Merrick Garland nominated to USSC

[grumbler]

Rumour mill claims there's a tacit agreement to confirm him during the actual lame duck session if the Democrats win the presidency.

If Hillary wins, wouldn't she pressure Obama to withdraw him (unless she really wants him) so she can nominate her own choice (likely significantly more liberal)?

No.  She'll get to replace Ginsberg at least, and probably one or two others in her first term.

[LaCroix]

mihali, I hope you don't use these big words in your motions 

[CountDeMoney]

It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent," McConnell said on the Senate floor, minutes after President Obama officially announced Garland's nomination.

Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia just over a month ago, McConnell, who spoke with the president on the phone before his Rose Garden announcement Tuesday, has remained steadfast in his pledge not to hold a vote on a replacement until after Obama's White House successor has taken office.

Most of his fellow Senate Republicans have followed suit, including Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, who has said his panel will not hold a confirmation hearing for any Obama nominee.

"Today the President has exercised his constitutional authority. A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year, with millions of votes having been cast in highly charged contests," Grassley said in a statement Tuesday.

Despite the vast majority of Senate Republicans holding fast to their refusal to consider Garland, the White House noted that seven of them who still serve in Congress voted for Garland's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997.
Despite their previous support for him, however, several of those senators said Tuesday that they would not vote for him then.
"He may very well be a very good nominee. I voted for him earlier. But this is not about the nominee. It's about the process," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), one of the seven, said.

"This person will not be ­confirmed," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. "So there's no reason going through some motions and pretending like it's going to happen, because it's not going to happen."

Just when you think the Republicans define the concept of obstructionism in government, they redefine it at an entirely new level.  What a bunch of assholes.

"The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the Court's direction," McConnell said in a statement.

The American people should have a say in the Court's direction?  That's you, asshole.

"The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next President nominates, whoever that might be."

Just so long as the nigger doesn't do it.

[derspiess]

BEN4PREZ

[Phillip V]

Defiant Mitch McConnell Holds Merrick Garland's Severed Head Aloft In Front Of Capitol Building



http://www.theonion.com/article/defiant-mitch-mcconnell-holds-merrick-garlands-sev-52575

[Valmy]

It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent," McConnell said on the Senate floor, minutes after President Obama officially announced Garland's nomination.

He is absolutely right. Don't like what the Senate is doing? Vote for different Senators.

[LaCroix]

It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent," McConnell said on the Senate floor, minutes after President Obama officially announced Garland's nomination.

He is absolutely right. Don't like what the Senate is doing? Vote for different Senators.

pretty sure this isn't what the drafters intended by checks and balances. it's a pure political move, not anything preventing tyranny

[grumbler]

It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent," McConnell said on the Senate floor, minutes after President Obama officially announced Garland's nomination.

He is absolutely right. Don't like what the Senate is doing? Vote for different Senators.

McConnnell is absolutely wrong.  I hate it when leaders of our country totally misuse the phrase "constitutional right."  The Senate has no "constitutional rights."  It has constitutional powers and duties.  What McConnell should have said, were he being honest, was "It is a president's constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court justice and it is the Senate's constitutional duty to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent."  Of course, that looks bad, doing one's duty by refusing to do one's duty,   The argument that the Senate should not act until after all the elections are over is defeated by the fact that there will always be elections forthcoming. 

[Monoriu]

So the US Senate has never confirmed any Supreme Court Judges in an election year before?  I am asking because election years happen quite often

[Kleves]

Seems to me that the republicans should take what they can get. Of course, pragmatism doesn't appear to be their strong suit at the moment.

[celedhring]

It's a Hail Mary, I guess. As long as there's a small chance of having a Republican president in office, they'll clutch at that diminutive straw.

[Kleves]

It's a Hail Mary, I guess. As long as there's a small chance of having a Republican president in office, they'll clutch at that diminutive straw.

Trump would probably nominate Donnie Wahlberg or some shit. Would Republicans really prefer a Republican-nominated lesser Wahlberg over a qualified, moderate Democratic candidate? Actually, now that I say that, they probably would. 

[Berkut]

The double secret message Obama should be sending is:

You can confirm this guy now, but if Clinton is elected, I will withdraw the nomination and either nominate someone truly liberal, or let Clinton do the same.

[HisMajestyBOB]

What happens to nominations when the new president is sworn in? Do they remain nominated, or are they automatically withdrawn and the new president has to re-nominate them, or not?

[Josquius]

This is just Obama trolling the Republicans and making them look bad by not even agreeing to appoint a moderate right?