Is Garland's goose cooked?

[Sonikku]

Garland has received a lot of praise from Republicans for years. But when Obama nominated him for the Supreme Court, the Republicans refused to even grant him a hearing. When Republicans thought they were sure to win they insisted that a judge should not be confirmed until after the people choose the next president. When those chances had appeared to evaporate however, Republicans quickly did an about face and attempted to justify not granting any supreme court hearings and leaving Scalia's seat vacant even after the American people choose a new president, leaving a vacancy for years if need be.

Now that Trump has won though, will they do an about face again? And if they do decide to fill the vacancy, will they give Garland a chance on account of his praise on numerous occasions from the Republican party?

 

[MovingTarget]

I don't know. Is he cooked as a SCOTUS nominee? I think so, but not for any legitimate reason other than he was nominated by Obama. Honestly, if the GOP wanted to show they are serious about unifying the country post-election, holding hearings and approving Garland is their one chance to put their money where their mouth is. History will not judge them kindly over this if they don't.

 

[jackstar7]

Isn't Trump's term just a lame-duck term? No way he gets re-elected. No reason to confirm anyone until the voters have spoken in 2020 and we know what the public actually wants.

 

[Sunburn74]

I don't know. Is he cooked as a SCOTUS nominee? I think so, but not for any legitimate reason other than he was nominated by Obama. Honestly, if the GOP wanted to show they are serious about unifying the country post-election, holding hearings and approving Garland is their one chance to put their money where their mouth is. History will not judge them kindly over this if they don't.

I will never forgive them for this. They have set such a dangerous, dangerous precedent.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I will never forgive them for this. They have set such a dangerous, dangerous precedent.

To me, the dangerous precedence was set the moment "stacking" the Supreme Court even became a consideration.

SCOTUS must serve as the neutral judicial interpreters of constitutionality, not an extension of the partisan legislative divide.

It bothers me that for the most hotly contested issues, SCOTUS judges allow ideological considerations to influence their rulings.

If the GOP wants to alleviate some of the tension right now, Trump should nominate Garland.

 

[fskimospy]

To me, the dangerous precedence was set the moment "stacking" the Supreme Court even became a consideration.

SCOTUS must serve as the neutral judicial interpreters of constitutionality, not an extension of the partisan legislative divide.

It bothers me that for the most hotly contested issues, SCOTUS judges allow ideological considerations to influence their rulings.

If the GOP wants to alleviate some of the tension right now, Trump should nominate Garland.

This assumes that there is some neutral truth to the constitution that everyone can agree on. There isn't. It's impossible for judges not to allow their ideology to influence their decisions.

 

[jackstar7]

To me, the dangerous precedence was set the moment "stacking" the Supreme Court even became a consideration.

SCOTUS must serve as the neutral judicial interpreters of constitutionality, not an extension of the partisan legislative divide.

It bothers me that for the most hotly contested issues, SCOTUS judges allow ideological considerations to influence their rulings.

If the GOP wants to alleviate some of the tension right now, Trump should nominate Garland.

They are not here (edit) just to be learned, but to have opinions. It's right there in the name of their rulings.

If you want Constitution-bots that cannot have room for nuance or interpretation, sorry, not happening.

 

[fskimospy]

They are not here to be learned, but to have opinions. It's right there in the name of their rulings.

If you want Constitution-bots that cannot have room for nuance or interpretation, sorry, not happening.

What would that even be? They are basically asked to rule on things like what an 'unreasonable' search is. That sort of clause was made deliberately vague on purpose and requires interpretation.

 

[chowderhead]

I don't know. Is he cooked as a SCOTUS nominee? I think so, but not for any legitimate reason other than he was nominated by Obama. Honestly, if the GOP wanted to show they are serious about unifying the country post-election, holding hearings and approving Garland is their one chance to put their money where their mouth is. History will not judge them kindly over this if they don't.

what are you talking about? The Republicans opposed Obamacare and won in 2010. They shut down the government in 2013 and won in 2014. They refused to do their job and hold hearings on Garland and was rewarded with both Houses and the Presidency. The voters apparently want this. They get the government they voted for. Disfunctional and broken. Garland will go back to being the chief of the DC appealate court which is the second most powerful. He will probably be too old to be considered in 4 years.

 

[Sonikku]

I will never forgive them for this. They have set such a dangerous, dangerous precedent.

What is an even more dangerous a precedent is the prospect of the Senate breaking the filibuster. I pray they don't go forward with it, but one can never tell.

what are you talking about? The Republicans opposed Obamacare and won in 2010. They shut down the government in 2013 and won in 2014. They refused to do their job and hold hearings on Garland and was rewarded with both Houses and the Presidency. The voters apparently want this. They get the government they voted for. Disfunctional and broken. Garland will go back to being the chief of the DC appealate court which is the second most powerful. He will probably be too old to be considered in 4 years.

Republicans assure us government doesn't work. They get elected then do everything in their power to ensure it doesn't. It's a gruesome self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[HomerJS]

what are you talking about? The Republicans opposed Obamacare and won in 2010. They shut down the government in 2013 and won in 2014. They refused to do their job and hold hearings on Garland and was rewarded with both Houses and the Presidency. The voters apparently want this. They get the government they voted for. Disfunctional and broken. Garland will go back to being the chief of the DC appealate court which is the second most powerful. He will probably be too old to be considered in 4 years.

Well if that is what the voters want the Dems should just filibuster the vacancy until 2018. Maybe the Dems can take back the Senate ala 2010.

 

[mrjminer]

Appointing one radical leftist to the Supreme Court is enough for Obama. It's in everyone's best interest for the next position to go to someone who will uphold the Constitution, state rights, my rights, and your rights. You would have to be a complete dumbass to approve of anyone that even has a modicum of a possibility of diminishing your rights and increasing the power of the government even further, which this lunatic would do at least in some regard.

One vote away from the loss of every right you've ever had and you are rooting for the guy that would make it happen. Think about it.

 

[Brainonska511]

Appointing one radical leftist to the Supreme Court is enough for Obama. It's in everyone's best interest for the next position to go to someone who will uphold the Constitution, state rights, my rights, and your rights. You would have to be a complete dumbass to approve of anyone that even has a modicum of a possibility of diminishing your rights and increasing the power of the government even further, which this lunatic would do at least in some regard.

One vote away from the loss of every right you've ever had and you are rooting for the guy that would make it happen. Think about it.

You should give a long, hard look at your rights and how well they've been protected under conservative supreme courts. Corporation wronged you, well... now you can't really sue because you signed a binding arbitration agreement. Whoops. Well, better luck next time (though, good luck finding companies to do business with that don't use those measures).

Or how about a cop making a 'mistake' in the application of the law: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/traffic-stops-based-officer-mistakes.html

 

[dank69]

What is an even more dangerous a precedent is the prospect of the Senate breaking the filibuster. I pray they don't go forward with it, but one can never tell.

...

Nope. America wants this. Dems should get the fuck out of the way.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This assumes that there is some neutral truth to the constitution that everyone can agree on. There isn't. It's impossible for judges not to allow their ideology to influence their decisions.

It doesn't bother you that the justices so consistently rule along party lines that tipping the balance is taking priority to inpartiality.

And for the record it disgusts me that the GOP is blocking Obama's nominee. Obama has more of a mandate to make that determination than Trump.

 

[Starbuck1975]

They are not here (edit) just to be learned, but to have opinions. It's right there in the name of their rulings.

If you want Constitution-bots that cannot have room for nuance or interpretation, sorry, not happening.

I do want nuance and interpretation. I don't want partisan rubber stamps any more than I want constitution-bots.

 

[fskimospy]

It doesn't both you that the justices so consistently rule along party lines that tipping the balance is taking priority to inpartiality.

And for the record it disgusts me that the GOP is blocking Obama's nominee. Obama has more of a mandate to make that determination than Trump.

No, I think for the most part you are mistaking the source of this by-line voting. Presidents select SCOTUS justices specifically because of their views on how the Constitution should be interpreted. This has nothing to do with whether they are impartial or not, they just have different ideas about what the Constitution says. When you only confront very close cases about interpreting very grey areas like SCOTUS usually does it's entirely unsurprising that people selected for interpreting it in different ways almost always come down along the lines of who selected them.

I'm sure this doesn't account for all of it though, for example Scalia in his later years was an unrepentant hack who would contradict himself between opinions in the same term, but I imagine it accounts for most of it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Obummer nominated Garland. Some republicans were OK with him, but others were not. Trump is not "the republicans" he's going to nominate someone from his own list. If I was Trump I'd put someone who's 40-45 years old to have the best chance they'll be there for a long time to come. No doubt whoever he picks will be better than the prior two idiots added to the court.

 

[jackstar7]

Obummer nominated Garland. Some republicans were OK with him, but others were not. Trump is not "the republicans" he's going to nominate someone from his own list. If I was Trump I'd put someone who's 40-45 years old to have the best chance they'll be there for a long time to come. No doubt whoever he picks will be better than the prior two idiots added to the court.

Why do you disagree with the last two "idiots"? Do you find them unqualified? Incompetent?

 

[dank69]

Why do you disagree with the last two "idiots"? Do you find them unqualified? Incompetent?

They didn't contradict themselves from ruling to ruling.

 

[Moonbeam]

I can't wait for abortion to be outlawed. We will need the canon fodder.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why do you disagree with the last two "idiots"? Do you find them unqualified? Incompetent?

Well, they consistently come out on the wrong side of almost every ruling, whether they are with the majority or the minority. They are essentially more like SJW's than SCOTUS justices. For example, look at Sotomayor's epic 58 page SJW rant in the Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action case.

 

[shady28]

Garland has zero chance.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/merrick-garland-has-very-liberal-view-gun-rights/

"In one 2000 case, Judge Garland, who sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, upheld a Clinton administration effort to store gun-buyers’ records.

Later in the decade, he joined other judges in a failed bid to reconsider the landmark case that would eventually establish the Second Amendment’s protection of a personal right to bear arms."​

 

[PokerGuy]

Garland has zero chance.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/merrick-garland-has-very-liberal-view-gun-rights/

"In one 2000 case, Judge Garland, who sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, upheld a Clinton administration effort to store gun-buyers’ records.

Later in the decade, he joined other judges in a failed bid to reconsider the landmark case that would eventually establish the Second Amendment’s protection of a personal right to bear arms."​

Yep, no chance at all he'll be nominated again, nor should he be.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, they consistently come out on the wrong side of almost every ruling, whether they are with the majority or the minority. They are essentially more like SJW's than SCOTUS justices. For example, look at Sotomayor's epic 58 page SJW rant in the Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action case.

Translation: they are idiots because they don't give the rulings I like.