Supreme Court Vacancy/Nominations

[VectorVictor]

 

Obama will not get another SCOTUS appointment. Hip hip hooray

 

Why do I say that? Cuz Obama absolutely sucks that's why. Nothing he thinks or does is wise or efficient. The less he does the better. Hip hip hooray

I am going to ask a serious question. And it's not meant to be argumentative. I am always genuinely curious about people's opinions about a president.

 

How has President Obama negatively affected your life in order for you to think so little of him? Meaning, what policy, or lack thereof, did he implement or not to make your life worse over the last 8 years?

 

 

Sadly, for some of the more 'conservative' posters here, Obama being an 'uppity black man' that 'doesn't know his place' is sufficient justification for their hatred and vitriol.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

Obama will not get another SCOTUS appointment. Hip hip hooray

 

Why do I say that? Cuz Obama absolutely sucks that's why. Nothing he thinks or does is wise or efficient. The less he does the better. Hip hip hooray

I am going to ask a serious question. And it's not meant to be argumentative. I am always genuinely curious about people's opinions about a president.

 

How has President Obama negatively affected your life in order for you to think so little of him? Meaning, what policy, or lack thereof, did he implement or not to make your life worse over the last 8 years?

Sadly, for some of the more 'conservative' posters here, Obama being an 'uppity black man' that 'doesn't know his place' is sufficient justification for their hatred and vitriol.

He also increased gas prices. Apparently the President is in sole control of that. And then just to be a jerk he lowered them for the upcoming election.

 

 

[Bigred_inSD]

With Obama having only so much time left in office, does he have time to nominatee someone for the supreme court?

 

He still has to take everyone's guns, convert us all to Islam, input Sharia law, add those Obama Care chips to everyone's arms, build death camps for the elderly,

 

Anything else I'm forgetting?

[zoogs]

ThinkProgress article on President Obama's SCOTUSblog post

 

If you haven't read it, President Obama's post on SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/a-responsibility-i-take-seriously/

 

I think this was a really good take. In summary, there's a bit of ebb-and-flow between Supreme Court makeup and legal efforts. When one side thinks they have USSC favor, they'll 'push the envelope' and see how many wins they can get out of the Court, which will at some point push back. (Lawyers -- don't we love 'em? )

 

They cite the recent term as an example of, beyond the headline cases, a conservative Court "balking" at aggressive efforts by conservative legal interest groups. Don't expect the other side to be any better; a liberal Court too, would probably push back against the forces that would like to co-opt the Court for legislative purposes.

 

There's a valuable window too into Obama's position on this, citing the following passage from The Audacity of Hope:

 

(Obama) "wondered if, in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy."

So in a process that is increasingly shaped by partisan forces, I think both sides -- the people, not the parties -- should consider the nation fortunate to have an erstwhile constitutional law professor who cares about the limits of the judiciary be the one who makes the nomination. The next President isn't necessarily going to share the same concerns.

[zoogs]

I don't know if anyone's still following this process, but the candidates rumored to be at the top of the list (among the known ones who have been vetted) all seem eminently qualified -- Srinavasan, Watford, Garland. Let's see that vacancy filled and move on.

[Danny Bateman]

Any personal favorites, Zoogs?

I don't follow this process too terribly closely, but I know it seemed like the popular pick from the beginning was Srinavasan.

[zoogs]

I don't really have a personal favorite, as long as they get someone capable to fill the vacancy! All of them sound good to me, but I'm trying to avoid to scrutinizing it on the basis of my own political preferences.

 

Of the three rumored top contenders, it does seem like Srinivasan is the popular one. I think I read that he was sitting on a current EPA case that would face uncertainty if he left his posting, so that might be seen as too risky. Then again it's possible that none of them would even be given a hearing, so it could be a bit of moot point.

[Danny Bateman]

Good deal. Interesting tidbit. Will be exciting to see what happens.

 

[zoogs]

It's Garland.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLLpws7WjmI?t=1h8m29s

 

(Starts towards the end)

[zoogs]

I can see how the President will nominate somebody capable and push broad popular support. The Democrats may mumble, but they already have abundant political cover. The Republicans will have to do the contorting: "Oh, fine, I guess since it's this person we'll hear it out. We had no idea it would've been someone like this given President Obama's record." That wouldn't really be atypical bluster; the nominee will get confirmed and we can all forget this ever happened.

You know, I really half expected Republicans to call this a victory and go home. They can claim to have served the Senate's advice and consent role to force President Obama to nominate a moderate, serious candidate with significant bipartisan support -- and one who would serve closer to 15 than 30 years. Without that ruckus, they can argue that President Obama would surely have nominated some outrageous left-wing firebrand.

 

But no, they're digging in -- from McConnell to Grassley to even Hatch (who last Friday had said '[The president] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won't do that...')

 

Even beyond the ugliness of this intransigence, I just don't understand the political calculus here. Do they think doubling down is going to help them keep seats this November? ....to which I can only say:

 

[Danny Bateman]

 

I can see how the President will nominate somebody capable and push broad popular support. The Democrats may mumble, but they already have abundant political cover. The Republicans will have to do the contorting: "Oh, fine, I guess since it's this person we'll hear it out. We had no idea it would've been someone like this given President Obama's record." That wouldn't really be atypical bluster; the nominee will get confirmed and we can all forget this ever happened.

You know, I really half expected Republicans to call this a victory and go home. They can claim to have served the Senate's advice and consent role to force President Obama to nominate a moderate, serious candidate with significant bipartisan support -- and one who would serve closer to 15 than 30 years. Without that ruckus, they can argue that President Obama would surely have nominated some outrageous left-wing firebrand.

 

But no, they're digging in -- from McConnell to Grassley to even Hatch (who last Friday had said '[The president] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won't do that...')

 

Even beyond the ugliness of this intransigence, I just don't understand the political calculus here. Do they think doubling down is going to help them keep seats this November? ....to which I can only say:

 

 

Obama's playing chess while it seems the Senate prefers checkers.

 

Smart of him to pick someone so terrifically qualified as Garland who is also about as far right as the GOP is going to get from him.

 

If they were to confirm him, he'd get his selection appointed, and Garland seems he'd be a damn good Justice.

 

It appears they've declined, and that's especially risky given they're looking down the barrel at another general election loss and four more years of a Democrat holding down the executive branch. In that event, they'll get someone far more liberal. But the Congressional Pubs can't stand Trump, so it's not like they're holding out to do him any favors.

 

This reeks of partisan politics. They must have a really strong inclination their constituents really dislike Dems, or have really low aspirations for reelection.

[BigRedBuster]

 

I can see how the President will nominate somebody capable and push broad popular support. The Democrats may mumble, but they already have abundant political cover. The Republicans will have to do the contorting: "Oh, fine, I guess since it's this person we'll hear it out. We had no idea it would've been someone like this given President Obama's record." That wouldn't really be atypical bluster; the nominee will get confirmed and we can all forget this ever happened.

You know, I really half expected Republicans to call this a victory and go home. They can claim to have served the Senate's advice and consent role to force President Obama to nominate a moderate, serious candidate with significant bipartisan support -- and one who would serve closer to 15 than 30 years. Without that ruckus, they can argue that President Obama would surely have nominated some outrageous left-wing firebrand.

 

But no, they're digging in -- from McConnell to Grassley to even Hatch (who last Friday had said '[The president] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won't do that...')

 

Even beyond the ugliness of this intransigence, I just don't understand the political calculus here. Do they think doubling down is going to help them keep seats this November? ....to which I can only say:

 

 

They should be very very careful what they wish for.

 

I see this strategy absolutely blowing up in their face especially if they not only lose the Whitehouse (which looks probable) and congress (and that's possible).

[84HuskerLaw]

At this point, there is no reason whatsoever to have hearings on someone who is not going to be confirmed. They can reconsider the process in January, after the upcoming elections. The nation is already in a near chaotic state of anger and hate which threatens to boil over again and again. We don't need a political battle on national TV over a judge on the Supreme court. The court's term ends in June and few hearings will remain that any new justice wouuld participate in. Not being on the court during oral arguments would and should disqualify him from participating in the decisions anyway.

 

The politics will be difficult enough in January after what promises to be the most difficult and dangerous campaign in modern history. The Clinton machine fights the dirtiest and ugliest and nastiest of any since WWII. Taking on Trump? That will be like a heavy weight title fight between Mike Tyson and Mike Tyson.

[BigRedBuster]

At this point, there is no reason whatsoever to have hearings on someone who is not going to be confirmed. They can reconsider the process in January, after the upcoming elections. The nation is already in a near chaotic state of anger and hate which threatens to boil over again and again. We don't need a political battle on national TV over a judge on the Supreme court. The court's term ends in June and few hearings will remain that any new justice wouuld participate in. Not being on the court during oral arguments would and should disqualify him from participating in the decisions anyway.

 

The politics will be difficult enough in January after what promises to be the most difficult and dangerous campaign in modern history. The Clinton machine fights the dirtiest and ugliest and nastiest of any since WWII. Taking on Trump? That will be like a heavy weight title fight between Mike Tyson and Mike Tyson.

 

 

Protect your ears.

 

The only reason why the nominee would not be confirmed is because the Republicans don't want him to be. If they were smart, they would take this nominee and put it on the fast track.

 

But....Republicans and smart have not been two words associated with each other for a long time.

[BigRedBuster]

Double post.