http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/ Good article fromthe 2010 nomination process that covers Garland's views
Wait until Hillary is president, then you will see the most liberal judge to be appointed. Repubs are fools to refuse a moderate candidate. They will end up with a more liberal justice, or worse, Donald Trump's appointment.
Is Obama supposed to nominate someone who doesn't agree with his views? Why did america elect him if they wanted him to do things that don't adhere to his own beliefs?
Just gonna leave this right here.... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...elaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0
You're going to have to be more specific. Considering how much Scalia supported the power of the executive to prosecute the War on Terror that would make him one of the most liberal justices.
If he wanted any chance of having him confirmed, he'd have picked a right leaning moderate. Reagan picked a left leaning moderate to get a Democrat controlled senate to support his pick. Of course that's the difference between a politician and an ideologue. Again though, this board is so incredibly left leaning that Obama is considered a moderate here, so it's not surprising that there is significant disagreement on this issue. This pick is further to the left than Roberts is to the right.
And, yet, this is still the first time the Senate has flat-out refused to even hold hearings on a nominee. Senate Republicans are playing with fire while Donald Trump douses their party in kerosene.
You say that like it's an equivalent circumstance. The process of vetting and stopping a nominee occurs during hearings. Republicans are refusing to even hold those, exposing this whole process as a pissing match. Will you be perfectly fine if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency and appoints a judge to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg? I'm sure you'll respect the American people's wishes as much as you're respecting their wish in the 2012 presidential election.
Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, Douglas Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy. While O'Connor was later considered a slightly liberal moderate all of them at the time were considered conservatives. Bork was defeated because he was so conservative. Ginsburg withdrew because mar1juana use while a professor at Harvard. Kennedy was moderate than those two but has gone both ways on various decisions. He is a true moderate considering he was to the right of Roberts on the ACA decision. Reagan also elevated Rehnquist to chief justice who proved to be a very consistently far right. The most that can be said to the current situation is that Garland is probably as left as Kennedy was right so both are pretty much in the middle.
The senate should drag this out until November, then they can affirm him if Clinton/Sanders wins and vote him down or not hold a vote if the Republican nominee wins. Using that strategy is the best way to turn this nomination against Obama. They can wait and see if they will have a better opportunity in January, but in the worst case scenario get a rather unobjectionable moderate. It might be tough to string everything along for 8 months, but I have faith in the Senate's ability to blow a lot of hot air without getting anything done. Of note on appointing Justices that lean away from the POTUS, Stevens, O'Connor, and Souter were all nominated by Republican Presidents, though at the time of their nominations all three were thought of as being moderate to conservative.
Past Senates fulfilled their constitutional obligation to consider and approve or not approve a nomination. In those cases the Senate gave their thumbs down, communicated why, and then approved subsequent nominees made by the Presidents. The current obstructionist Senate is shirking their constitutional responsibility to consider and approve (or not approve) the current President's nominee. Furthermore, this obstructionist Senate has admitted that they are doing so not because of the nominee is qualified or not.
The longest a Supreme Court nominee was voted on was 125 days. On average most Supreme Court justices have been voted upon within 25 days. Since 1975, the average time was 67 days.
Still a republican though. In any case, what Reagan did 30+ years ago only matters to conservatives. Can't Obama just pull the nomination if they take that strategy? If the election's likely outcome crystallizes and it's obvious Clinton will win, it might make sense to do so. Of course, he might also just like Garland.
We don't agree much, but I agree this is the probable path. However, I do think there's a little risk to the GOP retaining the Senate if they drag this out. It could hurt a couple of the vulnerable seats if this is viewed as long and tedious obstruction. On the other hand, given the craziness of the POTUS campaign, maybe most viewers/voters will not be thinking much about Obama's nomination.
"Garland was appointed by Satan, so I must assume he's a Satanist." The day Bobby actually reads a ruling will be the first, to my knowledge.
He certainly could withdraw the nomination before the actual vote. He could use the reason that now American has spoken, I will withdrawn my nomination and let the next President and Congress select the SCJ. I doubt he would do something like that though. Of course, the DEM Senators could filibuster also. Playing politic with SCJ is now a norm, thanks to the new precedent set by the GOP.
