the Punjab and Haryana states in northern India
KPCC program: Capturing the Asian American Vote Is As Important as Ever
SiubhanDuinne
@Germy Shoemangler:
Oh, Betty Cracker will be so happy to learn this!!
pamelabrown53
@msdc:
Yes. THIS: Garland is meant to replace Kennedy the a swing vote. Plus, President Obama, an ex constitutional law professor, knows how to read the cases and the parameters on which they were decided.
Besides Orrin Hatch’s past Friday’s remark that Obama wouldn’t choose Garland because Obama’s too political underscores the absurdity of his/republican claims.
Add the total (and predictable) freak out of the left’s ideologues and it strengthens Obama’s hand. I know some of you are upset but I think the end result is the good outweighs the bad.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
SANDERS HAS SOLD YOU OUT!
HE’S WORST THAN HILLARY!
C.V. Danes
@NR: I believe this is eleven-dimensional stupidity on the Republican side.
schrodinger's cat
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: The purity brigade on our side would have criticized Obama no matter what. When Srinivasan’s name was bandied about one Bernie supporter said that he might be anti-Muslim since he is a Hindu, or something to that effect.
NR
@C.V. Danes: I fail to see how this is anything but a win-win for the Republicans.
If they win the election, they block Garland and appoint whoever they want. If they lose, they confirm Garland in the lame duck session and get a much more conservative justice than we could appoint in 2017, courtesy of Obama.
And apparently Obama still picked the justice the Republicans wanted knowing that this was how it would play out.
Cacti
@NR:
Congrats on Sanders’ top notch performance last night. ;-)
Brachiator
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: RE: President Obama has done his job. It’s time for Republicans to do theirs. ” ~ Senator Sanders
Very droll…
NR
@Cacti: Congrats on being a really really lame troll.
daryljfontaine
@CONGRATULATIONS!: Tammy Duckworth just won her Democratic Primary in Illinois to go up against Mark Kirk, so I predict that you are off by a minimum of one seat.
D
anon
@NR: Well it’ll make for some awesome CSPAN to see the republicans try to push through Garland between the election and the new congress. Maybe then when Obama is a TRUE LAME DUCK, he’ll pull a Miers and say the choice should be left to Hillary.
Arclite
Shorter Obama:
“Chill the fuck out. I GOT THIS.”
C.V. Danes
@NR: I don’t see that. As has been said elsewhere, I think there is a longer game here with regards to Justice Kennedy. Garland still moves the court to the left. The real fight will be in selecting Kennedy’s replacement when the time comes.
Aleta
Link
C.V. Danes
@anon: I have a feeling that the Republicans are going to fold on this. They’ll keep up the front for a while, but as the heat gets dialed up they’ll eventually cave.
Elie
In an odd way, Obama’s use of the rules and command of how to use the rules is what drives the Republicans into ever more non rule based strategies. The unwillingness to even meet with the candidate to me signals their lack of confidence in their own judgements and power. I think this is going to be very interesting to witness as Obama employs his “game” yet one more time —- he has won almost all of them which is why he is so reviled by the Republicans. But he always plays by the rules he has at this disposal as President. They use every non rules based approaches and they still can’t defeat him. I think that in some ways explains the Republican candidates this year, including Trump… they go nuclear outside the system because they don’t know how to prevail within the system… anyway, just my thought.
anon
@C.V. Danes: by one measure (lost the link), Garland is rated as more liberal than Kagan and Breyer, less liberal than Sotomayor and Ginsburg. Even assuming Garland is less liberal than all four, he will certainly be more liberal than Kennedy and O’connor. So I think we can all be happy if both Scalia and Kennedy are replaced by Garlands , because now you have six and it only takes five for a majority.
NR
@C.V. Danes: If the Republicans had agreed to give Garland a fair hearing and confirmation vote now, I would be okay with the pick as a necessary compromise with a Republican Senate.
But they’ve said they will only confirm him if and when the Democrats win the election. If that happens, we will hold all the cards and Hillary will be able to appoint whoever she wants. Why should we give the Republicans the justice they want in that case? It’s insanely stupid.
C.V. Danes
@NR: See anon’s response: @anon
Kropadope
@NR: If they decide to wait til the election, Obama could always rescind the nomination if it was truly only intended as a compromise choice. I’m pretty sure Obama made this choice because Garland would be hard to refuse in the short term.
Aleta
From the same link as above, a quote from an opinion Garland “published last July upholding a federal ban on federal contractors making federal campaign contributions”:
“Seventy-five years ago, Congress barred individuals and firms from making federal campaign contributions while they negotiate or perform federal contracts.
The plaintiffs, who are individual government contractors, contend that this statute violates their First Amendment and equal protection rights. Because the concerns that spurred the original bar remain as important today as when the statute was enacted, and because the statute is closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms, we reject the plaintiffs’ challenge.”
The case is about the most hotly contested constitutional issue in the era of the Roberts Court—the scope of First Amendment rights for people who want to contribute money to political campaigns—and the judges of the D.C. Circuit span a wide ideological range. Yet the opinion in the case, Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, is unanimous, representing the votes of all ten other active judges. (Garland and his colleagues heard the case under a federal law that assigns decisions on constitutional challenges to federal campaign-finance laws to the full court, rather than to the usual three-judge panel.)
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@NR: Oh, nooooow, you trust Hitlery?
besides, what’s all this Hillary shit – Sanders will win!1!!1!.
Game over, man, even the Head Socialist in Charge says Garland is a “Strong nominee”
NR
@C.V. Danes: Garland was one of the judges who declared Gitmo a Constitution-free zone. He’s no liberal champion. He’s a compromise pick. Which is fine if there’s actual compromise on the part of the Republicans. But since they’ve said they will only confirm him if the Dems win the election, why should we give then the justice they want when we’ll be able to appoint someone better in that case?
NR
@Kropadope: I hope you’re right, but I don’t have a lot of faith that this is the case.
NR
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Yawn. Better trolls, please.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@NR: your Socialist Messiah voted against closing GITMO. He’s no liberal champion.
singfoom
@Aleta: Well, that’s refreshing.. I like his judicial view on campaign contributions. Too lazy to read the full thread. Seems like an ok pick to me, especially in light of the GOP heads in the sand approach.
I imagine the thread above is some people freaking out that he’s literally Scalia + Alito put together? And others trying to walk them back from the ledge?
I think the closer we get to November the harder it will be for the Republican senators to be able to play this game. Plus, seems like Hatch gave the game away.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@NR: poor baby, still licking your wounds from last nights rout.
hahahahahahhaha. I laughed, and laughed, and laughed. Keep fucking that chicken. the humor it produces is priceless!
dedc79
@NR: I’m hoping (and hopeful) that this is an offer with november 8th expiration date.
NR
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: I pity you.
C.V. Danes
@NR: I’m of the opinion that the Supreme Court should be boring, and I say that as a pony-riding Sanders liberal. A radicalized Supreme Court does the country no good, because as a country of laws (supposedly) we need our top court to be seen as impartial.
The Bush decision back in 2001 was a radical decision. Scalia was a radical. Look how much damage that has caused the reputation of the court. Replacing Scalia with someone less radical is a good thing, even if less liberal than I like, if it helps to ‘de-radicalize’ the court.
Chyron HR
@NR:
Have you considered the possibility that this person you hadn’t even heard of six hours ago might actually be a qualified candidate, and that the bloggers denouncing him may be cherry-picking evidence to “prove” the conclusion that they’d already reached the moment his nomination was announced? You know, just like with the last two Obama SCOTUS appointments? And every other rumored appointment since Scalia croaked?
Aleta
@singfoom: The entire opinion is here:https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/75398759A3FE855D85257E7B00527FA0/$file/13-5162-1561227.pdf
PaulWartenberg2016
Granted this is not the uberliberal socialist pick the Democratic base may want, but it fits the current situation:
1) It puts the Senate on the defensive in that there’s nothing legally objectionable to Garland. He’s served on the appellate court for more than a decade with few if any complaints. If they still refuse to even meet with him, it clearly puts the Republicans in a bad light during an election year, going against the polls that clearly show a majority – Republican voters included – who want the Senate to at least do their damn job to advise and consent.
2) It still shifts the dynamic of the Court. While Garland’s no liberal, he’s more aligned left-center than Kennedy (the current measuring stick of a Moderate justice). More 5-4 decisions will favor the Left over the Right.
3) Garland is not young, granted. If it was someone younger, the GOP would have an even bigger conniption knowing full well that would be a guy on the bench for 20+ years, not 10-15 years. There may be a few Senators who can convince themselves “this isn’t going to kill us a decade from now.”
4) Obama likely asked his candidates how many were willing to risk a year of waiting for the nomination. The younger ones likely begged out to wait for a better shot.
5) While Obama could have gone full “NO F-CKS TO GIVE”, he played it steady, reviewed the options, and presented a sane, respectable choice. This is still a “F-CK YOU” move on his part, though, because clearly the Republicans are going to go batsh-t insane no matter what he did. At least this way he can’t be accused of intentionally messing with their heads by going for a Gay Asian Public Defender still six months away from a Law Degree from Berkeley Hippie Central who’s six months pregnant with a Muslim.
Kropadope
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
This “Messiah” trope is pretty funny considering the Messianic zeal among Balloon Juice Hillary supporters, you included.
Ella in New Mexico
Politico, always ready do do their public service, graciously providing free opposition strategy to McConnell and his turds on the Judiciary Committee
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-merrick-garland-supreme-court-220875
Mike J
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
PaulWartenberg2016
@Arclite:
There’s a reason why I’m seeing so many people asking about keeping Obama for a third term.
I have never seen that in my brief lifetime. Not even with Reagan. Admittedly, he was just coming off the Iran-Contra scandal, but he was still popular overall. Maybe a few among the National Review crowd wanted him to stay, but that wasn’t a lot of them.
Part of me is going to wonder how all the Obama-haters are going to feel when he leaves office. Oh sure, for a few days they’ll be all “WE’RE FREE OF THE TYRANT” but then after a few more days of Hillary they’re all going to be “Damn, Obama wasn’t that bad after all…” Of course, they’ll never apologize…
Bob In Portland
Costa Rica looks pretty good this morning.
NR
@Chyron HR: Like I said: If Garland gets confirmed before the election, I’m okay with him as a reasonable compromise pick.
If he’s confirmed in a lame-duck session with an incoming Democratic president, Obama will have, all snark aside, actually sold us out.
Brachiator
A local Southern California talk show with a conservative bent openly wonders about the Republican hatred of Obama. They also stupidly talk about “both sides” playing politics in the Supreme Court “mess.” They end up leaning toward supporting Obama because, you know, Hillary Clinton will be “drunk with power” if elected and will nominate the resurrection of Che Guevara to the Supreme Court.
OOOh. Trump is going to skip the next debate and make a major speech. He’s going to hold the GOP hostage! Love it.
@PaulWartenberg2016:
Love it. Just love it.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@NR: HA! I laugh at you. Repeatedly. Endless source of buffoonery.
Hoodie
@Chyron HR: Of course NR hasn’t considered that. Scalia’s death yielded a bonus pick and a political opportunity that shouldn’t be squandered on a stunt that makes purity trolls feel vindicated. Garland would be a vast improvement over Scalia. There will be ample opportunities to appoint younger and more liberal justices after HRC is president, especially if the Senate can be turned around over the next few cycles. If she doesn’t win, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy are not going to be around forever and we’ll be screwed anyway by the gaggle of mouthbreathers Trump will nominate and the GOP Senate will confirm. The SC is an inherently conservative branch of government, and Garland represents an acceptable form of left-of-center type of conservatism. The mere presence of Trump on the GOP ticket will be ample motivation for the Dem base to get out and, if that doesn’t motivate them, then nothing will. It would be a waste of this opportunity to put up someone who can be easily demonized by the GOP for the mere purpose of motivating the base.
hamletta
@Kropadope:
Projection: It’s not just for movies anymore!
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@Mike J: Oh no! Elizabeth Warren and Che Sanders have both SOLD OUT! the People’s Revolution.
They should be primaried!11!
TroubleMaker
@NR: Hey, let’s play poker some time. Bring lots of cash. And your car title.
This is Obama calling the Republicans’ bluff. It’s still only March– he’s got all summer long to let the Repubs twist in the wind while continuing to hammer them on Garland being *their* choice. They’re going to look like the chumps that they are. If they haven’t confirmed him in a couple of months, he’s then free to credibly withdraw the nomination at any point that would be advantageous. Unless you’ve got some reason to object to Garland on his own merits, there’s no downside to this nomination and it seems pretty politically shrewd.
Aleta
Here’s hoping that Garland will scramble the eggs of the Unified Church of Republicans in Congress just another bit more. And make Democratic candidates seem the less radical choice.
eta NARAL Pro-Choice America supports Garland.
Mike J
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: She was already declared an enemy of the revolution when she didn’t make an endorsement before the Mass primary.
Kropadope
@Aleta:
The Democratic candidates shouldn’t need much help in this regard. Shouldn’t.
Gravenstone
@Germy Shoemangler: Probably a pre-made piece where she needed only to cut and paste the name of whomever Obama chose to nominate. Still as useless as her old man, and as clueless.
mak
@SiubhanDuinne: absolutely agreed
Central Planning
@PaulWartenberg2016:
Really? Obama doing his job is a FU move?
Mnemosyne
@NR:
Civil liberties are not the only possible liberal concern. If this justice will keep Roe v Wade in effect and rein in corporations as he has done in previous decisions, he’s a win, not a compromise.
Kropadope
@Central Planning:
Given the high priority Mitch McConnell placed on making Obama a one-term president, I’ll give an emphatic “yes!”
singfoom
@NR:
SRSLY? I’ve got criticisms of the man, but as far as I can tell, you’re having problems with the old/new definitions of literally. It’s a smart play right now because he doesn’t know what’s going to happen. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Seems like you want it both ways, just like the Republican senators. Either it’s Obama’s SCOTUS nominee to make (it is) or it isn’t. It’s on the Senate as to when the nominee is considered.
mak
@NR: Strongly suspect that Garland (or possibly even the WH) would withdraw the nomination before the lame ducks had a chance to confirm b/w election and inauguration, though lame-duck confirmation may also have been part of the deal in order to get him to run the gauntlet.
singfoom
@Aleta: Thanks for the link to the opinion. Love primary sources.
NR
@Mnemosyne: Only if you compare him to who he’s replacing and not any of the other possibilities for appointment.
I am willing to concede that Garland is probably the best we could get out of a Republican Senate in an election year. Which is why I’m fine with him if he’s confirmed before the election.
After the election, assuming the Democrats win, the political landscape changes and Garland is no longer the best we can do. To appoint him at that time would be a clear loss, not a win.
mak
@NR: No. Naming a real liberal – someone who would have had a hard time getting approved by the Senate even if they were inclined to do their job – would deprive Hillary and the President and every budding Democratic Senator running against an obstructionist Republican of this as a campaign issue. Watching them obstruct someone who they’ve already praised effusively as qualified for this very job highlights their obstruction and keeps the issue alive until they cave (or don’t – either way works). And if they do cave, I’ll probably have to start injecting insulin for my schadenfreu-deetis.
Kropadope
@NR: There’s a long road ahead, buddy. Best not to obsess over a potential pitfall 2 miles ahead when you’ve got hundreds of miles to go.
NR
@mak: The problem is, lame-duck confirmation gives us no benefit. It’s yet another “compromise” where the Republicans get everything and we get nothing.
A true compromise would be for the Republicans to confirm Garland before the election. No one knows at this point who’s going to win, and Garland is both less liberal and older than most Dems would probably like. Both sides give something in this case.
But by waiting until after the election, the Republicans are telling us “heads I win, tails you lose.” If they win, they block Garland and appoint Scalia MK II. If they lose, they confirm Garland even though we’ll be in a position to appoint someone more liberal next year.
This is like playing poker with someone who makes you show them your cards before they bet. Why Obama would agree to this is beyond me.
mak
@MazeDancer: What you said. All of it.
Ridnik Chrome
@NR: If Garland isn’t confirmed until after the election, it will be the Republicans’ fault, not Obama’s.
NR
@mak: The problem is, lame-duck confirmation gives us no benefit. It’s yet another “compromise” where the Republicans get everything and we get nothing.
A true compromise would be for the Republicans to confirm Garland before the election. No one knows at this point who’s going to win, and Garland is both less liberal and older than most Dems would probably like. Both sides give something in this case.
But by waiting until after the election, the Republicans are telling us “heads I win, tails you lose.” If they win, they block Garland and appoint Scalia MK II. If they lose, they confirm Garland even though we’ll be in a position to appoint someone more liberal next year. It’s a great deal for them–and a horrible one for us.
NR
@Ridnik Chrome: But agreeing to a deal where we nominate the justice the Republicans want and then let them put off the confirmation vote until after the election (whereupon they can block Garland if they win and install their own justice next year) most certainly is Omaba’s fault.
dogwood
@NR:
Republicans don’t want the guy. They want a right wing party hack with no intellectual integrity just like Scalia. They’re simply gonna wait it out until the election is over to see what the score is. It’s a win for them because they are never held responsibile for the shit they pull. And that is in part because democrats, no matter how excercised they get during presidential elections, don’t vote in midterms at a high enough rate. Garland is a highly qualified candidate that the President has seriously considered before. This isn’t some compromise nomination. He wants the guy on the court.
liberal
@NR: people you’re trying to converse with here are too stupid to understand that, in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma, it’s insane to keep cooperating when the other side keeps defecting.
Miss Bianca
@Gin & Tonic:
Good Lord! You mean that recipe for cold roast baby WASN’T REAL??
Urp. Oops.
J R in WV
@tommybones:
You know, there is a hyperlink to the Scotus blog live blog. It isn’t like it is a thing that comes and goes, no where to be found ever again.
But given your sudden appearance here, your shiny brand new nym, your ignorant and poorly thought out “thoughts” that you are sharing with us, no, you probably don’t know that you could post a link that was requested.
Believing the things you profess in your posts, you are the bastard offspring of Mitch McConnell and Sarah Palin.
J R in WV
@Robin G.:
Roulette, a well known game of chance. That is what put you into moderation.
Arclite
@PaulWartenberg2016: It’s amazing what Obama accomplished given the unprecedented racially-motivated scorched earth policies of the Repubs. Imagine what could have been accomplished with a “normal” congress.
J R in WV
As a software developer, with major projects to staff, we brought many Asian software developers into America, mostly Indian guys who were mostly liberal to socialists politically. One really intelligent guy was from Burma, and was surprisingly both Christian and Repubilcan.
I don’t know for sure if he’s willing to vote for Trump, I doubt it, but he could be. I’m not calling him up to see…
He made a lot of money years ago counting cards in Las Vegas as a college student, and now is barred from those establishments.
NotoriousJRT
@burnspbesq:
He is not an idiot. Eyes wide open on this one. Also, at his age, this is at least a shot. Call your senators and tell them to give him a fair hearing. My senators (Murray and Cantwell) are on board.
smintheus
Garland’s the guy who ruled a decade ago that US prisoners had no habeas corpus rights as long as they were stowed away in an offshore prison. That’s truly messed up. I won’t be too disappointed if Garland never gets a vote in the Senate; and he’s the only one of Obama’s potential nominees I would have said that about.
PaulWartenberg2016
@Central Planning:
That’s the thing. The Republicans will view it as a FU move. That’s the beauty of it. To everyone else, it’s standard operating procedure filling a vacancy on the Court. To the wingnuts, it’s ARMAGEDDON and the OBAMAPOCALYPSE.
PaulWartenberg2016
@dogwood:
This time might be different. Holding a SCOTUS vacancy hostage like this during an election year exposes too many Senators up for re-election. They can’t rely on gerrymandered safety: their entire state votes, and in Blue and Purple states the moderate and centrist voters are not going to be thrilled that ONE branch of government – CONGRESS – isn’t doing their job.
They can’t blame Obama for being in the wrong here, because he’s done everything by the book and nominated a candidate with genuine experience and legal gravitas (this isn’t a Meirs debacle, nor a Bork extremist). Meanwhile, it’s the Senate refusing to do their job and coming up with lame excuses – the “Biden rule?” the “Lame Duck” excuse? – that the majority of voters will not buy.
I hope to God the Democrats are running candidates in every Senate race this year. They might even win in a few solid Red states – both because of Trump killing the down-ticket and because of this – and regain control of the Senate with a Cloture-proof majority.