Support NeoGAF

[Sean C]

It has been half a year since Antonin Scalia was summoned to meet his Maker, and literally on the night it was announced, the GOP declared its ironclad commitment to the sacred principle that the next president should appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, because the last year of Obama's term doesn't count or something.

To any rational observer, this is a blatant attempt to steal a Supreme Court nomination for their hoped-for next Republican president, who we now know will be, if it is at all, one Donald J. Trump. But seeing as Donald J. Trump's campaign is entering a death spiral, this is likely not to be. Moreover, as the numbers continue to trend, a Democratic Senate becomes more and more likely, with Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania on the forefront, and other prospects like Florida, Arizona, North Carolina and Ohio in the mix (and then also the issue of defending Reid's seat in Nevada, which will likely be a close call one way or another).

So, assuming that Hillary and a Democratic Senate are elected on November 8th, how many days does it take before the GOP caves and rushes to confirm Merrick Garland rather than wait for Clinton to nominate a younger and more liberal justice instead?

 

[B-Dubs]

I'd be shocked if they don't start hearings before October at the rate this is going.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

We've actually had this thread already.

Assumption was they'd try accepting Obama's guy as quick as possible before Hillary can appoint someone more liberal.

 

[snacknuts]

We've actually had this thread already.

Assumption was they'd try accepting Obama's guy as quick as possible before Hillary can appoint someone more liberal.

Can Obama rescind his recommendation at this point? Would he be willing to do so?

 

[RedAssedApe]

idgaf obama should take his sweet old time

 

[richiek]

I want Obama to refuse to reinstate Garland's nomination after Hillary wins as a fuck you to the GOP. No offense to him, he seems like a really nice guy.

 

[badcrumble]

Can Obama rescind his recommendation at this point? Would he be willing to do so?

If so, I'd hope he would put out the most smug trollish response possible echoing all of the reasoning they were using to try to punt it to the next term.

 

[Averon]

Can Obama rescind his recommendation at this point? Would he be willing to do so?

It'll be a dickish thing to do. I doubt he'd do it.

 

[Sean C]

Can Obama rescind his recommendation at this point? Would he be willing to do so?

The President can withdraw a nomination if they want to. However, that would be a pretty shabby way to treat a distinguished jurist like Garland, and from all indicators, Obama would press on with Garland if the opportunity presented itself.

 

[BorkBork]

It's be a dickish thing to do. Kinda wish he would do it.

Fixed for me.

 

[Pastry]

I want Obama to refuse to reinstate Garland's nomination after Hillary as a fuck you to the GOP. No offense to him, he seems like a really nice guy.

Garland seems decent enough but yeah fuck the GOP.

He needs to rescind the nomination and let Hillary have at that shit.

 

[carlsojo]

I kind of feel bad for Garland being stuck in the middle of this fucking quagmire.

 

[B-Dubs]

Can Obama rescind his recommendation at this point? Would he be willing to do so?

I don't think he would, Garland has been on his shortlist this entire time. Obama wouldn't throw up a name if he didn't think the guy should be on the court.

 

[whyamihere]

My guess is that when it looks like the Dems will take back the Senate, or after they do in November, McConnell rushes through conformation hearings in November/December.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

It's be a dickish thing to do. I doubt he'd do it.

Yeah.

But its a double edged sword. If the GOP rescinds on their "let the people choose the next president and let them choose the justice" rhetoric they spewed, then theyll look just as bad.

 

[echoshifting]

Obama won't withdraw Garland, he is an adult who believes in our government. They'll get their moderate judge.

 

[Arc]

Dems need to retake the Senate for anything to happen.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

If republicans were smart they'd hold hearings in August and confirm Garland during the lame duck session. He's a far better pick for them than whichever young liberal Hillary will nominate.

 

[3rdman]

Can Obama rescind his recommendation at this point? Would he be willing to do so?

I actually think this will happen if confirmation hearings don't happen before November. On the other hand, Obama is a pretty straight shooter...

 

[richiek]

Garland seems decent enough but yeah fuck the GOP.

He needs to rescind the nomination and let Hillary have at that shit.

"Well, you guys said that you wanted to let the voters decide. That is what I intend to do now."

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Depends on the state of the senate. At that point they would have already had gone 10 months without hearings. I bet they would just continue on into Hillary's term.

 

[Palmer_v1]

If anything, I could see Garland asking to be removed form consideration, so Obama doesn't have to come off like an asshole, and Hillary still gets to make her even MORE liberal pick.

 

[MadLaughter]

So this is the first time a prez candidate has not shown tax returns since '76

And seems like it will be (or is?) the longest period a judge has gone unconfirmed

Any other records being set this election?

 

[Somnid]

The fact that they've got this far means:
1) They have set precedent that this is a legitimate tactic.
2) There's much more ability to continue to do it indefinitely.

I see no reason they shouldn't dig their heels in and just keep going until it actually cost them something. Their voting base doesn't care.

 

[mcfrank]

I disagree. I think now that they know they can get away with it they are going to do this with every appointee (unless Dems take back the Senate). VOTE!

 

[Doc Holliday]

Dems need to retake the Senate for anything to happen.

No way a seat goes vacant for 2 or 4 years

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

It has been half a year since Antonin Scalia was summoned to meet his Maker

I dunno if that happened, I imagine when he got down there Lucifer was probably pretty embarrassed at what he had wrought.

 

[StopMakingSense]

If anything, I could see Garland asking to be removed form consideration, so Obama doesn't have to come off like an asshole, and Hillary still gets to make her even MORE liberal pick.

And nominate the first openly gay justice to replace Scalia.

 

[CrocMother]

If republicans were smart they'd hold hearings in August and confirm Garland during the lame duck session. He's a far better pick for them than whichever young liberal Hillary will nominate.

If they do that it makes them look weak before the elections. I don't see it happening unless they completely turn on Trump and throw him under the bus, conceding that they don't want him to win and focusing on the down ticket candidates.

 

[Moral Panic]

No way a seat goes vacant for 2 or 4 years

Why not? AFAIK there is no mechanism available to force a vote.

 

[Almighty]

Personally I hope he does pull the nomination of Garland, but it's kind of win-win for him either way.

If he doesn't pull him and the republicans move to nominate him then it shows their whole "let the people pick" stance was bullshit. If he does pull him then he gets to watch the republicans realize they are getting someone much worse in their eyes under Hillary. From what i can tell the former is much more likely then the latter with Obama, but either way he comes out on top.

 

[megalowho]

The President is not vindictive and I fully expect him to urge that Congress moves forward with hearings on Garland after the election. I also expect that Republicans will dig their heels in and resist, if just to give Obama one final indignation before leaving. Garland is not really a moderate anyway so why give him the victory of making them eat their words, even if it's best for the country. A sign of even more obstruction and political gamesmanship to come under a Clinton administration.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Why not? AFAIK there is no mechanism available to force a vote.

It's a horrible, terrible look, and not something that the GOP will want to have on their back going into midterms where they are going to be hoping to salvage their party.

 

[Sean C]

If anything, I could see Garland asking to be removed form consideration, so Obama doesn't have to come off like an asshole, and Hillary still gets to make her even MORE liberal pick.

That would depend on Garland not actually wanting to be on the Supreme Court, which, from what I've read, is not the case.

The fact that they've got this far means:
1) They have set precedent that this is a legitimate tactic.
2) There's much more ability to continue to do it indefinitely.

I see no reason they shouldn't dig their heels in and just keep going until it actually cost them something. Their voting base doesn't care.

My point was that if the Democrats retake the Senate, as they are at present on track to do, the GOP won't be able to block a nominee. Rather, the choice will between the moderate liberal Garland and whoever Hillary would appoint for confirmation by a Democratic Senate.

Why not? AFAIK there is no mechanism available to force a vote.

The GOP's whole stance has been that the next president should name the next justice. Once the election has come, that (rather thin) fig leaf is gone. Even if they retain the ability to block nominees by controlling the Senate, I think they'll have to give way at that point, and regroup for the potential replacements for Ginsburg and Breyer.

 

[massoluk]

Not wise of them to resist, at this rate it's either a more progressive nominee from Hillary, or may be Eric or Ivanka Trump

 

[Plinko]

If the race gets out of hand, it'll be October. If it doesn't and Hillary wins, it'll be like two days after the election.

 

[Grover Cleveland]

I'm sure Obama let Garland know from the jump that his nomination would be an election year political football and there was a very good shot that he ends up not being confirmed.

So Garland's probably very much prepared for anything, including Obama withdrawing the nomination to make way for whoever Clinton wants to pick.

But I don't think Obama would. Garland may be seen as a compromise pick, but he still would be a solidly liberal addition to the Court.

And I don't think the GOP gives him a chance to withdraw either. The party has already started to change their operational stance in a way that suggests they are conceding that the White House is lost. I'm sure once October rolls around, they will absolutely be in the mood to start confirmation hearings for Garland.

 

[Beartruck]

Unless they lose the senate theyll keep stalling.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I dunno if that happened, I imagine when he got down there Lucifer was probably pretty embarrassed at what he had wrought.

Actually I bet Lucifer would be for all the homosexual sex going on. Lucifer loves that shit.

God on the other hand? He probably loves it too. But the word of god is more like the word of man...I bet God is gay now that I think about it. After all he artificially inseminated Mary. Probably believes in science too.

In other words, Antonin could go rot by himself.

Spoiler

No offense meant to anyone. Just a humorous take on the afterlife by myself. Maybe not that humorous.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I kind of feel bad for Garland being stuck in the middle of this fucking quagmire.

I feel like he knew what he was getting into when he accepted the nomination. Probably worth a chance at the supreme court.

 

[Taramoor]

They'll stonewall for eight years if they have to.

Hell, if Notorious RBG steps down they're back to a conservative majority.

 

[Paches]

Dems need to retake the Senate for anything to happen.

Is your prediction then if the GOP holds the senate there will be no new justices ever under Clinton? The court would be down 2-3 judges at re-election.

 

[richiek]

The fact that they've got this far means:
1) They have set precedent that this is a legitimate tactic.
2) There's much more ability to continue to do it indefinitely.

I see no reason they shouldn't dig their heels in and just keep going until it actually cost them something. Their voting base doesn't care.

That's why it's imperative for the Dems to take back the Senate majority this Election Day.

 

[Hyperactivity]

Obama said he would stick with Garland even if Hillary wins, right?

 

[echoshifting]

Is your prediction then if the GOP holds the senate there will be no new justices ever under Clinton? The court would be down 2-3 judges at re-election.

Yeah, that would actually be really great for the GOP if they are able to field a strong candidate in 2020.

The stakes in the Supreme Court are the highest they've been in...man, I don't even know. The GOP hasn't been able to take an L as long as I have been alive, I don't expect them to take one this big lying down. They'll go down kicking and screaming, if at all.

 

[Toxi]

Is your prediction then if the GOP holds the senate there will be no new justices ever under Clinton? The court would be down 2-3 judges at re-election.

That would be my prediction. The electorate doesn't give enough shits about this to cost the GOP, so the only hope is that they lose the Senate.

 

[Xe4]

No way a seat goes vacant for 2 or 4 years

This is Republicans we're talking about here; you know, the fuckers that shut down the govt. cause of Obamacare.

 

[Veelk]

Hillary would automatically become one of the best presidents ever if she puts obama on the supreme court. Can you imagine the salt? The rage? I agree that it'd be petty, but it'd be the best "Fuck you" they could give after them being such complete dicks for all these years.

"Should have taken Garland when you had the chance"

 

[Freshmaker]

Ideally the GoP will suffer huge losses in the other races as well.

 

[CrocMother]

Is your prediction then if the GOP holds the senate there will be no new justices ever under Clinton? The court would be down 2-3 judges at re-election.

Republicans probably see the destruction of the Supreme Court as preferable to the alternative.