I also was hoping for Srinivasan, more of a centrist and approved unanimously. But perhaps his less experience proved to be a concern. Guess we will see what happens next...
Garland's invovlement in prosecuting the Oklahoma City bombers seems like an obvious counter to Trumpism as well.
This. Garland is already in his early 60's, is white and moderate. It is a simple "this is the best compromise you are going to get, take it or leave it"....
President Obama has made a brilliant appointment to the nation's highest court. Merrick Garland has a truly remarkable record, both in life and the law. My only regret, and considering my age, it's a bit hypocritical, is that he isn't in his early 50's. After all, Justice Roberts was 50 when he was nominated as Chief Justice of our highest court. Putting that aside, this nomination has increased my admiration of President Obama. When examining Judge Garland's incredible record both with the Justice Department and then as a judge on arguably the second most important Federal court, the DC Court of Appeals, where he has been Chief Justice since 2013, it is clear that he is, beyond doubt, superbly qualified to take his seat as a Justice of the Supreme Court. He was confirmed to the DC Court of Appeals by majorities of both parties, with ardent support by key Republican senators. Thank you, Mr. President. You have fulfilled your duty to name a replacement for the late Justice Scalia, and have not only fulfilled it, but have named a man that represents the best of America. A man who will make all Americans, of both political parties or none, very proud indeed. Now it is left to the United States Senate to fulfill their duty to hold hearings on Judge Garland's nomination and to hold an up and down vote. Not doing so would be a dereliction of their constitutional duty. I look forward to those hearings, and I don't doubt that the Senate's examination of his record and qualifications will lead to Judge Garland taking Justice Scalia's seat on the highest court in the land.
This is a huge risk the Senate is taking, but time will tell us whether this move was the correct one. Based on how people have been showing up at the polls and in terms of general voting, I expect a much more active political season than before.
Hope he is prepared to sit for a good 236 days plus...The Senate is essentially gonna ignore him. Feel bad for him and his family, but they will unfortunately experience what some very well qualified Republican presidential nominee's went through...
Republicans need to consider the very real possibility that Trump is going to cost them a Senate majority. If the Dems control the Senate it is a bad outcome either way for Republicans. The Democrats controlling the Senate + Hillary=liberal nominee The Democrats controlling the Senate + Trump=who the hell knows what deal he would make with Democrats?
I think that must be the bluff that President Obama is calling. He knows Republican leadership is openly contemplating a third-party candidate to challenge Donald Trump and/or a brokered convention in which Trump won't be chosen, thus alienating all of the people who, somehow, keep voting for him. The party is fractured at the executive level and a toxic nominee (that includes Ted Cruz) could put the Senate into play. If Democrats manage to take the Senate (I could be wrong, but I feel that the Republican platform's continued insistence on "culture wars" and the awful rhetoric we've heard from Trump make them incapable of winning a national election in 2016), the egg on Mitch McConnell's face will be the size of a Denny's Grand Slam breakfast. He'll have missed out on a Supreme Court justice that would likely rule in favor of both "sides" in equal measure and, instead, allowed a younger version of Ruth Bader Ginsberg to be appointed to the court all because he never got over Barack Obama being elected twice.
Obama obviously timed the announcement for after the March 15 primary to not make this nomination an issue for those states. I suppose it might be for the coming primary states though if Cruz or Trump can find advantage in criticizing the choice. But I like the timing. The Senate will probably refuse hearings to start off. As we go to convention though and either Cruz or Trump get the nomination, Senators might start feeling some heat to change their stance on doing hearings. If it's Trump, they want want to confirm to avoid either a Trump failure or the wild card of who Trump might nominate if he won. If its Cruz, they probably hold firm on not having hearings to protect Cruz from the bad press he would get from participating in those hearings (he'll either be accused of not opposing forcefully enough or else of being too self-serving by opposing too strongly, or probably both). And depending on how Senate races are shaping up, they may feel more or less confident of how strongly they might be able to object to Clinton appointments -- or how badly their opposition to Garland hurts them in the election.
Really? There have been NO instances since 1900 of a President in his last year in office failing to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Please point out a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court who wasn't given hearings on his nomination. The closest thing one could come up with, and the circumstances were vastly different, was the nomination by President Johnson of Abe Fortes as Chief Justice in 1968. A bipartisan filibuster prevented a vote. The seat on the court, however, did not remain vacant. Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench. Justice Kennedy, nominated by President Reagan during his last year in office to the Supreme Court, was confirmed by a Democratic controlled Senate by a vote of 97-0. Scotusblog.com Failing to hold hearings would be an unprecedented act of extremism by the Republican majority in the Senate.
Haven't you heard? American history begins and ends with 2008 and nobody has been as divisive or deserved more comeuppance than Barack Obama throughout all 8 years of this glorious nation's history.
That 12th Dimensional Chess Obama plays while the far right Republicans are playing Candy Land. Honestly would like Obama for a third term, ah well. Sad thing is Garland is a really good pick. But at least his other job is already a life time appointment and this doesn't ruin anything for him since he's an older guy already.
While the GOP do-nothing senate may try to save face and say "Its not personal, its not the nominee's qualifications" and instead claim they are opposing "the process", they will be hard-pressed to show a precedence for refusal to consider the nominee. Worse, their claim to put the nomination to the people sets an even more dangerous precedence of increasing the politicization and partisanship of the Supreme Court.
We knew that Obama would nominate someone that wouldn't be approved, so this really isn't shocking. He couldn't help himself and he nominated a liberal just like everyone thought he would.
Everything I've seen is the man is a moderate/centrist. You will see liberal with Hillary's nomination though I'm sure
