Merrick Garland now holds the record for longest Supreme Court wait

[smurfy]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/2HnYmzb.png[/img]

[url]http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/merrick-garland-now-holds-record-longest-supreme-court-wait-n612541[/url]
[quote]Wednesday marked a bleak achievement for Merrick Garland.

He passed Louis Brandeis as the Supreme Court nominee with the longest wait for a Senate hearing.

And while Brandeis' saga ended with his 1916 confirmation Garland's prospects remain, at best, unclear.[/quote]

[Sableye]

huray the system fails!

[isak]

let's just have congress hold 8 investigatory committees on whether garland is a real judge

[Chonch]

Congress can legally take as long as they like to confirm him. Hell, they don't even have to.

[Coldmute]

[QUOTE=Chonch;50746620]Congress can legally take as long as they like to confirm him. Hell, they don't even have to.[/QUOTE]And they shouldn't legally be able to.

[Raidyr]

[QUOTE=Chonch;50746620]Congress can legally take as long as they like to confirm him. Hell, they don't even have to.[/QUOTE]

Telling us nothing new. Literal shit post.

[1nfiniteseed]

[QUOTE=Chonch;50746620]Congress can legally take as long as they like to confirm him. Hell, they don't even have to.[/QUOTE]

There is absolutely no good reason for doing so other than blatantly holding out for a conservative under Trump and spitting in obama's face one last time.

Fuck them.

[Monkah]

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50746659]And they shouldn't legally be able to.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to what, denying every judge that Obama puts forwards? Or as opposed to simply letting the president appoint judges unchecked?

[Coldmute]

[QUOTE=Monkah;50747165]As opposed to what, denying every judge that Obama puts forwards? Or as opposed to simply letting the president appoint judges unchecked?[/QUOTE]To requiring they hold a vote within a certain amount of time from the proposal.

[Smooth Jazz]

At this point, the Republicans should just confirm him. Do they honestly think Trump will win?

[Chonch]

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50746659]And they shouldn't legally be able to.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50747182]To requiring they hold a vote within a certain amount of time from the proposal.[/QUOTE]
What's the point of giving Congress a check on the fucking President if it isn't given with total discretion in how to use it? Forcing them to make a decision on some arbitrary time limit only serves to weaken the democratic power of the legislature.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50747128]There is absolutely no good reason for doing so other than blatantly holding out for a conservative under Trump and spitting in obama's face one last time.

Fuck them.[/QUOTE]
Grassley actually does not care about who the judge is. His goal here is to maintain a shaky balance of power until Congress can take a good hard look at how to limit the power of the court, because it is overstepping its boundaries and exercising legislative power that it does not constitutionally have. Obama knows this and just threw a good name out for posterity.