How would you vote on Merrick Garland's nomination?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nay and would vote against any Republican who votes Aye in the next primary and possibly general election as well.

are you just assuming he'd be really bad on abortion because he's a Democratic nominee or is there particular evidence you are looking at? 

[IceSpear]

Aye, but I'd expect a better nominee with Clinton as VP.

Impossible. I was told Hillary was a far right neoliberal bankster witch warmonger whereas Obama was our liberal far left messiah. Did Salon lie to me?

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes on holding hearings, No prior to November, Yes in Lame Duck if Hillary wins.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Nay on the basis of his gun record

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

Nay on the basis of his gun record

You mean voting to rehear a case without taking a position on its merits?

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay and would vote against any Republican who votes Aye in the next primary and possibly general election as well.

are you just assuming he'd be really bad on abortion because he's a Democratic nominee or is there particular evidence you are looking at? 

I am assuming he would be no better than Kennedy, who I would also filibuster until the sky falls upon us. Does anyone seriously think Obama would appoint the man without knowing his views on abortion? While Garland has never ruled on an abortion case and has never publicly commented on one either, we have every circumstantial reason to think he supports it: demographics, past praise of Harry Blackmun, past support for due process arguments, general right to privacy arguments, etc. The stars would really have to align for him to be an unexpected pro life vote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Speaking of which, has Garland ever said anything about Citizens United?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nay and would vote against any Republican who votes Aye in the next primary and possibly general election as well.

are you just assuming he'd be really bad on abortion because he's a Democratic nominee or is there particular evidence you are looking at? 

I am assuming he would be no better than Kennedy, who I would also filibuster until the sky falls upon us. Does anyone seriously think Obama would appoint the man without knowing his views on abortion? While Garland has never ruled on an abortion case and has never publicly commented on one either, we have every circumstantial reason to think he supports it: demographics, past praise of Harry Blackmun, past support for due process arguments, general right to privacy arguments, etc. The stars would really have to align for him to be an unexpected pro life vote.

If people are being filibustered for things they don't even have a public record on, that means no Court appointments ever unless the same party has both the White House and 60 Senators. Now 8 seats, then 7, then 6... Is that a good result?  Maybe, but I can see why someone would be reasonably wary of that long term in terms of the future of the third branch of government. I guess it all depends on if what order people die makes it worth it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE (D), of course.

Yes on holding hearings, No prior to November, Yes in Lame Duck if Hillary wins.

You do realize how shamelessly partisan this is?

[RI]

Always nay to pro-choice judges.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Nay (D caucusing) Too conservative for my taste and too much of a lame attempt on Obama's part to appease the right even though they'll never in a million years be appeased.

[SATW]

Nay. I would only vote to confirm Sri Srinivasan.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Always nay to pro-choice judges.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Always nay to pro-choice judges.

But no one knows where he stands on the issue of abortion, and the only "evidence" I found against it was that he once wrote a paper citing Justice Blackmun as an influence  (and as Blackmun wrote Roe, Garland is an anti- life extremist)

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Always nay to pro-choice judges.

But no one knows where he stands on the issue of abortion, and the only "evidence" I found against it was that he once wrote a paper citing Justice Blackmun as an influence  (and as Blackmun wrote Roe, Garland is an anti- life extremist)

Well, if we find out otherwise then I will likely reverse position, but seeing as the nomination was made by someone with a history of nominating pro-choice people, I don't expect this to go any differently.

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay and would vote against any Republican who votes Aye in the next primary and possibly general election as well.

are you just assuming he'd be really bad on abortion because he's a Democratic nominee or is there particular evidence you are looking at? 

I am assuming he would be no better than Kennedy, who I would also filibuster until the sky falls upon us. Does anyone seriously think Obama would appoint the man without knowing his views on abortion? While Garland has never ruled on an abortion case and has never publicly commented on one either, we have every circumstantial reason to think he supports it: demographics, past praise of Harry Blackmun, past support for due process arguments, general right to privacy arguments, etc. The stars would really have to align for him to be an unexpected pro life vote.

If people are being filibustered for things they don't even have a public record on, that means no Court appointments ever unless the same party has both the White House and 60 Senators. Now 8 seats, then 7, then 6... Is that a good result?  Maybe, but I can see why someone would be reasonably wary of that long term in terms of the future of the third branch of government. I guess it all depends on if what order people die makes it worth it.

Is it a good outcome? No, of course not. But when the other side is willing to do whatever necessary to control the Court to pass its agenda, one has to fight back ruthlessly. It's unfortunate we've come to this point, but the other side stopped caring about the rules 50 years ago.

[RogueBeaver]

Aye only in a lame-duck session where Hillary is elected.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Republicans have said that this is the best nominee they could possibly get from a Democratic president. Obviously no since I doubt he will work to remove Citizens United (Actual Progressive).

[mencken]

Nay, nothing in the Constitution says we cannot have eight (or fewer) Supreme Court justices.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nay and would vote against any Republican who votes Aye in the next primary and possibly general election as well.

are you just assuming he'd be really bad on abortion because he's a Democratic nominee or is there particular evidence you are looking at?  

I am assuming he would be no better than Kennedy, who I would also filibuster until the sky falls upon us. Does anyone seriously think Obama would appoint the man without knowing his views on abortion? While Garland has never ruled on an abortion case and has never publicly commented on one either, we have every circumstantial reason to think he supports it: demographics, past praise of Harry Blackmun, past support for due process arguments, general right to privacy arguments, etc. The stars would really have to align for him to be an unexpected pro life vote.

If people are being filibustered for things they don't even have a public record on, that means no Court appointments ever unless the same party has both the White House and 60 Senators. Now 8 seats, then 7, then 6... Is that a good result?  Maybe, but I can see why someone would be reasonably wary of that long term in terms of the future of the third branch of government. I guess it all depends on if what order people die makes it worth it.

Is it a good outcome? No, of course not. But when the other side is willing to do whatever necessary to control the Court to pass its agenda, one has to fight back ruthlessly. It's unfortunate we've come to this point, but the other side stopped caring about the rules 50 years ago.

Without this appointment, in all likelihood, President Clinton gets to nominate someone with an extreme activist record on the issue before a Senate friendlier to that than we have now.  Trying to defeat a pro-life Senator because they measure the odds of a successful result in that situation differently just seems potentially reckless to me. 

I think, give him a hearing at least.

[Figueira]

I voted Aye (D) because even though I'm an independent, I would presumably be a Democrat if I were a US Senator.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

I voted Aye (D) because even though I'm an independent, I would presumably be a Democrat if I were a US Senator.

So party ahead of policies?

[Figueira]

I voted Aye (D) because even though I'm an independent, I would presumably be a Democrat if I were a US Senator.

So party ahead of policies?

No, I don't care about the party itself; I just know that joining them is the only way to get elected as a leftist 99% of the time.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye. Not a fan by any means and I'm disappointed that, out of such a good bunch, Obama chose one of the worst (though that might turn out to be a good thing - if the Senate was going to shoot down any nominee, then it will give Hillary the excuse to nominate someone like Jane Kelly instead), but I believe that the standard to reject a judicial appointment, especially for ideological reasons, should be very high.

[Blair]

Republicans have said that this is the best nominee they could possibly get from a Democratic president. Obviously no since I doubt he will work to remove Citizens United (Actual Progressive).

How is this any different to the right having a litmus on abortion?

A judge can't work to remove Citizens United, the Supreme Court doesn't work like this. As much as I hate Citizens people still need to understand how it works