Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Shouting Starts as POTUS Nominates Veteran Judge to SCOTUS

       President Obama has nominated a respected, 63 year old jurist named Merrick Garland to the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, setting off a political jousting match that will spill over into both the Presidential and Senate races.
       Justice Garland was emotional in acknowledging the nomination but Republicans in the Senate have already announced he will get no hearings and no confirmation. They are hoping a Republican President will get to make the nomination next year.
     It's a risky strategy as a President Clinton could nominate someone more liberal, and there's a chance this issue could hurt vulnerable Senators this year.
     It's an interesting overlay to the already contentious political season.

17 comments:

Danny M. Francis (Eyepublius) said...

A very good choice .. the President has fulfilled his constitutional duty - now the Senate must fulfill theirs. We are about to see if the GOP-run Senate stands for the constitution they say they praise in every speech or not.

GOP Senate hypocrisy is about to be on full display, but I hope I am wrong.

I hope the GOP is taking notes. I sure am.

Anonymous said...

Great credentials.

Republicans want to make a constitutionally protected presidential appointment a campaign issue - like everything else - so they can whip their base into a frenzy. If the Republican debates are any sign of their mentality as a whole, this too will be played out like an episode of Jerry Springer.

Anonymous said...

You and Danny are just too pig headed to understand the Constitution or you have some kind of mental deficiency.
Advice and consent is a powerful duty vested in the Senate, by the Constitution.

The Senate advised the president not to nominate and that is the end of it. They will not consent. There is no duty to hold hearings or take a vote. The fact that they do not hold hearings is in and of itself, the act of not consenting. Why are you too stubborn to see this? Why do you assume there is even an opening on the Court? There is no requirement to have nine on the Court. The only reason there ever was is because the president and Senate agreed to it. But today they don't agree and there is absolutely no logical reason to argue they must agree to a 9th member.

Anonymous said...

The man can not win in his choices anyway. The left wanted a black women. I'd say that would be great if there happened to be that person ready to be in that job. Maybe some of these lefties should have got on the horn and brought the person the president's attention?

Anonymous said...

The lefties wanted a black, blind, pregnant, lesbian, HIV positive, Muslim woman, 1:45. It was taking a while to find one of those that was a Federal judge already...

Anonymous said...

The Repugnican party has now got one leg in the boneyard and after Cleaveland this summer will cease to exist , the Trumpster has " schlonged " them to quote a Trumpsterism . Do your jobs , you congressional cretins and vet this candidate for SCOTUS .

Anonymous said...

This Judge has already had Senate Hearings held up do to an election, so he should be alright with it.

Anonymous said...

1:14: What a poser. You try to act knowledgeable but you know nothing of the history or background here. For Christ's sake, you can't even get the phrase right. It's ADVISE AND CONSENT, idiot, not ADVICE. Please educate yourself.

Rich said...

I don't know why there's any criticizes of the Republicans. They're just following the advice given by VP Biden and Senator Schumer who said the same thing.

Anonymous said...

All I know is if we get one more lesbian, softball playing activist on the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment is gone. And likely many more of our freedoms after that. Dannie's party loves government. The more of that you get the less free we are.

Anonymous said...

8:14, you better go edit Wikipedia because they put it down as "advice" too.
The only poser here is you, posing as if you made an argument agaisnt what I said, when the only point you actually made was about advise/advice and that point was wrong.

Anonymous said...

8:14 - The President does not need anyone's advice to nominate a judge. That's his prerogative. It is then up to the Senate to "advise and consent" the nomination. Instead of relying in InTeRnEtS, try reading the constitution...

"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors."

Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2

Anonymous said...

My apologies 8:14, the last part was cut off:


"...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:"

otherwords1 said...

What is Mitch McConnell afraid of by holding interviews of who Obama nominated? If he is confident that the Senate will reject all now, how can it hurt to hear the man out? Or is he afraid that Garland will perform well and BE satisfactory to Republicans as well as Democrats?
Has there ever been a precedent of a Senate leader refusing to interview someone a President has nominated? Isn't he required to do this within a given time period?
Too many people are voting against persons because they represent the intolerance of others. It seems Mr. McConnell shows himself to be supportive of gridlock in denying to give Mr. Garland an opportunity to be interviewed by members of both parties now. Doesn't he understand that doing what he advocates will only deepen the divide and grid lock and anger of people from either party against one another? Why is He not being severely criticized for this?

Anonymous said...

{snicker} gee golf course guy...maybe you should sue the Senate and force them to do what you think they have to do but everyone else agrees they don't have to do.

BTW...It not "and by and with, you dummy.
Its "nominate by and with the advice....and consent"

Anonymous said...

What advice could the Senate possibly give after the nomination is already made?
"We advise you don't go through with the appointment but we consent if you decide to ignore our advice"?
"we advise you don't appoint this person and we do not consent, so the advice is useless"?
"we advise you to appoint your nominee but we don't consent"?

Danny M. Francis (Eyepublius) said...

I advise the few Anonymous a-holes who post silly crap here to study the process and stop pulling views out of their asses ... others here mostly confirm that view, too (I'm pretty sure).

Scurry on your way now.