Please point out how Judge Garland is "a liberal." As a liberal Democrat myself, I'm a little familiar with the term. If Judge Garland is "liberal" then I'm Barry Goldwater.
Well, not to be picky, but I think most rational observers, including the vast majority of US government scholars, agree the "correct" thing to do is to hold a hearing and an up/down vote. That's simply what the Senate is supposed to do. There's no rule about "last year of a presidency," etc. Maybe it would be a sham vote, but their basic duty is what they should do. So I think you mean time will tell us whether this move was a savvy one. I totally agree. I do consider it a bit extreme, but maybe it will work for them. Most of their obstruction moves have worked well.
He's very anti gun rights and he's also pretty pro state anti civil rights when it comes to criminal justice. I know the left might like a guy like that, but the right certainly shouldn't.
Bobby obviously knows nothing about Judge Garland and provided an example of what we will see from others here and elsewhere who are joined at the hip to the far right of the Republican Party. A knee-jerk reaction based on nothing. Bobby, you should do a little research before giving an opinion about the nomination of Judge Garland.
Putting another Kagan in Scalia's seat would radically shift the SCOTUS to the left and would put civil liberties in serious jeopardy. LOL, then again, this board is so far to the left that it's argued that Obama is a moderate, so it's kind of hard to take seriously.
I'm not defending the nominee as being moderate, left or right, but I think it's hilarious that Bobby says Obama "couldn't help himself" from nominating a guy that he considers extreme when the man he nominated is LITERALLY someone suggested by a Republican. I know Hatch is derided now by hardcore conservatives that follow the Ted Cruz train, but I thought Bobby wasn't a part of that.
Let's not let bobby derail an otherwise interesting convo. Would love to hear from Orrin Hatch right about now, and several other senators. What a miserable time for some of them.
I'm not interested in Republican or Democrat. It's really about conservative or liberal. Liberty or statism. Again, given that this board likely thinks that Obama, Kagen, and Breyer are examples of "moderates", it would make sense that they'd see Garland in that light.....unfortunately it's not grounded in reality. Garland is pro-state and anti-personal liberty, exactly what a liberal would want.
My guess is that Hatch is under enormous pressure to "walk back" his unequivocal endorsement of Merrick Garland only a week ago to fill the Scalia vacancy. Yes, his public reaction will be interesting.
Now if Obama had nominated a right leaning "moderate" such as Kennedy or even Roberts then maybe it would get somewhere. Garland won't.
The problem with your argument is that Obama has now nominated someone that was specifically requested by a Republican. So when the Republicans continue to refuse to vote on him it will be easy to make the "intractable" argument. If you don't agree with his positions that's fine. Like I said, I don't know anything about Garland and am not saying he should be confirmed. But it's ridiculous to say that if he had nominated the right person it could have been confirmed when he nominated the person that a Republican suggested. It would not matter who he picked.
Why the hell would he nominate a right leaning Justice? That is absurd. Hell I guess he could dig up the corpse of Robert Bork and begged hard enough and maybe the Republicans would have graced everyone with a vote.
Democrat president elected twice in serious thumpings couldn't help himself from nominating a judge who may be a left leaning moderate recommended by a Republican senator. The nerve! This is why he's such a bad president. He just can't HELP HIMSELF from being divisive!
Deck, I appreciate that argument but Sugardland is obviously referring to Democrat efforts to filibuster Bush nominees of federal judges in the early 2000s, who they considered to be too 'ideological.' Many candidates were stuck in limbo for a long time and Republicans have been fantasizing about pay back for that ever since. It is still the Democratic President that has the pen on appointments. Deferring to the power of the Senate, he appointed somebody rather moderate. That's as much as you can really hope for as a conservative. He's still a Democrat and won't be nominating a libertarian. Be real.
