Democrats to hold forum on Garland; Reid says Hillary should renominate him

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meanwhile, Reid tarnishes his legacy among liberal democrats:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/senate-merrick-garland-hearings-223238

[Virginiá]

Meanwhile, Reid tarnishes his legacy among liberal democrats:

I'm not sure it would look good if Reid said Hillary shouldn't renominate the guy later while he's fighting to get him nominated right now

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

Yeah, but he could have just dodged the question, which is what Hillary is basically doing right now as far as I know.

[Ebsy]

Yeah, but he could have just dodged the question, which is what Hillary is basically doing right now as far as I know.

Yes, she is, because it is a ridiculous question. Someone has already been nominated for the seat, and both tradition and the Constitution dictate that he should be confirmed in a timely manner.

[Zioneer]

How is Garland so unacceptable for liberal Democrats again?

[SteveRogers]

How is Garland so unacceptable for liberal Democrats again?

Because he old

[beaver2.0]

I think it would be kind of dirty to not renominate Garland.  Dangling a Supreme Court seat in front of him and then taking it away seems kind of messed up.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I think it would be kind of dirty to not renominate Garland.  Dangling a Supreme Court seat in front of him and then taking it away seems kind of messed up.

Eh, not really. The President has the right to choose their own nominee.

Now, Obama pulling the nomination after Hillary wins to prevent a confirmation - that would be dirty pool, but I doubt that will happen.

[Vega]

Garland is really the most conservative judge that Obama could have picked. I hope Clinton drops him quick, and if/when the Republicans try to vote for him in the lame duck session, Obama withdraws him.

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

How is Garland so unacceptable for liberal Democrats again?

Unclear position on Abortion, guns, citizens united.

[Hermit For Peace]

If Hillary wins then maybe she should choose a flaming liberal to teach the GOP a lesson.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

If Hillary wins then maybe she should choose a flaming liberal to teach the GOP a lesson.

I say repeat Garland, then when the next seat lets up, get a raging leftist in.

[Virginiá]

If Hillary wins then maybe she should choose a flaming liberal to teach the GOP a lesson.

I say repeat Garland, then when the next seat lets up, get a raging leftist in.

I don't think I would mind Garland as much if he was 13~ years younger. However, contemporary Republicans are always going to fill SCOTUS seats with young, reliable conservatives, so why shouldn't we nominate young, reliable liberals as well?

As I've said before, the only time Republicans want a moderate, balanced Supreme Court is when a Democratic president is nominating justices.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If Hillary is elected and the seat is still vacant, she should be free to nominate whomever she chooses.

[Hermit For Peace]

If Hillary wins then maybe she should choose a flaming liberal to teach the GOP a lesson.

I say repeat Garland, then when the next seat lets up, get a raging leftist in.

I don't think I would mind Garland as much if he was 13~ years younger. However, contemporary Republicans are always going to fill SCOTUS seats with young, reliable conservatives, so why shouldn't we nominate young, reliable liberals as well?

As I've said before, the only time Republicans want a moderate, balanced Supreme Court is when a Democratic president is nominating justices.

Dang! Too old? I'm older than he is and I've got a lot of years left in me.

[Vega]

If Hillary wins then maybe she should choose a flaming liberal to teach the GOP a lesson.

I say repeat Garland, then when the next seat lets up, get a raging leftist in.

I don't think I would mind Garland as much if he was 13~ years younger. However, contemporary Republicans are always going to fill SCOTUS seats with young, reliable conservatives, so why shouldn't we nominate young, reliable liberals as well?

As I've said before, the only time Republicans want a moderate, balanced Supreme Court is when a Democratic president is nominating justices.

Dang! Too old? I'm older than he is and I've got a lot of years left in me.

Yeah, I think of all Garland's problems, age isn't one of them. It would be nice if he was younger, but people live a long time nowadays.

[Virginiá]

Dang! Too old? I'm older than he is and I've got a lot of years left in me.

Yeah, I think of all Garland's problems, age isn't one of them. It would be nice if he was younger, but people live a long time nowadays.

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not saying I believe age makes Garland a lesser justice. I'm saying this because in all likelihood, he will either retire or pass away within the next 15 - 18 years, going by the average retiring date for USSC justices. At that point, we will be back here, fighting over a nomination. The other problem is, it might be a Republican president making that nomination.

I say all this from a strategic/partisan point of view. I'd rather have a more liberal, younger justice who will be on the bench for 30 - 35 years, rather than one who will be on there for 15 - 20 years, tops. Conservatives have maintained a functional majority on the USSC for literally generations. I really want to prevent that again for as long as possible, especially after the damage the Roberts court has done so quickly to our electoral system

[dax00]

Garland is too damn conservative.

Unclear position on Abortion, guns, citizens united.

He supports Citizens United and wants even more money to be able to be brought into politics.

[Cory]

I say repeat Garland, then when the next seat lets up, get a raging leftist in.

Except odds are the next seat "letting up" will be Ginsburg dying. So it's a moot point with that idea.

I hate to sound like this but if Hillary wins and the Democrats have a Senate majority Ginsburg should retire and make way for a younger liberal justice to be also appointed. But of course she thinks her ego is more important than everything she believes in so fat chance.

[Gass3268]

I say repeat Garland, then when the next seat lets up, get a raging leftist in.

Except odds are the next seat "letting up" will be Ginsburg dying. So it's a moot point with that idea.

I hate to sound like this but if Hillary wins and the Democrats have a Senate majority Ginsburg should retire and make way for a younger liberal justice to be also appointed. But of course she thinks her ego is more important than everything she believes in so fat chance.

Personally I'd like to see Ginsberg and Breyer retire. It would allow Obama/Clinton to have 5 justice majority on the court.

[Virginiá]

Well, I don't think you'll have to worry about that for long (nor will conservatives in the alternative scenario).  I've said before that we are probably 10-20 years at most from SCOTUS being treated like the House of Lords.  I fully expect that it will be normal by 2030 for any party that just won control of both congress and the presidency to simply give themselves a court majority by adding seats during their first year in office.  I do hope the criminal justice functions of SCOTUS get split off and sent somewhere less political, though (which probably wouldn't require a constitutional amendment).  

I suppose such a court-packing tradition could become reality, but I think that would require a special set of circumstances to officially kick it off, let alone continue it so often. I don't think the optics of such moves would be good at all and it could very well backfire on whoever tries it first come election time.. but, we'll see. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.

I say repeat Garland, then when the next seat lets up, get a raging leftist in.

Except odds are the next seat "letting up" will be Ginsburg dying. So it's a moot point with that idea.

I hate to sound like this but if Hillary wins and the Democrats have a Senate majority Ginsburg should retire and make way for a younger liberal justice to be also appointed. But of course she thinks her ego is more important than everything she believes in so fat chance.

Some justices do retire at the beginning of the term of their party's president, or at a time when their seat can be filled by a like-minded justice. I suppose Ginsburg didn't want to retire just yet in 2010 - 2014, but she is very old now and tbh, has been looking pretty frail for a number of years now. I wouldn't be surprised if she retired (or passed away) in the next 4 years regardless of who wins. It would have been nice to retire while Obama could have still gotten through a young, liberal justice, but at the same time she is a fine woman and I don't hold it against her.

My ideal vision of the next 4 years regarding the USSC would be that Breyer and Ginsburg retire to make way for 2 young, liberal justices and that Scalia's seat is filled with a similar justice. That would give us a long-lasting 5-4 seat majority. In addition, Kennedy is also pretty old now and could very well be off the bench in the next 4 years, and almost definitely within the next 8 years. If Democrats hold the White House for the next 8 years, we could have a 6-3 majority for over a decade.

[dax00]

There's speak around here of court-packing. I'd personally prefer less SCOTUS justices were I president - 3 or 5 of them. That'd be a lot easier to control.

[SteveRogers]

There's speak around here of court-packing. I'd personally prefer less SCOTUS justices were I president - 3 or 5 of them. That'd be a lot easier to control.

The whole point of having a Judicial branch is to not have the other branches control it.

[dax00]

There's speak around here of court-packing. I'd personally prefer less SCOTUS justices were I president - 3 or 5 of them. That'd be a lot easier to control.

The whole point of having a Judicial branch is to not have the other branches control it.

I'm not disputing that. As long as Congress has the power to change the number of SCOTUS justices and people like Trump are viable for the presidency, SCOTUS is liable to become heavily controlled.

[Lyin' Steve]

There's speak around here of court-packing. I'd personally prefer less SCOTUS justices were I president - 3 or 5 of them. That'd be a lot easier to control.

The whole point of having a Judicial branch is to not have the other branches control it.

The whole point of having the judicial branch was to have an independent, apolitical voice that would interpret the constitution and act as a check for the other two branches.
The politicization of the judicial branch is one of the most harmful ways we've bastardized the constitution.
Hillary should keep Garland.  The man is obviously qualified for the job and will make an excellent justice.  Withdrawing him because he's not liberal enough is exactly the opposite of what the founders wanted.  If she thinks he interprets the law incorrectly she's welcome to withdraw him, as Bill may have done if Clarence Thomas was still sitting there in January 1993.  But she shouldn't withdraw him just because he's not liberal enough.  If the most important think to her in picking a supreme court justice is having someone who agrees with her then she should just nominate herself and be done with it.