I agree, but purely (and I'm almost ashamed to say it) due to his age. He may be slightly centrist but I don't think there are many issues where he'd vote very differently from Kagan, Sotomayor et al.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT13| For Queen and Country
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
I agree, but purely (and I'm almost ashamed to say it) due to his age. He may be slightly centrist but I don't think there are many issues where he'd vote very differently from Kagan, Sotomayor et al.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Yes, giving the Republicans a compromise candidate now will make them more receptive to liberals moving forward. We've have decades of evidence that this approach works.
We do not need a balanced court. It has been significantly more conservative than the country for years, it's ridiculous for Democrats to try and make it balanced when they have a chance to tilt it in their favor.
nature boy
Member
He won't.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I don't think so. Garland is a fine choice and pulling the nomination would just legitimize what the Republicans did.
Frank the Great
Banned
There's only two ways Garland is withdrawn without it being politically suicidal IMO:
1. Have Garland himself voluntarily withdraw from consideration for "personal" reasons.
2. Have Clinton name him AG or chief counsel to the President or something to get him out of the way. Would be a big step down for him though.
No way Obama just withdraws his name IMO.
I don't think Obama playing politics with the Garland nomination would look especially good after spending nearly the whole year criticizing Republicans for playing politics with the Garland nomination.
Merrick Garland is a fine choice, and he's only 63. He's got a good 20 years of serving on the bench before we have to worry about age, health, retirement, etc. It's not like he's on his deathbed.
Merrick Garland is a fine choice, and he's only 63. He's got a good 20 years of serving on the bench before we have to worry about age, health, retirement, etc. It's not like he's on his deathbed.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Obama isn't going to withdraw Garland, and I doubt the lame duck session will confirm him.
I also think Hillary withdrawing him to nominate her own justice isn't that big a deal, since it's her prerogative as president to nominate whomever she wants. Keeping him as the nominee isn't necessarily a bad move either though. I'm kind of up in the air on this one.
I also think Hillary withdrawing him to nominate her own justice isn't that big a deal, since it's her prerogative as president to nominate whomever she wants. Keeping him as the nominee isn't necessarily a bad move either though. I'm kind of up in the air on this one.
Dammit. That one put a lump in my throat.
..
And I'm comfortable with or without Garland. His history suggests he'd be a solid liberal (I still remember Kagan and Sotomayor being called "moderates" when they were nominated), so the voting difference between him and an uberliberal won't be much.
Pretty effective as is. Will be made more effective soon by Trump's inability to STFU once in a while.
Carpe Carnim
Member
Ask any Liberal or Democrat in 2012 if they would trade Scalia for a centrist and they would have obviously said yes. Let Garland have the seat, then replace RBG and Kennedy with actual Liberal jurists. That's incrementalism at work, and IMO, the smart move.
Edit: Not that RBG isn't Liberal. I want to see her seat remain a woman Justice, with a strong background in reproductive health.
Fuck balance.
SpeedySwaf
Member
Yeah, I only see Garland not making it if he either willing withdraws, or if the GOP stick to their guns and have Hillary nominate someone else next year.
That said, I only see the latter happening if they manage to hold onto a slim majority/tie in the senate. If they can't, I expect them to approve Garland in a heart beat before the year is out.
Aaron Strife
Banned
She'll win the second district. Polling was much worse there a month ago.
I wish we'd get some more goddamn Iowa polling. Criminally ignored this election.
Straight to the gut.
RustyNails
Member
Captain Khan ad is powerful as fuck.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Depends on what happens in the Senate. If Democrats win it and Republicans still obstruct, they're going nuclear.
Also I think the Republicans would cave even with a majority. They're not going to leave the seat open for 2-4 years. I think even they realize how badly that would look after their excuse was "we should let the next president decide".
RastaMentality
Banned
i'm looking at the HRC campaign's GOTV Performance lineups and girl hillary nobody in Philly wants to see Katy. Michelle needs to convince Bey to do a joint Atlanta GOTV rally so GA can turn blue in droves.
What's in these emails?
Carpe Carnim
Member
Let VP Kaine gavel in a session to hear the candidate, then let it go to Obama's DC Court of Appeals. Let the GOP whine to America about the injustice of it all.
Photos of Tim Kaine and Donna Brazille making out.
tedrotheredro
Member
Not if D wins the senate, which it's predicted to do. Even if they didn't, I find it hard to fathom the GOP would refuse to confirm after the election. They made it work for now, but only on the premise of "The people should decide based on the presidential election". If they keep refusing to confirm after, they look real bad and it would be the only talking point in the midterms.
newshinycd
Member
SpeedySwaf
Member
I'm not so confident... the senators won't care what the rest of the country thinks, only their base, and I imagine their base will want them to do everything in their power to keep the SCOTUS from swinging to the left. They'll just make up another excuse, or say they don't think Hillary is "qualified" to make the decision due to Benghazi, e-mails, etc.
Carpe Carnim
Member
Yeah, "illegal" in the sense there is a fine, after the election, which will be paid for out of the millions he's grifted from his cultists and GOP sugar-daddies.
The FEC is a toothless joke
Fenderputty
Banned
I doubt republicans would cave. Shutting the government down looked bad too and nobody gave a shit after a couple months.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I used to feel this way, too.
No more.
Not after what republicans have done over the past 4 years. The whining. The taking their ball and going home. The refusal to even have a vote on Garland. Not a chance. If the democrats get the Senate, they need to say, "Nope. You had your chance. We tried for years, and you still acted like babies. We're done, and we're playing hardball."
And, if the GOP House still refuses to take a vote on SC justices for the next 2 years, blast that news repeatedly for the 2018 elections. Make America realize the republicans are holding up everything and refuse to work.
darkstar0155
Member
No way will the GOP refuse a vote on Garland after the election. I just cant see that happening.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
They don't care. It was never about "the next president", it was always just in the hope the next president would be Republican. Their voters aren't going to turn on them over this, hell, they support it. Stick it to those fucking uppity liberals.
Then Clinton will sneeze or another email will leak and that whole idea goes out the window.
Carpe Carnim
Member
Clinton COULD go super-troll and just announce a court-packing plan in 2017 to increase SCOTUS to 11 Justices. She won't, but the collective jizzing from the Alt-Left might rip a hole in Space-Time.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I think he does after November 8th.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Which means he is liberal, because reality is liberal.
Earlier in the thread I wondered out loud about whether Conway was in this for the challenge or because she's a true believer.
But after reading this, particularly the section about when she and Trump chatted about running for governor, it's clear she's just mainly in it for the money. Oh well.
Exactly. No offense to PoliGAF, but I certainly appreciate Obama's reasoning for choosing Garland over the war cries of "pack the court with ultra liberals!!" from my peers.
But after reading this, particularly the section about when she and Trump chatted about running for governor, it's clear she's just mainly in it for the money. Oh well.
Exactly. No offense to PoliGAF, but I certainly appreciate Obama's reasoning for choosing Garland over the war cries of "pack the court with ultra liberals!!" from my peers.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Garland is an excellent choice. And he's liberal enough and such a contrast from Scalia that it will dramatically change the tone of the SC.
Too bad Roberts isn't very old at all. It would have been nice to change the Chief Justice during the next 8 years. Although is Roberts even all that bad?
The true ground game is the phone game!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked