• Obama to Nominate Merrick Garland to Supreme Court
    36 replies, posted
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Z1zTL4M.jpg[/t] [quote]WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday will nominate Merrick B. Garland as the nation’s 113th justice, according to White House officials, choosing a centrist appeals court judge widely respected even by Republicans in hopes his choice will be considered by the Senate. In choosing Judge Garland, a well-known moderate who has drawn bipartisan support over decades, Mr. Obama was essentially daring Republicans to press their election-year confirmation fight over a judge many of them have publicly praised and who would be difficult for them to reject, particularly if a Democrat were to win the November presidential election and they faced the prospect of a more liberal nominee in 2017.[/quote] [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0]NY Times[/url]
Why do I get the feeling they're going to be approving this come November
I'm surprised they picked someone as old as Garland. Now to see how senate Republicans react, here's to hoping they break their teeth trying to block him.
He's a moderate liberal. This is good news. Whatever the result of the Congressional elections this November, we can be assured that arguably the most powerful branch in government will remain liberal. This will also coincide well with our upcoming liberal president (Hilliary Clinton) making America more liberal in the wrong run as two out of three branches will be guaranteed to be liberal.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49944493]He's a moderate liberal. This is good news. Whatever the result of the Congressional elections this November, we can be assured that arguably the most powerful branch in government will remain liberal. This will also coincide well with our upcoming liberal president (Hilliary Clinton) making America more liberal in the wrong run as two out of three branches will be guaranteed to be liberal.[/QUOTE] I would argue that the best makeup of the supreme court is balance, and does not lean liberal or conservative.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49944545]I would argue that the best makeup of the supreme court is balance, and does not lean liberal or conservative.[/QUOTE] I agree. However, I think this is the best shot for a nomination. He's gotten enough done via bipartisan means supposedly and is centrist so it's better than whatever would come if the Democrats win the nomination again.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49944545]I would argue that the best makeup of the supreme court is balance, and does not lean liberal or conservative.[/QUOTE] But how else am I supposed to force my political agendas? [editline]16th March 2016[/editline] I was actually expecting him to choose a more progressive justice, though.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49944545]I would argue that the best makeup of the supreme court is balance, and does not lean liberal or conservative.[/QUOTE] [quote][URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html"]If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years. Measures of ideology by four political scientists show where the justices stand in relation to one another. Judge Garland’s score is based on his time as a federal appeals court judge. [/URL][/quote] With the death of Scalia, we are now at 5 liberals to 4 conservatives. [editline]16th March 2016[/editline] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4CkAmpg.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=OvB;49944562]But how else am I supposed to force my political agendas? [editline]16th March 2016[/editline] I was actually expecting him to choose a more progressive justice, though.[/QUOTE] Obama knows a progressive judge wouldn't make it in so he may as well try and pull a fast one on the GOP. Although I'd prefer a more conservative judge just to keep that balance we had with Scalia.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49944690]Although I'd prefer a more conservative judge just to keep that balance we had with Scalia.[/QUOTE] Why is the Scalia-balance so important to you? He was responsible for some of the most regressive opinions in Supreme Court history. In addition, Scalia's appointment destroyed the balance we had before the esteemed liberal justice Warren E. Burger retired from the court. So by your logic, Scalia's appointment - in effect - destroyed this "balance" you mention, and the only way to "rebalance" it would be to confirm Obama's semi-liberal appointee.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49944659]With the death of Scalia, we are now at 5 liberals to 4 conservatives. [editline]16th March 2016[/editline] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4CkAmpg.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] And you see no problem with that?
We are never going to have bipartisan balance in the Supreme Court. It usually varies from the most conservative Justices to the moderate-centrist liberals. We might as well go liberal, as they are more compromising than the worst ideologues we've seen so far on either side (i.e. Scalia).
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49944741]We are never going to have bipartisan balance in the Supreme Court. It usually varies from the most conservative Justices to the moderate-centrist liberals. We might as well go liberal, as they are more compromising than the worst ideologues we've seen so far on either side (i.e. Scalia).[/QUOTE] We just had a bipartisan balance. What are you talking about?
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49944718]Why is the Scalia-balance so important to you? He was responsible for some of the most regressive opinions in Supreme Court history. In addition, Scalia's appointment destroyed the balance we had with the esteemed liberal justice Warren E. Burger. So by your logic, Scalia's appointment - in effect - destroyed this "balance" you mention, and the only way to "rebalance" it would be to confirm Obama's semi-liberal appointee.[/QUOTE] Scalia held strictly to the constitution, interpreting it exactly as it was written at the time of signing it. I disagree with him on it impeding change, since there was nothing in it against same sex marriage. Now Scalia himself had very regressive beliefs, true, but the Supreme Court still passed the same-sex marriage law, did it not? Kennedy, a conservative, tipped the balance as that moderate vote.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49944749]We just had a bipartisan balance. What are you talking about?[/QUOTE] The previous makeup of 5 conservatives and 4 liberals is not a bipartisan balance. If it is, then so is this new 5 liberals and 4 conservatives makeup. But still - this new makeup - does not lean as far left as it did to the right side when Scalia was still alive. Indeed, Obama did not nominate the "left-wing version of Scalia" but instead a centrist.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49944784]The previous makeup of 5 conservatives and 4 liberals is not a bipartisan balance. If it is, then so is this new 5 liberals and 4 conservatives makeup. But still - this new makeup - does not lean as far left as it did to the right side when Scalia was still alive. Indeed, Obama did not nominate the "left-wing version of Scalia" but instead a centrist.[/QUOTE] You're counting Kennedy as a conservative, when in reality he is in the center, and Garland is not a centrist.
Kennedy is hardly a conservative according to that chart posted. He's a centrist, a moderate if anything. He represents the balance we had between the 4 conservatives and 4 liberals.
A wise move on behalf of Obama, imo.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49944545]I would argue that the best makeup of the supreme court is balance, and does not lean liberal or conservative.[/QUOTE] Well, now you're getting that. For the last forty years the supreme court has been helmed by mostly conservative Judges. This would be a much more fair SCOTUS. [url]http://graphics.wsj.com/supreme-court-diversity/?mod=e2fb[/url]
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49944758]but the Supreme Court still passed the same-sex marriage law[/QUOTE] A 5-4 vote on same-sex marriage is too close. If we had one more conservative justice, the Supreme Court would (laughably) rule same-sex marriage illegal. [editline]16th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49944808]Garland is not a centrist.[/QUOTE] The New York Times disagrees with your characterization. Read the OP.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49944545]I would argue that the best makeup of the supreme court is balance, and does not lean liberal or conservative.[/QUOTE] the way its supposed to work is that it balances itself out. If a court got more "liberal" suddenly the new average is somewhere else and they start to find other things to disagree on. not that its working that way right now, with the polarization of the parties.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;49944896]Well, now you're getting that. For the last forty years the supreme court has been helmed by mostly conservative Judges. This would be a much more fair SCOTUS. [url]http://graphics.wsj.com/supreme-court-diversity/?mod=e2fb[/url][/QUOTE] The second graph in that link shows that we HAD a balanced court before. 4 liberal, 1 moderate, 4 conservative. [QUOTE=Starpluck;49944912]A 5-4 vote on same-sex marriage is too close. If we had one more conservative justice, the Supreme Court would (laughably) rule same-sex marriage illegal. [editline]16th March 2016[/editline] The New York Times disagrees with your characterization. Read the OP.[/QUOTE] The same sex marriage vote went exactly how it was supposed to go, and ruled the way it was supposed to. That's why a balanced court is important. [QUOTE=Mattk50;49944925]the way its supposed to work is that it balances itself out. If a court got more "liberal" suddenly the new average is somewhere else and they start to find other things to disagree on. not that its working that way right now, with the polarization of the parties.[/QUOTE] Wrong, the laws that are being interpreted are supposed to become more liberal, not the people interpreting it.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49944912]A 5-4 vote on same-sex marriage is too close. If we had one more conservative justice, the Supreme Court would (laughably) rule same-sex marriage illegal.[/QUOTE] I don't know much of anything about the US supreme court, but aren't they just voting on whether bills are unconstitutional or not? What in the gay marriage bill was, in the opinion of those four judges, unconstitutional?
[URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273230-mcconnell-no-hearing-for-garland"]Senator McConnell says no hearing for Garland[/URL].
[QUOTE=Srillo;49944973][URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273230-mcconnell-no-hearing-for-garland"]Senator McConnell says no hearing for Garland[/URL].[/QUOTE] Not that I wasn't expecting this, but who the fuck votes children like this into office? Preventing the government from even functioning properly for the cause of your stupid ideology is bullshit.
Who do the Republicans think the next President will be? Trump? Bernie? Hillary? The pro-establishment Republicans hate them all. This guy might as well be Ronald Reagan compared to whoever will be nominated by the next president.
[QUOTE=Srillo;49944973][URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273230-mcconnell-no-hearing-for-garland"]Senator McConnell says no hearing for Garland[/URL].[/QUOTE] [quote]“The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, [B]so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction[/B]," he said[/quote] [quote]"Either way, our view is this: [B]Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy[/B]."[/quote] [quote]"I fully support Leader McConnell and Chairman [Chuck] Grassley's [R-Iowa] decision not to move forward with the confirmation process. [B]We should let the American people decide the direction of the court[/B]."[/quote] The American people did have a say in the direction of the court. They decided in 2008 and subsequently 2012 the direction of our Supreme Court. [editline]16th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49944971]I don't know much of anything about the US supreme court, but aren't they just voting on whether bills are unconstitutional or not? What in the gay marriage bill was, in the opinion of those four judges, unconstitutional?[/QUOTE] Just stupid arguments. Here is one from the Chief Justice; Roberts, in his dissent with the majority opinion. [quote]More generally, Roberts analyzed the history of marriage, which he proposed had always consisted of a "universal definition," "the union of a man and a woman" with the intended purpose of successful childrearing.[130][/quote]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49944959]Wrong, the laws that are being interpreted are supposed to become more liberal, not the people interpreting it.[/QUOTE] Change can come from any of the three branches.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;49944784]The previous makeup of 5 conservatives and 4 liberals is not a bipartisan balance. If it is, then so is this new 5 liberals and 4 conservatives makeup. But still - this new makeup - does not lean as far left as it did to the right side when Scalia was still alive. Indeed, Obama did not nominate the "left-wing version of Scalia" but instead a centrist.[/QUOTE] Lmao what are you talking about? Kennedy is moderate as fuck. Wait shit I guess its super conservative to essentially vote for gay marriage, I forgot, my bad :smug: Although according to your chart Garland is no moderate he sits comfortably in the middle of all the other liberal judges, how is that "moderate"? It also said in the same article it would "tip the balance to be more liberal than ever before" with Garland.
[QUOTE=Durandal;49945336]Lmao what are you talking about? Kennedy is moderate as fuck. Wait shit I guess its super conservative to essentially vote for gay marriage, I forgot, my bad :smug: Although according to your chart Garland is no moderate he sits comfortably in the middle of all the other liberal judges, how is that "moderate"? It also said in the same article it would "tip the balance to be more liberal than ever before" with Garland.[/QUOTE] I'm very confused. That chart is showing him as basically being a total progressive. The current leftist judges are very consistently on the left. They basically always vote party line. So if he's right there with them, then I assume he does the same.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.