SCOTUS nominee expected as early as this morning EDIT: looks like it's Garland

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we get a Conservative Protestant on the court.

What part of "you lost" don't you understand?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How about we get a Conservative Protestant on the court.

What part of "you lost" don't you understand?

I'm also not sure he realizes that the two most recently serving Republican-appointed Protestant justices turned out to be, er, Souter and Stevens.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

This sounds exactly the way the West Wing version of this went. I'm half expecting us to get Goodwin Liu and a young libertarian woman justice.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Perhaps the most annoying thing to happen substance-wise in opposition to Garland is the assumption by many Republicans that because he voted in favor of rehearing on Parker v. District of Columbia he MUST be anti-gun.

[Virginiá]

You guys blocked Ike from a SCOTUS pick in 1960 because it was an election year. We are only doing the same. For the few of you pro-2A folks on the left on here, this guy is very bad news.

I'm not aware of who you're talking about, and according to others, it's not what you think.

Democrats confirmed Clarence Thomas in 1991, arguably the most conservative justice on the bench right now. This was not an election year, but it was the year before and the fact that Democrats eventually confirmed someone that conservative deserves some recognition now. After all, Democrats had a 56 seat majority and they could have done exactly what Republicans are doing now.

Also, Democrats let Kennedy through in 1988, even after dumping Bork for being too far right. The point is, they confirmed someone. Obama didn't even bother nominating an ultra liberal, he went right for a moderate that has great credentials and wide support.

Republicans have no excuse here. They keep acting like this is some sort of tradition, or somehow Democrats doing right by them in the past was "different", or whatever bs excuse they can come up with in the moment. They need to accept that the current president, who won by almost 5 million votes, gets to make the nomination and they need to respect what was once the tradition of not being scumbags.

I don't understand why some conservatives can't just admit that their fellow politicians aren't in the right here. You don't always have to tow the party line (or in your case, tow the other right-leaning party's line)

[Virginiá]

You do want to keep some goodwill in case Ginsburg or Breyer should die under a Republican president.  It's quite possible that only very moderate justices will be confirmed by either side for as long as the filibuster is still in place, and I'd rather not see the SCOTUS filibuster get tossed to the side to quickly.  If Senate Democrats can use this precedent to force President Ryan to put Sandoval in Breyer's seat in 2023 or wait it out, it will all be for the better.  

I don't think goodwill means anything anymore with this generation of Republicans. They don't seem to care about anything but winning. They obstructed 6 years of Congressional duties in the middle of a bad recovery just so they could try and make Democrats look weak and ineffective, so as to win the next elections. If this was decades ago I may agree, but I don't see the usefulness at this point. I mean, do you personally think they would respect any sort of kind gestures from Democrats?

As for the filibuster - I've about had it with the filibuster entirely. If they begin obstructing just like before, I'd say get rid of the entire thing or change it substantially so as to make obstruction essentially impossible. I'd rather risk a Republican federal trifecta being almost unstoppable rather than let them obstruct absolutely everything a Democratic trifecta wants to do. Without the filibuster we could have made serious progress from 2009 - 2011.

60 votes was never supposed to be the number of votes required to confirm nominations or pass legislation, but now it's basically the de facto requirement due to GOP efforts.

[Green Line]

The Republicans are totally in the wrong here.  They should at least give this guy hearings, and then vote him down if they want.  Anybody who thinks this is OK is just being blatantly partisan, and also politically stupid IMO.  This is the best we're going to get right now, and I wouldn't even trust a President TRUMP to nominate a true conservative if he is elected (which isn't going to happen).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not sure what to think of Garland yet but I'm leaning towards thinking he's not such a great choice, either from a mainstream liberal perspective or from my own.

He seems like a further left version of the Kennedy type of moderate with a modest reverse Souter risk.  From what I know about you, you would probably be a lot happier with the judicial version of a JBE/Manchin/Donnelly type of moderate?

Dorothy Day would be my ideal choice if she were a lawyer, not an anarchist, and alive. Someone like JBE would be my preferred semi-realistic moderate-type choice, yeah. Not really a Manchin or Donnelly fan. One Kennedy-type justice is enough.

ETA: Obviously Garland is by any objective measure the most qualified potential justice in decades and there is no currently evident non-ideological reason at all not to consider and confirm him. But the more I learn about him the more ideological reasons I get.

[Orser67]

It would be interesting if Clinton wins the nomination, and two strange coalitions form. A coalition of centrist Democrats and establishment Republicans might try to confirm Garland, while a coalition of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans might oppose his confirmation. Obviously this is getting ahead of things, but the potential ramifications for the lame duck Congress are definitely worth thinking about (and we could see a somewhat similar fight over the TPP). I also wonder if Obama would withdraw Garland's nomination after the election (if Clinton wins), if that is even possible.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Garland seems to me a sacrificial lamb. He is a known quantity so it will be hard for the Republicans to make him a pinata, like Cornyn promised to do to any Obama nominee.
And even if Clinton wins and they decide in November to confirm him I'm not so sure that people like Cruz and Mike Lee are going to be willing to go along.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/merrick-garland-who-is-he-220865

You'd think Senate Republicans would have figured out how much of a coward Obama is by now.

[Mr. Morden]

Garland seems to me a sacrificial lamb. He is a known quantity so it will be hard for the Republicans to make him a pinata, like Cornyn promised to do to any Obama nominee.

And even if Clinton wins and they decide in November to confirm him I'm not so sure that people like Cruz and Mike Lee are going to be willing to go along.

But what is the alternative, should Clinton win and the GOP retain the Senate?  The Republicans continue to block any SCOTUS nominations from Democratic presidents forever?

[mencken]

Garland seems to me a sacrificial lamb. He is a known quantity so it will be hard for the Republicans to make him a pinata, like Cornyn promised to do to any Obama nominee.

And even if Clinton wins and they decide in November to confirm him I'm not so sure that people like Cruz and Mike Lee are going to be willing to go along.

But what is the alternative, should Clinton win and the GOP retain the Senate?  The Republicans continue to block any SCOTUS nominations from Democratic presidents forever?

Nothing says the Supreme Court must have nine members. The only problem with opening that can of worms is the risk that Hillary will pack the court if the Democrats get a Senate majority. Of course, that will either happen in 2017 or not at all in Hillary's first term, so that is not a particularly big risk.

[Mr. Morden]

Garland seems to me a sacrificial lamb. He is a known quantity so it will be hard for the Republicans to make him a pinata, like Cornyn promised to do to any Obama nominee.

And even if Clinton wins and they decide in November to confirm him I'm not so sure that people like Cruz and Mike Lee are going to be willing to go along.

But what is the alternative, should Clinton win and the GOP retain the Senate?  The Republicans continue to block any SCOTUS nominations from Democratic presidents forever?

Nothing says the Supreme Court must have nine members. The only problem with opening that can of worms is the risk that Hillary will pack the court if the Democrats get a Senate majority. Of course, that will either happen in 2017 or not at all in Hillary's first term, so that is not a particularly big risk.

OK, and what reason will McConnell publicly give for continuing the blockade into Clinton's presidency?  Right now, it's all about the "principle" of waiting until after the election.  But once the election happens, and Clinton is president, they'll have to come up with something else.  Not that they wouldn't be able to come up with something else, but continuing the blockade for years and years on the basis of an ever-changing list of rationales carries a good deal of political risk.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Garland seems to me a sacrificial lamb. He is a known quantity so it will be hard for the Republicans to make him a pinata, like Cornyn promised to do to any Obama nominee.

And even if Clinton wins and they decide in November to confirm him I'm not so sure that people like Cruz and Mike Lee are going to be willing to go along.

But what is the alternative, should Clinton win and the GOP retain the Senate?  The Republicans continue to block any SCOTUS nominations from Democratic presidents forever?

If Clinton wins then she will have a Democratic senate.
Any other combination is unlikely. Not to mention that the people would have spoken and any further obstruction will look like outright partisan spite even to the most casual voter.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Horrible choice but won't be confirmed by the Congress that is holding the supreme court hostage.

[Zache]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

You guys blocked Ike from a SCOTUS pick in 1960 because it was an election year. We are only doing the same.

That's just blatantly untrue. There was no vacancy between 1958 and 1962.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Garland seems to me a sacrificial lamb. He is a known quantity so it will be hard for the Republicans to make him a pinata, like Cornyn promised to do to any Obama nominee.

And even if Clinton wins and they decide in November to confirm him I'm not so sure that people like Cruz and Mike Lee are going to be willing to go along.

But what is the alternative, should Clinton win and the GOP retain the Senate?  The Republicans continue to block any SCOTUS nominations from Democratic presidents forever?

Nothing says the Supreme Court must have nine members. The only problem with opening that can of worms is the risk that Hillary will pack the court if the Democrats get a Senate majority. Of course, that will either happen in 2017 or not at all in Hillary's first term, so that is not a particularly big risk.

I believe there is a federal law establishing a 9-member Court.

[RightBehind]

Definitely qualified for it. He nominated a Harvard valedictorian. Enough said.

[This account no longer in use.]

Harvard doesn't have valedictorians.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

You do want to keep some goodwill in case Ginsburg or Breyer should die under a Republican president.  It's quite possible that only very moderate justices will be confirmed by either side for as long as the filibuster is still in place, and I'd rather not see the SCOTUS filibuster get tossed to the side to quickly.  If Senate Democrats can use this precedent to force President Ryan to put Sandoval in Breyer's seat in 2023 or wait it out, it will all be for the better.  

I don't think goodwill means anything anymore with this generation of Republicans. They don't seem to care about anything but winning. They obstructed 6 years of Congressional duties in the middle of a bad recovery just so they could try and make Democrats look weak and ineffective, so as to win the next elections. If this was decades ago I may agree, but I don't see the usefulness at this point. I mean, do you personally think they would respect any sort of kind gestures from Democrats?

As for the filibuster - I've about had it with the filibuster entirely. If they begin obstructing just like before, I'd say get rid of the entire thing or change it substantially so as to make obstruction essentially impossible. I'd rather risk a Republican federal trifecta being almost unstoppable rather than let them obstruct absolutely everything a Democratic trifecta wants to do. Without the filibuster we could have made serious progress from 2009 - 2011.

60 votes was never supposed to be the number of votes required to confirm nominations or pass legislation, but now it's basically the de facto requirement due to GOP

Dems did have 60 voted but chose to go after health care.  They should of created a 401K plan, in addition to social security for younger workers in addition to health care

[MK]

No . This guy has a horrible 2nd admin record.   They shouldn't entertain the ideal of even meeting with this left wing loon.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Merrick will be confirmed anyways, because a Trump victory is unlikely.  Dems arent looking to stop lawful citizens in obtaining guns. Keep guns from being concealed in public and out of hands of terrorist. Guns should be in a safe for hunters at home.

Unless you are a law enforcement security or police officer

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No . This guy has a horrible 2nd admin record.   They shouldn't entertain the ideal of even meeting with this left wing loon.

He voted to rehear a case without taking a position on its merits.