President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to take the place of deceased and descended Antonin “Sturmbannführer” Scalia. I’ll need more time to research, before I can offer an opinion oh his choice, but I can tell you this: Garland would be an improvement over Scalia, because it would be virtually impossible to be as bad. I can also tell you that he deserves a fair vote, whether I like him or not. Needless to say Republicans are apoplectic.
President Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick Garland to serve on the Supreme Court, setting up a protracted political fight with Republicans who have vowed to block any candidate picked by Obama in his final year in office.
Garland, 63, is a longtime Washington lawyer and jurist who is chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Considered a moderate, Garland is widely respected in the D.C. legal community and was also a finalist for the first two Supreme Court vacancies Obama filled.
In announcing his choice in the White House Rose Garden, Obama said he followed “a rigorous and comprehensive process” and that he reached out to members of both parties, legal associations and advocacy groups to gauge opinions from “across the spectrum.”
He said Garland “is widely recognized not only as one of America’s sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence.” …
Inserted from <Washington Post>
Here’s a clip of the announcement.
Bought Bitch Mitch (R-KY) has reaffirmed that Garland will not get a vote. Snake in the Grassley (R-IA) has reaffirmed that Garland will not get a Judiciary Committee hearing. All of the sitting Republicans who previously voted for Garland, when he was confirmed to the DC Circuit now oppose giving him a vote. Here are some of the statements Republicans made about Garland then, in 1992.
…
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
“Merrick B. Garland is highly qualified to sit on the D.C. circuit. His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned… His legal experience is equally impressive… Accordingly, I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. I know him personally, I know of his integrity, I know of his legal ability, I know of his honesty, I know of his acumen, and he belongs on the court. I believe he is not only a fine nominee, but is as good as Republicans can expect from this administration. In fact, I would place him at the top of the list.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
“I have nothing against the nominee. Mr. Garland seems to be well qualified and would probably make a good judge — in some other court.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
“He has a high position with the Department of Justice and, by all accounts, does a good job there. There will be a number of judgeship vacancies in the D.C. trial judges. He has been a trial lawyer. He would be a good person to fill one of those. I would feel comfortable supporting him for another judgeship.”
Then-Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
“I believe Mr. Garland is well qualified for the court of appeals. He earned degrees from Harvard College and Harvard Law School and clerked for Judge Friendly on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for Justice Brennan on the Supreme Court and, since 1993, he has worked for the Department of Justice. So there is no question, he is qualified to serve on the court.”
Then-Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC)
“I have no reservations about Mr. Garland’s qualifications or character to serve in this capacity. He had an excellent academic record at both Harvard College and Harvard Law School before serving as a law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, he has served in distinguished positions in private law practice and with the Department of Justice. Moreover, I have no doubt that Mr. Garland is a man of character and integrity.”
Then-Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT)
“[T]he nominee has the character and is highly qualified for the position.”
…
Inserted from <Think Progress>
Whether or not Garland is qualified has nothing to do with this seditious attempt by Republicans to block his nomination. They are hoping they can find a way to steal the Presidency and make the appointment themselves. Now, I have to admit that a Republican President’s appointment could not be much worse than Scalia, even an appointment by Trump or Cruz. However consider this. The next President will appoint the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I consider it highly unlikely that Garland will be confirmed. Republicans may try to save face by going through some of the motions, but they will only be stalling for time. Therefore, it is imperative that the next occupant of the White House be a Democrat. I know that many of you aren't very keen on Hillary, but if she is nominated, it is imperative to work as hard for her as we would for Bernie. Do you question that?
Do you want Trump to replace Ginsburg?
15 Responses to “SCOTUS Nominee”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
He is considered an exceptional consensus builder in his current court and a firm believer that the courts' job is to apply the law and not to legislate.
PFAW calls him a "stellar" choice. I won't go that far yet, not being knowledgeable enough, but you are right, he's better than Scalia.
I've signed all the petitions sent to me, and there have been a gazillion, demanding the Senate hold a fair hearing on Judge Garland. But just between us, I don't really see the difference between not holding hearings, and holding a hearing, having a vote, and voting him down. Either way he's just as dead. I am almost in favor of their digging in their heels, because that is politically stupider and gives us more ammunition. I suppose we need to keep pushing because pushing shows our respect for the constitution?
have faith and trust in Mr. President's decision to nominate Mr. Garland, though I agree with you, that the Repugs will waste time, and be apoplectic about it.
Thanks, Tom.
His nomnating a moderate seems wise, puts the GOPigs on the line, with no "good" reson to turn blue (LOL), holding their collective breaths, because he's not a Scalia clone!
I'd just like to know where Pres. Obama keeps buying these eleventy-dimensional chessboards he keeps using to troll the Rethuglicans.
The man is a Master at painting the GOP into a corner.
God, I’m gonna miss this guy!
So, Mitch – “Please proceed!”
He probably makes them himself – since he seems to be the only one who knows how to use them to maximum effect!
My feelings exactly when I heard of Merrick Garland's nomination and a short description of his merits yesterday. Obama is a master strategist and is really enjoying the game no he can play without reservations.
We all know the nomination will never go through due to the Republican obstructionists. Once again, Mr. Obama has outplayed them. I am pro Bernie, but will certainly vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.
This is just one more politically motivated temper tantrum by the childish Republicans! They are so eager to throw the country under the bus for their own benefit.
I found an article about Canada's Supreme Court a while back. There, there are no politics except by politicians. Harper was at war with Canada's chief justice but she fought back . . . it was over his appointment of a judge that did not qualify for the SCC. The courts should not be political.
If nothing else, the President shows the GOP for the idiotic children they are. Once again, he has outsmarted them.
Obviously, Congress has learned nothing from the rise of someone like Trump – McConnell says give the people a voice – doesn't it seem clear that we want all career, do-nothing politicians paid for by lobbyists to be eradicated from public office? The people HAVE spoken – they just aren't listening.
I just want to point out that there are career politicians who are NOT do-nothings paid for by lobbyists, Bernie leaps to mind.
I found Merrick Garland's emotional acceptance of his nomination very endearing, but also a little naive. He must be aware that Obama has chosen him – a bipartisan known for his integrity and a man who builds bridges and one who stands above politics (according to my Dutch newspaper) – purely out of strategic consideration. The Republicans have no reason to vote him down because he's an excellent and "neutral" judge, not a Democrat. Putting forward Merrick Garland is yet another way of showing the world the Republicans aren't doing their job. They've already declined to meet with him nor will they put him to the vote. I feel rather sorry for Garland, the way he's become a pawn in a chess play. It seems a waste of an excellent judge and a good man.
Of course no new nomination should be left to Drumpf/Cruz, it shouldn't be left to Republicans, period. SCOTUS appointments shouldn't be political appointments in the first place, but if the GOP gets full say, SCOTUS will become just an extension of the GOP/ 1% and BIG Money will be in full control of the country. So, again, get the vote out for ANY Democratic candidate!
TY TC.
I was hoping that O'Bama (what, you mean he ain't Irish?) would nominate Anita Hill, thus causing Justice Thomas to stroke out and giving himself an opportunity to make a second nomination to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, back at Reality Central . . ..
Thanks all!!
Hugs!!