http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/obama-to-announce-supreme-court-pick-at-11-am-220851
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland
GOP needs to think to themselves how realistic is it that they're going to win the next election, and if they reject Garland then who is Hillary going to niminate in 2017?
QuoteOn September 6, 1995, President Bill Clinton nominated Garland to the D.C. Circuit seat vacated by Abner J. Mikva.
Garland received a hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on December 1, 1995.[14] However, his nomination languished under the Republican-controlled Senate until after the 1996 election.
:lol:
At least he is used to it :P
No.
A garland placed upon the seat of a mikvah. Appropriate.
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 10:34:02 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/obama-to-announce-supreme-court-pick-at-11-am-220851
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland
GOP needs to think to themselves how realistic is it that they're going to win the next election, and if they reject Garland then who is Hillary going to niminate in 2017?
That is rational from one point of view.
From another point of view, GOP voters apparently have a large contingent that are incapable of strategic thinking and just want to obstruct Obama at every turn, and anyone doing otherwise is a RINO. So with elections coming up...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:00:17 AM
A garland placed upon the seat of a mikvah. Appropriate.
I don't get it.
A mikvah is a ritual purifying pool right? So this choice has something to do with ideological purity? No that is not it. What does it mean to put a garland on the seat of a mikvah? :hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on March 16, 2016, 11:02:15 AM
From another point of view, GOP voters apparently have a large contingent that are incapable of strategic thinking and just want to obstruct Obama at every turn, and anyone doing otherwise is a RINO. So with elections coming up...
Yeah there is zero reason to go along with this choice.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 16, 2016, 11:02:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on March 16, 2016, 10:34:02 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/obama-to-announce-supreme-court-pick-at-11-am-220851
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland
GOP needs to think to themselves how realistic is it that they're going to win the next election, and if they reject Garland then who is Hillary going to niminate in 2017?
That is rational from one point of view.
From another point of view, GOP voters apparently have a large contingent that are incapable of strategic thinking and just want to obstruct Obama at every turn, and anyone doing otherwise is a RINO. So with elections coming up...
It's the Senate. Only one third are facing re-election. Only a handful of GOP senators need to vote for Garland in order to be nominated. I'm, however, unclear if the Senate leadership can completely prevent his nomination from ever even being considered or not.
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 11:16:08 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 16, 2016, 11:02:15 AM
From another point of view, GOP voters apparently have a large contingent that are incapable of strategic thinking and just want to obstruct Obama at every turn, and anyone doing otherwise is a RINO. So with elections coming up...
Yeah there is zero reason to go along with this choice.
Do the republicans want to annoy the Jewish cabal?
Rumour mill claims there's a tacit agreement to confirm him during the actual lame duck session if the Democrats win the presidency.
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 11:14:13 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:00:17 AM
A garland placed upon the seat of a mikvah. Appropriate.
I don't get it.
A mikvah is a ritual purifying pool right? So this choice has something to do with ideological purity? No that is not it. What does it mean to put a garland on the seat of a mikvah? :hmm:
Nothing profound, just a light-hearted joke (I am still capable of those...). Yes, it's a purifying pool, generally with at least steps to sit on. As something with religious significance, placing a garland on it might be vaguely appropriate. Thus the sequence of surnames might be mildly amusing, end joke. :sleep:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 16, 2016, 11:38:08 AM
Nothing profound, just a light-hearted joke (I am still capable of those...). Yes, it's a purifying pool, generally with at least steps to sit on. As something with religious significance, placing a garland on it might be vaguely appropriate. Thus the sequence of surnames might be mildly amusing, end joke. :sleep:
Ah I see the last name. Doh :blush:
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2016, 11:36:40 AM
Rumour mill claims there's a tacit agreement to confirm him during the actual lame duck session if the Democrats win the presidency.
That seems like a bullshit heads you win tails I lose scenario.
Obama nominates a moderate to try to get someone through in a political year, and the Republicans hold out to see if they win so that they can get a conservative, and if they fail they just take the moderate offered before?
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2016, 11:36:40 AM
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)?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 16, 2016, 09:26:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2016, 11:36:40 AM
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.
mihali, I hope you don't use these big words in your motions :mad:
QuoteIt 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.
QuoteDespite 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.
Quote"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.
Quote"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.
Quote"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.
BEN4PREZ
Defiant Mitch McConnell Holds Merrick Garland's Severed Head Aloft In Front Of Capitol Building
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.onionstatic.com%2Fonion%2F5296%2F2%2F16x9%2F800.jpg&hash=18ca0c3a930eb82bbf39ef21ff3109f0d963f259)
http://www.theonion.com/article/defiant-mitch-mcconnell-holds-merrick-garlands-sev-52575
QuoteIt 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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 11:55:59 PM
QuoteIt 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
Quote from: Valmy on March 16, 2016, 11:55:59 PM
QuoteIt 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.
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 :unsure:
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.
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.
Quote from: celedhring on March 17, 2016, 07:57:54 AM
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. <_<
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.
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?
This is just Obama trolling the Republicans and making them look bad by not even agreeing to appoint a moderate right?
Quote from: Monoriu on March 17, 2016, 05:52:42 AM
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 :unsure:
Apparently 1/3 of presidents have appointed a SCJ in an election year.
Quote from: Tyr on March 17, 2016, 08:44:22 AM
This is just Obama trolling the Republicans and making them look bad by not even agreeing to appoint a moderate right?
That is part of it I am sure.
Quote from: Tyr on March 17, 2016, 08:44:22 AM
This is just Obama trolling the Republicans and making them look bad by not even agreeing to appoint a moderate right?
Pretty well. But the Republicans painted themselves into this corner. Now, no matter what they do, they look dumb - but it was their own damn fault, for categorically announcing they wouldn't approve any nomination.
If I was Republican, I would accept this guy and then trumpet it as a victory - that we forced Obama to nominate this highly respected judge, rather than the liberal stooge/mouthpiece he no doubt would have selected had we not acted! But Obama is calculating, probably correctly, that the Republicans simply
can't do that - their obstructionist rhetoric has been so heated, they just can't appear to back down no matter what.
Quote from: Kleves on March 17, 2016, 08:06:24 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 17, 2016, 07:57:54 AM
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. <_<
WAHLBERG, J., OPINION OF THE COURT
Mr. Justice Wahlberg delivered the opinion of the Court....I like the sound of that. :) If only we get both Wahlbergs on the US S.Ct. A SCOTUS/NKOTB alliance would be a powerful defense against tyranny.
I'm sure it's happened before that two Justices have had the same last name -- did they just use first initials to distinguish, or full first names, I'm curious.
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2016, 05:07:46 AM
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.
If he was really trying, he would point out that the president is required to appoint with the "advice and consent" of the senate. He would formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent and frame the issue as one in which the president is abdicating his constitutional responsibility in an election year by refusing to listen to the advice of the senate, not them.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 17, 2016, 05:52:42 AM
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 :unsure:
It's quite rare, but it has happened.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 17, 2016, 05:52:42 AM
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 :unsure:
Yes. They have done so something like eight times in the last 40 years.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 09:06:27 AM
If he was really trying, he would point out that the president is required to appoint with the "advice and consent" of the senate. He would formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent and frame the issue as one in which the president is abdicating his constitutional responsibility in an election year by refusing to listen to the advice of the senate, not them.
The president nominates, the Senate confirms, and then the president appoints.
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2016, 09:49:34 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 09:06:27 AM
If he was really trying, he would point out that the president is required to appoint with the "advice and consent" of the senate. He would formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent and frame the issue as one in which the president is abdicating his constitutional responsibility in an election year by refusing to listen to the advice of the senate, not them.
The president nominates, the Senate confirms, and then the president appoints.
The actual constitution states that the senate's role includes advice and consent.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 10:02:55 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2016, 09:49:34 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 09:06:27 AM
If he was really trying, he would point out that the president is required to appoint with the "advice and consent" of the senate. He would formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent and frame the issue as one in which the president is abdicating his constitutional responsibility in an election year by refusing to listen to the advice of the senate, not them.
The president nominates, the Senate confirms, and then the president appoints.
The actual constitution states that the senate's role includes advice and consent.
I don't understand the argument you are making. The Constitution says that the President "shall
nominate, and by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint ..." That's exactly what I said. Nomination, confirmation, appointment.
You argue that McConnell should "formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent..." The president cannot appoint sans consent*, so your scenario is constitutionally impossible. What is the point of this argument?
* interim recess appointments excepted
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2016, 10:15:27 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 10:02:55 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 17, 2016, 09:49:34 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 09:06:27 AM
If he was really trying, he would point out that the president is required to appoint with the "advice and consent" of the senate. He would formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent and frame the issue as one in which the president is abdicating his constitutional responsibility in an election year by refusing to listen to the advice of the senate, not them.
The president nominates, the Senate confirms, and then the president appoints.
The actual constitution states that the senate's role includes advice and consent.
I don't understand the argument you are making. The Constitution says that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ..." That's exactly what I said. Nomination, confirmation, appointment.
You argue that McConnell should "formally advise the president to appoint attila the hun, and then withhold consent..." The president cannot appoint sans consent*, so your scenario is constitutionally impossible. What is the point of this argument?
* interim recess appointments excepted
Whether the senate has a role in advising who should be appointed is ambiguous in the text, and would at least be a bit more effective from a PR point of view than just saying "no hearings" (or apparently even meetings).
Quote from: alfred russel on March 17, 2016, 10:43:03 AM
Whether the senate has a role in advising who should be appointed is ambiguous in the text, and would at least be a bit more effective from a PR point of view than just saying "no hearings" (or apparently even meetings).
The Senate absolutely has a role in advising on who should be appointed. There is no ambiguity on that whatsoever.