Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

We have our Supreme Court Nominee

Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 3:30:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, a reported centrist who presided over the Unabomber case, to the court today.

http://www.nbcnews.com...

What are the chances he gets through before the end of Obama's term?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 3:32:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
And now we wait for McConnell's response.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 3:40:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 3:32:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And now we wait for McConnell's response.

I'm exciting something along these lines: http://www.theonion.com...
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 3:44:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I wonder how Garland feels about this. Obama went with someone who has had significant Republican support in his appointments before, I'm suspecting as a sign of good faith and with the understanding that it's his only shot of getting a nominee through. But Garland has to know his chances aren't good at all, and no matter who wins in November, it's unlikely he'll get nominated again. This is especially true if the Dem's win, as the win will likely come with a number of senate seats that will allow a more liberal nominee to get through.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 3:59:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 3:44:12 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I wonder how Garland feels about this. Obama went with someone who has had significant Republican support in his appointments before, I'm suspecting as a sign of good faith and with the understanding that it's his only shot of getting a nominee through. But Garland has to know his chances aren't good at all, and no matter who wins in November, it's unlikely he'll get nominated again. This is especially true if the Dem's win, as the win will likely come with a number of senate seats that will allow a more liberal nominee to get through.

The beginning of a long, long, process.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 4:17:55 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 4:12:17 PM, TN05 wrote:
0% chance he's appointed.

Certainly better odds than Sri-Sri, the hindu guy who was pretty left

Fun name, though.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 4:25:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 3:30:04 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, a reported centrist who presided over the Unabomber case, to the court today.

http://www.nbcnews.com...

What are the chances he gets through before the end of Obama's term?

Forever known from this day as Merrick Bork.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 4:35:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 3:44:12 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I wonder how Garland feels about this. Obama went with someone who has had significant Republican support in his appointments before, I'm suspecting as a sign of good faith and with the understanding that it's his only shot of getting a nominee through. But Garland has to know his chances aren't good at all, and no matter who wins in November, it's unlikely he'll get nominated again. This is especially true if the Dem's win, as the win will likely come with a number of senate seats that will allow a more liberal nominee to get through.

It's the Republicans' own loss.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 4:59:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 3:40:30 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 3/16/2016 3:32:43 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And now we wait for McConnell's response.

I'm exciting something along these lines: http://www.theonion.com...

http://thehill.com...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 5:50:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 3:30:04 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, a reported centrist who presided over the Unabomber case, to the court today.

http://www.nbcnews.com...

What are the chances he gets through before the end of Obama's term?

The Republicans will probably o everything they can to stop this. Although appointing a centrist does increase Obama's odds of having this nominee be appointed, chances are since the House is divided the Republicans are going to force this nomination to be postponed until the next President is elected.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 6:16:13 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
If Garland makes it onto the Supreme Court, 4/5 of the Democratic justices will be Jews. I can already hear the howls of the conspiracy theorists.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 6:34:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
It's funny that there are some liberals incensed by this nomination, because Garland isn't a far-left diversity candidate who'd galvanize the democratic base. Whoever Obama chooses won't be confirmed and also probably won't be nominated again next year after being dragged through so much controversy. Picking a very qualified moderate, in truth, makes the GOP look a lot more unreasonable for blocking the nomination, while sparing preferable candidates for after the election.

This was probably the best tactical route... and of course one should expect nothing less from Obama.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 6:54:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 6:34:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's funny that there are some liberals incensed by this nomination, because Garland isn't a far-left diversity candidate who'd galvanize the democratic base. Whoever Obama chooses won't be confirmed and also probably won't be nominated again next year after being dragged through so much controversy. Picking a very qualified moderate, in truth, makes the GOP look a lot more unreasonable for blocking the nomination, while sparing preferable candidates for after the election.

This was probably the best tactical route... and of course one should expect nothing less from Obama.

Yep. I wasn't bothered that he was centrist for that reason...polling has shown the GOP having reduced Congress re-election chances if they continue to block the process.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
vortex86
Posts: 571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:15:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 6:34:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's funny that there are some liberals incensed by this nomination, because Garland isn't a far-left diversity candidate who'd galvanize the democratic base. Whoever Obama chooses won't be confirmed and also probably won't be nominated again next year after being dragged through so much controversy. Picking a very qualified moderate, in truth, makes the GOP look a lot more unreasonable for blocking the nomination, while sparing preferable candidates for after the election.

This was probably the best tactical route... and of course one should expect nothing less from Obama.

A "tactical" route isn't his "constitutional duty" as he touted. It's politically motivated and that shouldn't be considered a good thing. This is us vs them mentality which is why people are fed up with Washington.
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:24:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Slim chance, as he was told plenty of times before the nomination.

I can't say it's zero chance since congressional republicans have caved in everything else.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:24:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 8:15:20 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/16/2016 6:34:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's funny that there are some liberals incensed by this nomination, because Garland isn't a far-left diversity candidate who'd galvanize the democratic base. Whoever Obama chooses won't be confirmed and also probably won't be nominated again next year after being dragged through so much controversy. Picking a very qualified moderate, in truth, makes the GOP look a lot more unreasonable for blocking the nomination, while sparing preferable candidates for after the election.

This was probably the best tactical route... and of course one should expect nothing less from Obama.

A "tactical" route isn't his "constitutional duty" as he touted. It's politically motivated and that shouldn't be considered a good thing. This is us vs them mentality which is why people are fed up with Washington.

He picked a moderate, and the GOP is still refusing to confirm him... but your response is that Obama's behavior is politically motivated? That's completely absurd.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:26:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 8:24:15 PM, Wylted wrote:
Why doesn't he just nomintate a right leaning nominee, that way we can get this over with?

He contemplated nominating a Republican governor, who swiftly withdrew his name from consideration amid partisan pressures.

They don't care who he chooses, they simply don't want him to do the choosing. It's a stupid political move, and they'll see the ramifications of it in November.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
vortex86
Posts: 571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:27:34 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 8:24:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/17/2016 8:15:20 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/16/2016 6:34:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's funny that there are some liberals incensed by this nomination, because Garland isn't a far-left diversity candidate who'd galvanize the democratic base. Whoever Obama chooses won't be confirmed and also probably won't be nominated again next year after being dragged through so much controversy. Picking a very qualified moderate, in truth, makes the GOP look a lot more unreasonable for blocking the nomination, while sparing preferable candidates for after the election.

This was probably the best tactical route... and of course one should expect nothing less from Obama.

A "tactical" route isn't his "constitutional duty" as he touted. It's politically motivated and that shouldn't be considered a good thing. This is us vs them mentality which is why people are fed up with Washington.

He picked a moderate, and the GOP is still refusing to confirm him... but your response is that Obama's behavior is politically motivated? That's completely absurd.

You said it was a "tactical route". How is a tactical route not political??? Hardly absurd. Do you not see people voting outside the GOP establishment currently? I think it is clear to say people are fed up with both sides. Way to tow the party line though.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:30:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 8:26:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/17/2016 8:24:15 PM, Wylted wrote:
Why doesn't he just nomintate a right leaning nominee, that way we can get this over with?

He contemplated nominating a Republican governor, who swiftly withdrew his name from consideration amid partisan pressures.

They don't care who he chooses, they simply don't want him to do the choosing. It's a stupid political move, and they'll see the ramifications of it in November.

Given that Scalia died under mysterious circumstances with a pillow over his head and no autopsy at an opportune time, I think it is disgusting that a president near the end of his term is trying to push somevody through. The people of the United States are thinking about the future of this country right now, and Americans should be allowed to choose what direction they want to see it go in this November
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:33:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 8:27:34 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/17/2016 8:24:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/17/2016 8:15:20 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/16/2016 6:34:11 PM, 000ike wrote:
It's funny that there are some liberals incensed by this nomination, because Garland isn't a far-left diversity candidate who'd galvanize the democratic base. Whoever Obama chooses won't be confirmed and also probably won't be nominated again next year after being dragged through so much controversy. Picking a very qualified moderate, in truth, makes the GOP look a lot more unreasonable for blocking the nomination, while sparing preferable candidates for after the election.

This was probably the best tactical route... and of course one should expect nothing less from Obama.

A "tactical" route isn't his "constitutional duty" as he touted. It's politically motivated and that shouldn't be considered a good thing. This is us vs them mentality which is why people are fed up with Washington.

He picked a moderate, and the GOP is still refusing to confirm him... but your response is that Obama's behavior is politically motivated? That's completely absurd.

You said it was a "tactical route". How is a tactical route not political??? Hardly absurd. Do you not see people voting outside the GOP establishment currently? I think it is clear to say people are fed up with both sides. Way to tow the party line though.

Yeah, I said there are political benefits to his choice, but it's just beyond absurd to criticize him for it. He has the option of nominating a conservative, a liberal, a moderate, or not nominating anyone. Not nominating anyone is unconstitutional and unacceptable - that's off the table. Nominating a conservative will earn him reprove from his base, with literally 0 benefits, since the senate will deny the nomination regardless. He could have nominated a liberal, and that would have energized the base, but in some ways mitigated the pressure on the GOP to confirm. He picked a moderate.

Does picking a moderate come with political benefits? yes. Does that mean Obama should have made a different choice? No, absolutely not. So what's your point?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:35:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Everyone realizes it's been well over 100 years since an outgoing president has nominated a justice right?

The left did this back in 1992 as well, but hardly anyone talks about it due to the typical left wing media bias.

It's also well within the right of congress to not consider the nomination.

I don't necessarily agree with the decision, since it could easily end up back firing with a much more liberal nominee in January.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:35:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
They only see the ramifications ic they lose in November, and seeing as how a republican will be the next president, it looks like a win for Republicans, and therfore a win for America. If you hate America so much you want to see a liberal nominee that will attack libertarian ideals of our founding forefathers, why don't you move to a country like the UK, that hates freedom?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:35:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 8:30:44 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/17/2016 8:26:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/17/2016 8:24:15 PM, Wylted wrote:
Why doesn't he just nomintate a right leaning nominee, that way we can get this over with?

He contemplated nominating a Republican governor, who swiftly withdrew his name from consideration amid partisan pressures.

They don't care who he chooses, they simply don't want him to do the choosing. It's a stupid political move, and they'll see the ramifications of it in November.

Given that Scalia died under mysterious circumstances with a pillow over his head and no autopsy at an opportune time, I think it is disgusting that a president near the end of his term is trying to push somevody through. The people of the United States are thinking about the future of this country right now, and Americans should be allowed to choose what direction they want to see it go in this November

This is such a magnificently stupid argument, I won't even dignify it with a rebuttal.

Yeah, we'll revisit this issue in November... lets see what the rest of the country has to say about it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:39:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 8:35:48 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/17/2016 8:30:44 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/17/2016 8:26:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/17/2016 8:24:15 PM, Wylted wrote:
Why doesn't he just nomintate a right leaning nominee, that way we can get this over with?

He contemplated nominating a Republican governor, who swiftly withdrew his name from consideration amid partisan pressures.

They don't care who he chooses, they simply don't want him to do the choosing. It's a stupid political move, and they'll see the ramifications of it in November.

Given that Scalia died under mysterious circumstances with a pillow over his head and no autopsy at an opportune time, I think it is disgusting that a president near the end of his term is trying to push somevody through. The people of the United States are thinking about the future of this country right now, and Americans should be allowed to choose what direction they want to see it go in this November

This is such a magnificently stupid argument, I won't even dignify it with a rebuttal.

No if it werebstupid ypu would be capable of touching it. If an honorable person werebpresident they'd just put an interim judge in and allow the next president to choose a nominee. Given the mysterious circumstances of Scalia's death, I might not even elect an interim judge, out of respect.

Yeah, we'll revisit this issue in November... lets see what the rest of the country has to say about it.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 8:47:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 8:35:19 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
Everyone realizes it's been well over 100 years since an outgoing president has nominated a justice right?

The left did this back in 1992 as well, but hardly anyone talks about it due to the typical left wing media bias.

It's also well within the right of congress to not consider the nomination.

I don't necessarily agree with the decision, since it could easily end up back firing with a much more liberal nominee in January.

Incorrect. Refusing to hold a hearing and confirm is unprecedented in American history. You're correct only insofar as democrats have forwarded the same argument against a lame duck nomination, but in every instance, the incumbent had only a few months lefts (Obama has a almost a year), and hearings were held and a nominee was eventually confirmed nonetheless.

The senate has a duty to consider the nomination -- just because the Constitution neglects to stipulate a time limit on confirmation, does not mean we should renege on a 200 year old tradition. It sets a bad precedent, it's not in the spirit of the constitution, or the spirit of democracy, and it politicizes the court in a new and ugly manner.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
vortex86
Posts: 571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 8:48:28 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I was thinking what is the GOP establishment even thinking in regards to obstructing this process. If they were to evaluate him they would at least appear to be playing ball to do their duty to the American people.

They are in an all out war against the current overwhelming front runner of the GOP, which is only weakening his chances of election. Yet, they aren't taking a quality candidate with a centrist ideology who would be as impartial as they are going to get. With the lack of faith in Trump (with their help of reducing his appeal) you would think they are coming to the realization that Hillary might win and that they would get an even more to the left nominee instead.

I don't get it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 9:23:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 8:26:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/17/2016 8:24:15 PM, Wylted wrote:
Why doesn't he just nomintate a right leaning nominee, that way we can get this over with?

He contemplated nominating a Republican governor, who swiftly withdrew his name from consideration amid partisan pressures.

They don't care who he chooses, they simply don't want him to do the choosing. It's a stupid political move, and they'll see the ramifications of it in November.

It's a solid move by the Repugs. They will energize more Repubby voters with the idea that Obama is capitalizing on the death of the strongest right justice they had. The Dems just aren't energized by anything but Bernie right now, and will likely stay home and watch TV after Bernie is predictably destroyed by the Clintonmachine.