We can speculate about his intentions, but outcomes are way more important at this point
-
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 |OT3| You know what they say about big Michigans - big Florida
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
We can speculate about his intentions, but outcomes are way more important at this point
That's why this is a perfect nominee. As Chief Judge of the DC Circuit, he's already got the most prestigious non supreme court judicial role in the country, and it's one with a life tenure.
It's not a career ender for him to get knocked back or have to withdraw.
QuiteWhittle
Member
I thought both Clinton and Bush had negative favorability back in 1992?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Edit: never mind.
VendettaRed07
Member
I've literally dropped videogames and sports (mostly) because of this shit. Literally nothing going on right now is as fun as this
Coriolanus
Banned
Not particularly. Consider that almost half the country is republican and the numbers then make sense for hills.
Sri is an enigma wrapped in a mystery, so who really knows.
From the NYT
His middle of the roadness is a tad overstated.
Yep. He's a damn good pick. GJ Barry-O.
Oh Captain, my captain.
Manmademan
Member
Disagree. The dudes resume is tailor made to look as middle of the road as possible, and he's older than you would expect for someone nominated to a lifetime position.
It also bucks the trend of Obama's two previous nominees. Both were minority women much farther to the left.
He's not the ideal nominee in any sense, unless that sense is making Chuck Grassley look like a career obstructionist.
GuyKazama
Member
I don't understand this reasoning. Look bad to Democrats? -- cause the GOP can't look any worse to them.
From a GOP perspective, this is the first thing the Senate has actually done to justify them controlling the Senate. Garland is moderate and an easy pass. If Obama had nominated a conservative, of any color/gender/age, then the obstruction would look petty even to me.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Clinton/Bush was approximately a quarter-century ago.
Something's weird here. Why would Orrin Hatch say he was a good pick?From the NYT
His middle of the roadness is a tad overstated.
The majority of the country and Republicans think Obama's nominee should get a hearing and vote. Republicans are appealing to the far right of the far right.
QuiteWhittle
Member
Oh goddammit, now I feel old and stupid.
aspiegamer
Member
So his record pins him as liberal, but he's managed to accumulate the praise of Republicans during his entire career? Yeah he's a perfect pick, even if a little old. It's still worth putting a ridiculously overqualified person on the table for nomination for the rest of this year in hopes Republicans cave after witnessing their impending doom, or just come to their senses in general. Any nudge of the court to the left is worth chasing for Obama during his last year.
Coriolanus
Banned
Probably saw his tuff on crime cred and stopped looking there.
Garland's resume has been designed to look as middle of the road as possible.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Yep. This is a terrible political move. The only ones against hearings are the far right that will never vote for anything but republicans.
Buddy, it's bait. the Senate is in a no win scenario. They have two options:
1. Deny having a serious nomination process for a 63 year old moderate who will serve a comparatively short tenure and isn't some boogie man. This makes them look like jackasses to the majority of America, damaging their chances across the board at keeping the senate after November.
2. Have a hearing, appoint Garland, see the SCOTUS take a decidedly left leaning 5-4 slant with Kennedy and Roberts more concerned with jurisprudence than political stance. The base hates them even more than they already do and either primary them if their primary hasn't come up yet, or protest vote/abstain against them in the election.
Either way they're going to lose politically, #2 would also rile up a serious chunk of their special interest group base since Garland has a legitimate gun control record that will make the NRA and co. freak out.
Sandoval would have been a risky pick as he was a moderate conservative and the payoffs were all the same as Garland. Garland is a moderate progressive with a few red flags that make him anathema to large sets of the GOP base however, so he is only marginally more appoint-able for the senate than a far left choice but with the ability to deal far more damage with moderates when they don't.
The real coup de gras here is that Obama chose gun control as one of the biggest GOP red flags. Mainstream America WANTS more gun control. If the senate even tries to hold a disingenuous review of Garland they'll end up attacking him for supporting gun control (they can't help it, the Ted Cruz's of their party won't be able to keep their mouths shut) and turn it into even more political fodder than simply denying the guy out of hand.
It's second term Obama to a 't'. A pragmatic choice that puts all the political pressure on the opposition now faced with a lose/lose more proposition. This is what the GOP gets after going HAM on obstruction following 2010.
Swing state and blue state Republican senators: Toomey, Portman, Kirk, etc. -- forces them to choose between getting primaried or facing a more difficult general election.
I'm trying to think of a good way to phrase this, but he's been pretty consistent in ruling against various types of prisoner appeals.
But ultimately he's regarded as a plain excellent jurist, the Supreme Court has never granted cert (i.e deemed to take on a case) from the DC circuit where Garland has written the majority decision. Which when you consider how much work the DC circuit tends to throw the SC's way is pretty exceptional.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
But they've already soiled the bed with Trump. It's nigh impossible for them to look worse with a racist bigot poised to be their nominee. I'd probably agree with you and others if the republican nominee was someone different, even if it was Cruz.
GuyKazama
Member
Majority of the country, but I haven't seen a survey showing the majority of Republicans would want that. It would be further Obama capitulation.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Anybody else find it weird that "middle of the road" is considered a bad thing for a Judge?
Atomic Playboy
Member
"Hey, the guy currently leading our primary is a loose cannon we have absolutely no control over who bad mouths us at every turn and says he wants to clean house. And our base is just eating it up. What do we do?"
"Ummm... completely obstruct a judicial appointment that we're already on record as supporting just to be spiteful?"
"IT CAN'T FAIL!"
*November*
"What the fuck just happened? Where did we go wrong?"
The problem with this theory of course is that guys like Orrin Hatch, John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions and Mike Lee are in seats that they virtually cannot lose unless the demographics of their states change considerably in the next few months (Mike Lee is the only one of those even up for reelection this year). So they can keep being wild obstructionists, their constituents won't give half a shit, and they'll serve effective life terms in the Senate because the only thing Americans hate worse than obstructionism is change.
This just makes those down ticket races even easier to win. Between Trump and the current crop of morons acting like children, it would take a special kind of idiot to lose a senate race. Gotta grease those cogs as much as you can, gotta take every advantage there is, because you never know what can happen.
It would only be a capitulation if you don't think that Garland is a massive shift to the left of Scalia and you also think Obama can successfully appoint someone more liberal.
VendettaRed07
Member
The Biden rule?
Fuck off turtle scum
Fuck off turtle scum
perfectchaos007
Member
Macho Madness
Member
He's not. They're just disappointed Trump is ducking out. Read the last sentence again.
Atomic Playboy
Member
Because without Trump there, the only people watching it are the moderators.
GuyKazama
Member
I don't know Garland's record, but from what I've seen a vote for him would be capitulation. If Obama had nominated someone slightly to the right, then I could see Republican voters pressuring the Senate for a vote. This guy just allows the GOP Senators to dig in further. Surprised by the pick.
Ah, I think I misread your post. Capitulation by Obama or capitulation of Republicans to Obama?
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
So if Trump and Kasich don't show up to the Utah debate... I mean, they have to cancel the debate, right?
Basileus777
Member
Why is Kasich wasting his time in Utah when Cruz is almost certain to crack 50% without Rubio in the race and trigger WTA?
Macho Madness
Member
Kasich is going to take all the media coverage he can get. He's had barely any. Perspective:
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I mean, his personality is perfect for Utah so maybe give it a shot, idk.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked