Should Hillary renominate Garland

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I believe no, for two reasons.

1. The new President cannot be beholden to the previous' appointments. If Hillary wants to renominate Garland because she thinks he's the best pick, that's fine, but renominating him solely because Obama's nominated him first is silly.

2. With all respect for Garland, he is just too old (63). Let's not kid ourselves, both conservative and liberal Presidents prefer younger nominees who can stay on the bench longer.

[Redban]

I'm a Republican, so I would rather she did. If I put myself in her shoes, however, then the answer is no.

Firstly -- it feeds the notion that she is Obama's 3rd term, which demeans her candidacy and self-respect.

Secondly -- if she wins the election, then she has all the momentum on her side. She may as well use that momentum to get someone who will give her everything she wants (e.g. abortion rights, DAPA, environmentalism) instead of a moderate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No. The Court needs a staunch progressive voice, and Republicans burned the bridge for consensus on judicial appointments long ago.

[LLR]

voted yes, because we need a Jewish majority on the supreme court

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

She should out of the good of the heart, but it's not as if he's the only person I'd approve of her nominating. If she wants Sirvansian or Klobuchar, let's hold the hearing and see how things go.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, need I remind everybody that the SCOTUS is still two justices short of correct gender representation? Another woman would be nice.

[Sir Mohamed]

No, I’d like to have someone more progressive and of younger age. And the Republicans should learn their lessons when President Clinton picks a more liberal judge. However, I have respect for Mr. Garland and prefer him over any Drumpf appointee.

[progressive85]

I voted yes because the poor guy seems like a reasonable man.  He is an older man, but he can still live a long time.  If she wants to choose someone else, I'd suggest an Asian - Jacqueline Nguyen, Denny Chin, Goodwin Liu... someone historic.  She can also choose Sri Srinivasan.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Garland's qualifications notwhitstanding, we all know the reason he was nominated: that us to counter GOP obstructionism. It was making a point and I'm pretty sure he knew it all along when he said "yes" to Obama.

[Orser67]

Depends. If she's going to try to replace Breyer and/or Ginsburg before 2019, then definitely.

Otherwise, I'm ambivalent. Garland is a little older and more centrist than I'd like, but he's vetted and ready for a vote. Handling a Supreme Court nominee while starting a new presidency would be tough and would distract from other things.

[heatcharger]

No, for many of the reasons that have been stated here.

He can be renominated if Thomas, Roberts, or Kennedy retires/dies in the next few years, but otherwise, she should appoint different people. It's a tough position for him, but Obama had to have told him he'd be a political pawn.

[GLPman]

Absolutely.

[RFayette]

voted yes, because we need a Jewish majority on the supreme court

What the Court really needs is a good, Bible-believing Baptist.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

voted yes, because we need a Jewish majority on the supreme court

What the Court really needs is a good, Bible-believing Baptist.

What the Court really needs is a mandatory retirement age.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

voted yes, because we need a Jewish majority on the supreme court

What the Court really needs is a good, Bible-believing Baptist.

What the Court really needs is a mandatory retirement age.

This is one of my least favorite ideas in political reform discourse. It's worse than term limits.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Yes, because it's the easiest way to get a quick liberal majority without burning the SC filibuster - something that she's pragmatic enough to know could bite the party in the butt down the line. A Senate with 51-52 Dems would likely be able to pass Garland because the hardline Republicans would know they can't win this fight. The public will have spoken and they have no more argument.

Also, because of the perception, right or wrong, that this was Obama's vacancy to fill. By honoring his wishes, she curries good will with her base. She's also guaranteed to get at least one, probably two more vacancies during the four years.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

voted yes, because we need a Jewish majority on the supreme court

What the Court really needs is a good, Bible-believing Baptist.

What the Court really needs is a mandatory retirement age.

This is one of my least favorite ideas in political reform discourse. It's worse than term limits.

I have to concede this will easily result in Presidents appointing younger and younger candidates, but I'm not very comfortable with the idea of someone sitting on the court for like 40 years.

[Antonio the Sixth]

voted yes, because we need a Jewish majority on the supreme court

What the Court really needs is a good, Bible-believing Baptist.

What the Court really needs is a mandatory retirement age.

This is one of my least favorite ideas in political reform discourse. It's worse than term limits.

I have to concede this will easily result in Presidents appointing younger and younger candidates, but I'm not very comfortable with the idea of someone sitting on the court for like 40 years.

The obvious solution is to put term limits. 18 years, with one Justice's seat up every 2 years, seems reasonable.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

voted yes, because we need a Jewish majority on the supreme court

What the Court really needs is a good, Bible-believing Baptist.

What the Court really needs is a mandatory retirement age.

This is one of my least favorite ideas in political reform discourse. It's worse than term limits.

I have to concede this will easily result in Presidents appointing younger and younger candidates, but I'm not very comfortable with the idea of someone sitting on the court for like 40 years.

The obvious solution is to put term limits. 18 years, with one Justice's seat up every 2 years, seems reasonable.

The idea of every President getting to name two judges is my favorite part of this. Equalizes the whole process.

How would sudden vacancies be dealt with?

[Antonio the Sixth]

How would sudden vacancies be dealt with?

In those cases the sitting President would get to nominate one more Justice, but only for the remainder of the term rather than to a full 18 years.

[Slander and/or Libel]

voted yes, because we need a Jewish majority on the supreme court

What the Court really needs is a good, Bible-believing Baptist.

What the Court really needs is a mandatory retirement age.

This is one of my least favorite ideas in political reform discourse. It's worse than term limits.

I have to concede this will easily result in Presidents appointing younger and younger candidates, but I'm not very comfortable with the idea of someone sitting on the court for like 40 years.

The obvious solution is to put term limits. 18 years, with one Justice's seat up every 2 years, seems reasonable.

This is such an easily implemented solution. Have each justice's term come up on 1/20, one and three years after the presidential inauguration, so they're as far removed from electoral politics as possible. Or maybe have them come up in November for the same reason. Whatever the timing, it's a good-good idea.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

voted yes, because we need a Jewish majority on the supreme court

I didn't know he was a Jewy Garland!

[PollsDontLie]

If Hillary won, why wouldn't the Senate just confirm Garland before she takes office?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If Hillary won, why wouldn't the Senate just confirm Garland before she takes office?

They would have just spend a whole year saying the president shouldn't get to choose the Supreme Court member in his final year in office.

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

If Hillary won, why wouldn't the Senate just confirm Garland before she takes office?

They would have just spend a whole year saying the president shouldn't get to choose the Supreme Court member in his final year in office.

You think McConnell cares much about that? Yeah, it's why they won't confirm Garland before the election no matter how much Trump trails, as it could easily backfire, but if and after Hillary wins and takes the senate, I could easily see them deciding they can't risk a more liberal nominee and therefore elect to approve Garland while they have the chance.