The President pulling a nomination away from a candidate that he personally endorsed would make him look like a complete idiot. While some may see this as a smart political move, it would be ethically callous to toy with Garland like that. If everything he said about Garland as his choice...its very unlikely that he would play games with Garland. He is going to let the Senate decide his fate. And yes...and if Clinton finds a way to lead in national polls late into October, I expect a senate vote sometime around mid to late October just out of fear that Clinton would nominate someone else. Other than that...I expect status quo with the current Senate group.
Republicans blocking a nomination they personally endorsed would make them lok like complete idiots...as would nominating a foul mouthed reality TV star for president...ohw wait... it's irrelevant anyway. The president doens't have to pull anything. What if Garland gets ssick of waiting and withdraws? Or just withdraws on principle after the election. Then Hilary gets to put somebody in, possibly with no filibuster if the Senate switches, which is a huge possibility - probably a 40 year old gay muslim communist or whatever it is that keeps republicans up at night. Enjoy your new justice for the next 5 decades
Why so... if the nomination gets stalled an extraordinary amount of time, it could signal the Senate won't approve. The nominee could pull his own name from consideration, or the President could, with the statement he was sparing the nominee the unfair treatment by the Senate. Either way, the Senate would look bad, not the President nor the nominee.
You're probably right that he wouldn't simply pull the nomination. There are other tricks that could be employed as several people have mentioned. My guess, though, is that Obama is actually perfectly comfortable with this guy being a Justice. As much as liberals might want him to nominate some progressive warrior, Obama is just not that sort of extreme liberal. A centrist left Justice is perfectly appropriate to a centrist left President. I doubt he'll be kicking himself in 2018, regretting he didn't let President Clinton pick the nominee herself -- not that she'd pick anyone extreme either.
You gotta feel for the guy a bit. Here he is, a pawn in a political game--this is a man who has dedicated his entire career to the Constitution. You can tell what this day means to him. <iframe width='480' height='290' scrolling='no' src='//www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/24d69ddc-eba3-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f' frameborder='0' webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>
The nominee himself has all the right to withdraw his name from consideration. However, I do NOT think that Obama would withdraw his nominee...He wouldn't/shouldnt play games with Garland and his family. It seems the Senate has made things very clear to Obama, that they are unwilling to hear anyone...It wouldnt matter if Garland is well liked and revered among some of them...They are exerting a dangerous power play stating that the will of the people should decide the candidate. Based on all of this reason, it is exactly why I expect that Garland will basically sit around for a long time regardless of prior confirmation precedence. I do agree that as a sitting democratic President nominated a moderate would be a good thing most of the time, the climate in DC is filled with utter and complete distrust of each other. Republican Senators are willing to risk their seats in regards for this...and it really is an advanced level of chess. Both Clinton and the republican delegate leader Trump have tremendous un-likeability. But as I have alluded to, the American general public is very engaged this political season, and we will see record number of voters this fall. It seems the establishment members are less trusted, and people are seemingly willing to gamble with an "outsider."
It's just hard for me to believe that Senate republicans honestly believe they are abiding by the constitution by not conducting a hearing by a president that was democratically elected with a majority of the popular vote. You wonder if they honestly believe that or if they think they can make technical arguments that might prove they are right and the american people will buy it? I think there might be added pressure if/when a case has a 4-4 ruling.
Saying "they" personally endorsed this nominee simply because one Republican did so is the same as saying that Democrats personally endorsed the policy of not nominating SC justices in election years simply because Biden did. There's very little chance this nomination won't be blocked. A Republican senate isn't going to confirm an anti-gun left leaning justice that would wildly swing the SCOTUS to the left. Really that's all that needs to be said.
You read one scare article on some s**t blog about the implications of his decision-making on Heller, which didn't have an ounce of depth to it. The rest of this tells me you have never read a legal opinion from Judge Garland in your life. Start here, even if this is a bit outdated: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/
Is that why Obama has been filibustered more than any President in history? Your posts frequently differ from reality. You should look into that.
Technically, she asked Bush to withdraw her name. It was a wise move for preserving her dignity - she wasn't qualified for the job and Senators from both sides were ready to grill her pretty hard.
I see you've chosen to ignore the record breaking number of filibusters used by the GOP congress, as well as the Senate Leader Mitch McConnel's own word about the goal for his congress to be stop Obama. It wasn't a pledge to only enact laws that were good, or beneficial. His pledge was only to stop Obama. You ignore or post things that are flat out wrong all the time.
Lol CW, what has he not gotten??? That is why Trump and Cruz are in the lead for the Republicans because they are against the establishment that has voted for basically everything he wanted. Now they do provide lip service to the conservatives saying they against him hand then cave in and give him EXACTLY what he wants. They do not really fight at all. As for filibusters go Obama did it himself when he was in the Senate. Most of the Republican filibusters were for judicial appointments not legislation.
Lou, have you lost all sense of reality???? Please check the facts. You need help!!! Quit tuning into MSNBC and reading left wing BS and look at reality for a change.
