Hillary under pressure to renominate Garland if she wins

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yean, at this point it will take a miracle for the Dems to retake the House before 2022.

[Lyin' Steve]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.

He is qualified, but he's too old. Democrats would shortchange themselves by picking him instead of a younger, 50~ year old justice who would likely be on the bench almost twice as long. Why should Republicans get a gift like Garland after what they have done? A GOP president sure as hell wouldn't pick Garland in this situation, not if they knew they could nominate a younger conservative just by waiting.

It's one thing to pick by ideology, but age should be a major factor here. We have other candidates for this spot that would be better suited. In addition, Clinton should get to pick whoever she wants. Garland was a compromise pick, after all.

Age is a better argument than ideology, but you'd have to explain why age matters for any other reason than making that partisan ideological stamp last longer.
Also I think it's a shame that judges who have dreams of being on the Supreme Court are now being told that once they reach their 60s, at the peak of their judicial wisdom and experience, that they are too old for a lifetime appointment.

[Mehmentum]

Doesn't the nominee need to get 60 votes (unless the filibuster rules change)?  That might make it difficult to get leftist's 'ideal' justice through.  Then again, if the Republicans throw a fit over the supreme court, that could make them look bad (especially considering how they've delayed the nomination for a year already).

Perhaps what Clinton could do is nominate a liberal, let the Republicans throw their fit, then 'settle' for Garland.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yean, at this point it will take a miracle for the Dems to retake the House before 2022.

Only if a Dem appointee at SCOTUS joins the other liberals to strike down partisan gerrymanders as unconstitutional.

Doesn't the nominee need to get 60 votes (unless the filibuster rules change)? 

If Hillary is elected and Dems take the majority at the senate, the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees is as good as gone.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

What is wrong with you?  You're logic of the first woman president picking her own nominee means democracy is over is bizarre and perhaps sexist.  She's been through two grueling national campaigns.  She can pick whoever she wants... as per the Constitution of the United States of America.  WTF, man?!

[President Johnson]

Without having read the entire discussion: Isn't it more likely that Garland will be confirmed during the lame-duck session if (or when?) Hillary wins? The GOP likely fears that she'll nominate a more liberal justice than Garland. Especially when Democrats win back the senate.

[politicallefty]

This is obviously ridiculous. President Obama should withdraw the nomination immediately after the election. It's almost funny to see right-wingers and right-wing-apologists go out of their way to support Garland's nominations to the Supreme Court just to try to make sure the Supreme Court doesn't have a solid liberal majority.

Republicans in the Senate have held firm in their belief that the current Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by the next President. How many of you on the right honestly believe that a President Trump should renominate Judge Garland to fill Justice Scalia's seat? Why should a President Hillary Clinton be bound by anything President Obama has done? If I were President-elect Hillary Clinton with at least 52 seats in the Senate, I would thoroughly vet and nominate California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu. Republicans would not play softball and neither should Democrats. Hillary Clinton should play hardball from the start and nominate staunch liberals to the federal bench. If Democrats can hold the White House for the next eight years, the federal judiciary will be almost irrevocably liberal for the next two generations.

At the least, I want a staunch liberal no more than 50 to fill Justice Scalia's seat. If Hillary Clinton is elected President, it will be her right to choose the best possible replacement to Scalia.

For those that mention the lame-duck period, I have little doubt President Obama would withdraw his nomination to allow a President-elect Hillary Clinton to nominate her own replacement to that seat. A subtle middle finger from President Obama to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would be quite fitting on his way out of office, no?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

What issues is Garland moderate on?

[Virginiá]

Age is a better argument than ideology, but you'd have to explain why age matters for any other reason than making that partisan ideological stamp last longer.
Also I think it's a shame that judges who have dreams of being on the Supreme Court are now being told that once they reach their 60s, at the peak of their judicial wisdom and experience, that they are too old for a lifetime appointment.

It's strategy. Democrats for the next 8 years should focus on tearing down any remnants of a conservative judiciary. If Republicans want to continue leveraging state power to rig maps and Congressional power to obstruct everything, including judicial appointments, then we should go about reforming the judicial branch in its entirety to begin putting an end to some of the most egregious conservative power plays, such as gerrymandering and campaign finance deregulation - two things that a conservative judiciary has allowed to get way out of control.

We can return to normal once the GOP agrees to stop its mass obstruction in the Senate, otherwise we need to consider that in the future, armed with a Senate majority, they may feel empowered to begin blocking SCOTUS/lower-court nominations even longer than they have now.

I don't even like the idea of this, but what do you do when the other side plays dirty, hoping you'll decide to be the better person while they screw you over every chance they get?

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

Age is a better argument than ideology, but you'd have to explain why age matters for any other reason than making that partisan ideological stamp last longer.
Also I think it's a shame that judges who have dreams of being on the Supreme Court are now being told that once they reach their 60s, at the peak of their judicial wisdom and experience, that they are too old for a lifetime appointment.

It's strategy. Democrats for the next 8 years should focus on tearing down any remnants of a conservative judiciary. If Republicans want to continue leveraging state power to rig maps and Congressional power to obstruct everything, including judicial appointments, then we should go about reforming the judicial branch in its entirety to begin putting an end to some of the most egregious conservative power plays, such as gerrymandering and campaign finance deregulation - two things that a conservative judiciary has allowed to get way out of control.

We can return to normal once the GOP agrees to stop its mass obstruction in the Senate, otherwise we need to consider that in the future, armed with a Senate majority, they may feel empowered to begin blocking SCOTUS/lower-court nominations even longer than they have now.

I don't even like the idea of this, but what do you do when the other side plays dirty, hoping you'll decide to be the better person while they screw you over every chance they get?

If you just get into a fight of doing something really liberal or really conservative just to get back at the other side, then the other side gets in power and does the same, then you get in power again and do the same, it's an eternal psuedo-fistfight. That's not government. That's acting like children.

And trust me, no matter how much you deny it, Dems only oppose gerrymandering when they're out of power. If they had a majority of governorships and state legislatures in a redistricting year, they'd gerrymander every state they could to no end, and the Republicans will be the ones being all #stopgerrymandering.

And don't think republicans are the only ones who support gridlocked government and always toing the party line. Remember how Harry Reid allowed almost no bill amendments on the Senate floor, even when members of his own party in tough races wanted him to do so? Remember how when Schumer came out against the Iran Deal, he was screamed at until he agreed to not try to persuade anyone to agree with him? And under Pelosi, it was rumored that anyone wanting to vote against the party line on anything had to get her personal permission first.

[Lyin' Steve]

If you just get into a fight of doing something really liberal or really conservative just to get back at the other side, then the other side gets in power and does the same, then you get in power again and do the same, it's an eternal psuedo-fistfight. That's not government. That's acting like children.

Yep

We can return to normal once the GOP agrees to stop its mass obstruction in the Senate, otherwise we need to consider that in the future, armed with a Senate majority, they may feel empowered to begin blocking SCOTUS/lower-court nominations even longer than they have now.

I agree that we shouldn't pay ransom, essentially, but the argument you're making here boils down to "we're going to be hyper-partisan until they stop being hyper-partisan."  They could use that exact same argument and keep the gridlock going forever... either that or we'll have to wait around until another Henry Clay comes to power and tries to use his power to bridge the divide rather than enacting his personal policy views.

[Virginiá]

I agree that we shouldn't pay ransom, essentially, but the argument you're making here boils down to "we're going to be hyper-partisan until they stop being hyper-partisan."  They could use that exact same argument and keep the gridlock going forever... either that or we'll have to wait around until another Henry Clay comes to power and tries to use his power to bridge the divide rather than enacting his personal policy views.

If you just get into a fight of doing something really liberal or really conservative just to get back at the other side, then the other side gets in power and does the same, then you get in power again and do the same, it's an eternal psuedo-fistfight. That's not government. That's acting like children.

I completely understand this, believe it or not, but what should Democrats do? Roll over, play nice while Republicans continue to play dirty? I'm sick of it. Personally, I want their influence in the courts completely obliterated for what they have done to voting rights and campaign finance regulations.

I'm no longer advocating that Democrats be the better people while Republicans screw everyone over for their own benefit. I'd love for them to have a truce, but until then, that is my position on this matter. I just don't care anymore that it's a crappy position to hold.

And trust me, no matter how much you deny it, Dems only oppose gerrymandering when they're out of power. If they had a majority of governorships and state legislatures in a redistricting year, they'd gerrymander every state they could to no end, and the Republicans will be the ones being all #stopgerrymandering.

You're aware of the partisan composition of the states, right? Democrats are not going to be in a position where allowing gerrymandering for Congressional races will give them a net benefit for a long time. If we continue to hold the White House, there is very little chance of controlling a substantial number of critical legislatures in 2021 to rig the maps in a way that makes it worth it. Democrats, very likely for the next generation will benefit far more from banning Congressional gerrymandering than allowing it. To say otherwise is pretty stupid unless you think we are going to somehow sweep all/most of the legislatures and governors mansions in the South and rust belt before 2021-2022.

Frankly, I don't care why Democrats push to ban gerrymandering. I just want fair maps in every state so we can stop this blatant form of corruption. If Democrats do this purely for partisan purposes, fine by me, because in the end the will of the voters will mean more than under these bs maps.

[Lyin' Steve]

I completely understand this, believe it or not, but what should Democrats do? Roll over, play nice while Republicans continue to play dirty? I'm sick of it. Personally, I want their influence in the courts completely obliterated for what they have done to voting rights and campaign finance regulations.

Personally I think they should eat the center and run on a platform of balance, level-headedness, and anti-extremism.  Instead of playing the GOP's game, just continue to marginalize them until we have a situation like the 60s and 70s where policy debates are center-dems vs. left-dems instead of left vs. right and the GOP understands that it needs to fundamentally change to get back into the conversation.  It's not immediately gratifying but in the long run it's not only better for our country but will also end in achieving the party's goals.

[Beet]

Yeah, I have no problem with Garland being renominated. It would be a dick move to nominate the guy, and then pull him. He's obviously qualified.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

It would be a good move. He has universal support among the party and it would be a goodwill gesture to the man and to the outgoing President. She has the right to choose her own, but given that she's basically guaranteed to get two nominations (her husband's last two remaining picks) if not 3, it would be a good way to start off.

Her choosing to go her own path would be understandable, though, and not half the slap in the face that Obama pulling the nomination after the election would be.

[IceSpear]

Yeah, I have no problem with Garland being renominated. It would be a dick move to nominate the guy, and then pull him. He's obviously qualified.

Hey Beet, where have you been? I noticed you disappeared once Hillary surged in the polls.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yeah, I have no problem with Garland being renominated. It would be a dick move to nominate the guy, and then pull him. He's obviously qualified.

I would have expected more longtime Clinton supporters to reject the idea that she's obligated to stick with the previous president's failed (or stakemated, if you prefer) nominee.

I think, equally, picking someone else for the sake of  it when there is someone eminently qualified already lined up and vetted is silly. He's not 'failed' ANYONE Obama put up, would be rejected.

However, I think the final decision would depend on the Senate. If she's only got a small majority, then I think there would be pressure to not go for the moon. However, a bit of a buffer and political momentum means she could pick someone a little more "risky". But again, I don't think she should bin Garland just 'cause.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

There is no such thing as "the best judge in the country".

As Virginia has noted over and over again, it's one thing to wish everybody would play nicer, but one side cannot unilaterally disarm if the other side won't agree to disarm too, and hope to gain any advantage. There has to be another way around this than chiding the Democrats for playing hardball (and really, let's be honest, only sort of playing hardball).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bill nominated and appointed Breyer and Ginnsberg and Garland is the next Justice. Once the Ginnsberg seat is opened up, thats the time to nominate a liberal.  But Garland for now will be fast tracked by McConnell in the LAME DUCK session.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I think, equally, picking someone else for the sake of  it when there is someone eminently qualified already lined up and vetted is silly. He's not 'failed' ANYONE Obama put up, would be rejected.

However, I think the final decision would depend on the Senate. If she's only got a small majority, then I think there would be pressure to not go for the moon. However, a bit of a buffer and political momentum means she could pick someone a little more "risky". But again, I don't think she should bin Garland just 'cause.

I was going to object to the first sentence in that quote but I read the rest of the quote.  The Garland pick was a political move from the every beginning.  He was not picked as Obama's dream nominee but to box the Republican majority in.  Frankly at the moment I don't think it worked.  With the Trump circus sucking the oxygen out of the room I don't hear anyone talking about the Supreme Court.  Whether Obama picked a RBG clone or Garland doesn't seem to have made any difference.  When Clinton gets to the White House if the opening is still there it is up to her to assess the political situation and make her own decision.

I just find the whole premise of this thread ludicrous.  The Garland pick started off as a political maneuver so Clinton not renominatting him isn't any more political.