McConnell rules out confirming Garland in lame duck

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Hopefully Obama withdraws Garland in the lame duck as a big FU to them.

Would be quite the disgusting treatment of a universally respected judge to do so.

[IceSpear]

Hopefully Obama withdraws Garland in the lame duck as a big FU to them.

Would be quite the disgusting treatment of a universally respected judge to do so.

Oh yeah, because the GOP is treating this "universally respected judge" SO well.

[Ebsy]

Hopefully Obama withdraws Garland in the lame duck as a big FU to them.

Would be quite the disgusting treatment of a universally respected judge to do so.

Did you read what you typed out before hitting Post?

[SteveRogers]

Hopefully Obama withdraws Garland in the lame duck as a big FU to them.

Would be quite the disgusting treatment of a universally respected judge to do so.

Oh yeah, because the GOP is treating this "universally respected judge" SO well.

Of course the GOP isn't treating him respectfully. I believe the point was that there's no reason for Obama to screw over Garland like that.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Hopefully Obama withdraws Garland in the lame duck as a big FU to them.

Would be quite the disgusting treatment of a universally respected judge to do so.

Oh yeah, because the GOP is treating this "universally respected judge" SO well.

Of course the GOP isn't treating him respectfully. I believe the point was that there's no reason for Obama to screw over Garland like that.

Exactly.

While I'm ambivalent on the confirmation (they really should at least put him through the wringer in confirmations and make their case why they think he doesn't deserve to be on the court), they're playing typical partisan games. They don't want their advantage on the court to go away, simple as that.

For Obama to essentially Charlie-Brown a respected jurist and yank away the nomination just as it's about to happen because he sees a better deal would be senseless and cruel. Unless Garland was in on it the whole time, but I seriously doubt that,

[publicunofficial]

Even RedState is pleading with Senate Republicans to take Garland while they can.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Frodo]

All we need now is an extended government shut-down, and we're good to go!

[windjammer]

Guys, do you seriously believe he would be confirmed during the lame duck session?

Too many senate conservatives would never vote for him.

[Illiniwek]

I don't see anything lame duck happening. I think there's a good chance that something happens before the election.

And listen, if Obama had a plan to pull the garland nomination after Hillary wins/dems take back the senate, Garland already knows this. Either Obama is 100% in on and not going back on garland, or he told him when this began, that this nomination will only last through the this election. Garland is probably fine with this since he's an old guy already, and probably feels fortunate to be given even the slightest opportunity. So if this happens, the language will be that garland is removing himself from consideration. It's all calculated out.

[Virginiá]

Guys, do you seriously believe he would be confirmed during the lame duck session?

Too many senate conservatives would never vote for him.

If Democrats are on board, then all they need is 14 Republican votes, maybe a couple more if a handful of Democrats do not vote/vote no.

Strategically, it makes sense to try and ram through Garland if Clinton wins/they lose Senate in November. Why not rush to confirm him then instead of letting Clinton nominate a much younger, more liberal justice that will get confirmed? The only problem here is that Republicans essentially slammed the door in their own faces with not only the strategy they chose to pursue, but also it's sloppy execution as well.

[Bojack Horseman]

Guys, do you seriously believe he would be confirmed during the lame duck session?

Too many senate conservatives would never vote for him.

If Democrats are on board, then all they need is 14 Republican votes, maybe a couple more if a handful of Democrats do not vote/vote no.

Strategically, it makes sense to try and ram through Garland if Clinton wins/they lose Senate in November. Why not rush to confirm him then instead of letting Clinton nominate a much younger, more liberal justice that will get confirmed? The only problem here is that Republicans essentially slammed the door in their own faces with not only the strategy they chose to pursue, but also it's sloppy execution as well.

At that point, Obama should definitely withdraw Garland and let Hillary appoint the next RBG to the court.

[Maxwell]

Republicans are really sticking to the "nah, we're walking away" strategy that they've decided to go with since the beginning of the Obama administration. Don't they realize mindless opposition is why they are in the situation they are in?

[Indy Texas]

Hopefully Obama withdraws Garland in the lame duck as a big FU to them.

Would be quite the disgusting treatment of a universally respected judge to do so.

Oh yeah, because the GOP is treating this "universally respected judge" SO well.

Of course the GOP isn't treating him respectfully. I believe the point was that there's no reason for Obama to screw over Garland like that.

Exactly.

While I'm ambivalent on the confirmation (they really should at least put him through the wringer in confirmations and make their case why they think he doesn't deserve to be on the court), they're playing typical partisan games. They don't want their advantage on the court to go away, simple as that.

For Obama to essentially Charlie-Brown a respected jurist and yank away the nomination just as it's about to happen because he sees a better deal would be senseless and cruel. Unless Garland was in on it the whole time, but I seriously doubt that,

But if he is, he can sit through a couple of days of confirmation hearings and then announce he's withdrawing himself from consideration because he's so disappointed by how some people in the Senate have politicized the confirmation process (inevitably one of the Tea Party senators will have said/asked something inflammatory by then). Then Obama can give a speech about how he tried to extend an olive branch and offer a nominee that everyone could accept but the Senate Republicans spat in his face.

Then next year, the Senate will confirm 39 year old Shanequa Barrios-Chung as the first bisexual transwoman atheist SCOTUS justice on a 51-49 vote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hopefully Obama withdraws Garland in the lame duck as a big FU to them.

Would be quite the disgusting treatment of a universally respected judge to do so.

Oh yeah, because the GOP is treating this "universally respected judge" SO well.

Of course the GOP isn't treating him respectfully. I believe the point was that there's no reason for Obama to screw over Garland like that.

Exactly.

While I'm ambivalent on the confirmation (they really should at least put him through the wringer in confirmations and make their case why they think he doesn't deserve to be on the court), they're playing typical partisan games. They don't want their advantage on the court to go away, simple as that.

For Obama to essentially Charlie-Brown a respected jurist and yank away the nomination just as it's about to happen because he sees a better deal would be senseless and cruel. Unless Garland was in on it the whole time, but I seriously doubt that,

But if he is, he can sit through a couple of days of confirmation hearings and then announce he's withdrawing himself from consideration because he's so disappointed by how some people in the Senate have politicized the confirmation process (inevitably one of the Tea Party senators will have said/asked something inflammatory by then). Then Obama can give a speech about how he tried to extend an olive branch and offer a nominee that everyone could accept but the Senate Republicans spat in his face.

Then next year, the Senate will confirm 39 year old Shanequa Barrios-Chung as the first bisexual transwoman atheist SCOTUS justice on a 51-49 vote.

Except the SCOTUS 60 vote filibuster still exists, and Republicans WILL use it.

[Gass3268]

Hopefully Obama withdraws Garland in the lame duck as a big FU to them.

Would be quite the disgusting treatment of a universally respected judge to do so.

Oh yeah, because the GOP is treating this "universally respected judge" SO well.

Of course the GOP isn't treating him respectfully. I believe the point was that there's no reason for Obama to screw over Garland like that.

Exactly.

While I'm ambivalent on the confirmation (they really should at least put him through the wringer in confirmations and make their case why they think he doesn't deserve to be on the court), they're playing typical partisan games. They don't want their advantage on the court to go away, simple as that.

For Obama to essentially Charlie-Brown a respected jurist and yank away the nomination just as it's about to happen because he sees a better deal would be senseless and cruel. Unless Garland was in on it the whole time, but I seriously doubt that,

But if he is, he can sit through a couple of days of confirmation hearings and then announce he's withdrawing himself from consideration because he's so disappointed by how some people in the Senate have politicized the confirmation process (inevitably one of the Tea Party senators will have said/asked something inflammatory by then). Then Obama can give a speech about how he tried to extend an olive branch and offer a nominee that everyone could accept but the Senate Republicans spat in his face.

Then next year, the Senate will confirm 39 year old Shanequa Barrios-Chung as the first bisexual transwoman atheist SCOTUS justice on a 51-49 vote.

Except the SCOTUS 60 vote filibuster still exists, and Republicans WILL use it.

Schumer has already said if he's in control of the Senate and the Republicans keep up this charade, he will get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

[Virginiá]

At that point, Obama should definitely withdraw Garland and let Hillary appoint the next RBG to the court.

Yes, damn right. I can live with Garland, but personally, I want someone younger and more liberal. If Republicans are going to put reliable conservative justices on the bench, we should be putting on reliable liberals. It's not like Republicans want a moderate Supreme Court - They only want Democrats to nominate moderates.

Further, he's too old. Within 15 years or so, we will be back having a fight about this again. His age was a concession to Republicans in hope that they would be more open to a nominee that they can have a chance at replacing in 15 years instead of 30. Why should we still give that to them if they lose in November? Hell, Garland should be withdrawn and Clinton should nominate an ultra-liberal 30 year old so this current generation of morally and ethically bankrupt Republicans never get a chance to fill his seat.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hopefully Obama withdraws Garland in the lame duck as a big FU to them.

Would be quite the disgusting treatment of a universally respected judge to do so.

Oh yeah, because the GOP is treating this "universally respected judge" SO well.

Of course the GOP isn't treating him respectfully. I believe the point was that there's no reason for Obama to screw over Garland like that.

Exactly.

While I'm ambivalent on the confirmation (they really should at least put him through the wringer in confirmations and make their case why they think he doesn't deserve to be on the court), they're playing typical partisan games. They don't want their advantage on the court to go away, simple as that.

For Obama to essentially Charlie-Brown a respected jurist and yank away the nomination just as it's about to happen because he sees a better deal would be senseless and cruel. Unless Garland was in on it the whole time, but I seriously doubt that,

But if he is, he can sit through a couple of days of confirmation hearings and then announce he's withdrawing himself from consideration because he's so disappointed by how some people in the Senate have politicized the confirmation process (inevitably one of the Tea Party senators will have said/asked something inflammatory by then). Then Obama can give a speech about how he tried to extend an olive branch and offer a nominee that everyone could accept but the Senate Republicans spat in his face.

Then next year, the Senate will confirm 39 year old Shanequa Barrios-Chung as the first bisexual transwoman atheist SCOTUS justice on a 51-49 vote.

Except the SCOTUS 60 vote filibuster still exists, and Republicans WILL use it.

Schumer has already said if he's in control of the Senate and the Republicans keep up this charade, he will get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

Except he can't do it unilaterally - even under nuclear rules you need 51 votes to change the rules. Unless this is going to be an utter R destruction, a D majority in 2017 will be 51-49 or 52-48. They'd have to get essentially every Democrat on board with the change, and the 5 romney-state ones (which could become 6, I wouldn't underestimate Kirkpatrick) might not be willing to go along with it - and the 5 current ones are all up for reelection in 2018 - this will REEK of partisanship like nothing else to MO/ND/MT/WV/IN.

Before you toss the idea of dems going against Schumer out the window, remember that D leadership was still whipping FEINSTEIN into submission in the final days before the vote to end filibusters for all justices except SCOTUS.

[Virginiá]

Except he can't do it unilaterally - even under nuclear rules you need 51 votes to change the rules. Unless this is going to be an utter R destruction, a D majority in 2017 will be 51-49 or 52-48. They'd have to get essentially every Democrat on board with the change, and the 5 romney-state ones (which could become 6, I wouldn't underestimate Kirkpatrick) might not be willing to go along with it - and the 5 current ones are all up for reelection in 2018 - this will REEK of partisanship like nothing else to MO/ND/MT/WV/IN.

Before you toss the idea of dems going against Schumer out the window, remember that D leadership was still whipping FEINSTEIN into submission in the final days before the vote to end filibusters for all justices except SCOTUS.

You could be right, but what Republicans are doing right now is very significant and unprecedented. They are going against the spirit of that thing they say they love so much, I think it's called the Constitution, purely for partisan purposes. On top of that, it's an affront to Obama/Democrats, even after he went out of his way to please them with a consensus nominee.

Given that, it's really not hard to see Democrats agreeing to gut it.

[Bojack Horseman]

At that point, Obama should definitely withdraw Garland and let Hillary appoint the next RBG to the court.

Yes, damn right. I can live with Garland, but personally, I want someone younger and more liberal. If Republicans are going to put reliable conservative justices on the bench, we should be putting on reliable liberals. It's not like Republicans want a moderate Supreme Court - They only want Democrats to nominate moderates.

Further, he's too old. Within 15 years or so, we will be back having a fight about this again. His age was a concession to Republicans in hope that they would be more open to a nominee that they can have a chance at replacing in 15 years instead of 30. Why should we still give that to them if they lose in November? Hell, Garland should be withdrawn and Clinton should nominate an ultra-liberal 30 year old so this current generation of morally and ethically bankrupt Republicans never get a chance to fill his seat.

Not only that, my goal would be to shove it up their asses more than anything else.

[Virginiá]

Frankly, I would not be surprised if Democrats have 54-58 seats next year with how things are going.  If so, I could see them dropping the general filibuster threshold from 60 to 55 votes, but leaving it in place at 55 for general legislation and for SCOTUS.  They should be able to get Collins and Graham for any non-crazy Clinton nominee next year anyway.

I agree with that. It's time that they either get rid of it, or reduce the number of votes required for cloture, because at this point it has effectively crippled Congress. There is no reason we have to worship and defend very old Senate rules just for the sake of it. It no longer works, and new rules are needed.

Honestly, I also do not believe the American people are willing to sit through another 2 - 8 years of gridlock while America's problems worsen. For Democrats, if we win the White House this year, that means things need to get done or people will blame the party who holds the WH, as usual.

[i4indyguy]

I have thought from the beginning (may not have posted my thoughts here) that this stance is likely to result in an enormous strategic and tactical defeat for the republican party and the conservative movement.  And yet I see very little personal incentive for Sen McConnell to take anything but the position articulated. This seems to be a classic 'there's gunna be some blood shed.   As long as none of it ends up on me....' position.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have thought from the beginning (may not have posted my thoughts here) that this stance is likely to result in an enormous strategic and tactical defeat for the republican party and the conservative movement..

Not really. This is the sort of process issue that can fire up the base and thus is important for primary elections but is of minimal impact in general elections.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Hopefully Obama withdraws Garland in the lame duck as a big FU to them.

Would be quite the disgusting treatment of a universally respected judge to do so.

Oh yeah, because the GOP is treating this "universally respected judge" SO well.

Of course the GOP isn't treating him respectfully. I believe the point was that there's no reason for Obama to screw over Garland like that.

Exactly.

While I'm ambivalent on the confirmation (they really should at least put him through the wringer in confirmations and make their case why they think he doesn't deserve to be on the court), they're playing typical partisan games. They don't want their advantage on the court to go away, simple as that.

For Obama to essentially Charlie-Brown a respected jurist and yank away the nomination just as it's about to happen because he sees a better deal would be senseless and cruel. Unless Garland was in on it the whole time, but I seriously doubt that,

No, senseless and cruel is taking away people's healthcare for no reason.  Garland will live (although many Republicans have claimed the best thing about him is that he might die ten years from now).  If it hurts his feelings to have his nomination withdrawn before the lameduck so a more liberal justice can be nominated, that's life.  

[SteveRogers]

I just find it unlikely that Obama would make the last act of his presidency admitting to the American people that he intentionally put up a substandard Supreme Court nominee.

[Virginiá]

I just find it unlikely that Obama would make the last act of his presidency admitting to the American people that he intentionally put up a substandard Supreme Court nominee.

That really depends on how you want to define 'substandard'. He put up a candidate that he thought would best fit what he wanted in a justice while also having the best chance of getting confirmed. Clearly he deferred heavily towards attributes that make the nominee more acceptable to the GOP.