Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Obama thwarting houndawg and going with a somewhat old, white, male for his first pick to fill Scalia's spot on the Court. I doubt he gets through, though. Merrick Garland, come on down!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/ ... index.html

Sacrificial lamb.

Clever tactical move by Obama. Two Harvard degrees (like Roberts), only three years older than Roberts, clerked for Justice Brennan. Progressive creds to assuage the disappointed libs who preferred the Indian or the black guy. Solid professional background. Not a judicial boat-rocker. If I'm a GOP Senator in a non-election year, I'd be hard-pressed to find a reason to vote against this dude.

93henfan wrote:Sacrificial lamb.

Yup. Still surprising that he didn't pick someone that would be more painful for the GOP to block. No one's really going to get upset that this guy doesn't get a real consideration. He isn't a real darling of the far left, he doesn't excite any particular group, and he's not such a superstar legal mind that the GOP would be remiss to not allow to the bench. I think Obama went with it because he was a fellow Chicagoan.

I would've liked Srinivasan instead.

His strategy is good. Put up a palatable guy, let the GOP look like obstructionist weasels, turn public opinion against them, then let Hillary ride her victory wave to nominate a further left nominee and definitively swing the court.

Rut roh. This joker voted against DC v Heller.

Looks like he fails my single issue. Burn the witch.

GannonFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:Sacrificial lamb.

Yup. Still surprising that he didn't pick someone that would be more painful for the GOP to block. No one's really going to get upset that this guy doesn't get a real consideration. He isn't a real darling of the far left, he doesn't excite any particular group, and he's not such a superstar legal mind that the GOP would be remiss to not allow to the bench. I think Obama went with it because he was a fellow Chicagoan.

I would've liked Srinivasan instead.

I don't know where you came up with this line of argument. Garland's legal acumen is solid -- at least as good as Srinivasan, and better than the third candidate. Not enough far-left Indians around to get agitated about ol' Sri getting passed over. I think it was a perfect pick for Obama to make his point.

Ivytalk wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Yup. Still surprising that he didn't pick someone that would be more painful for the GOP to block. No one's really going to get upset that this guy doesn't get a real consideration. He isn't a real darling of the far left, he doesn't excite any particular group, and he's not such a superstar legal mind that the GOP would be remiss to not allow to the bench. I think Obama went with it because he was a fellow Chicagoan.

I would've liked Srinivasan instead.

I don't know where you came up with this line of argument. Garland's legal acumen is solid -- at least as good as Srinivasan, and better than the third candidate. Not enough far-left Indians around to get agitated about ol' Sri getting passed over. I think it was a perfect pick for Obama to make his point.

I think Srinivasan has a bright future and at his age, it wasn't really necessary to sacrifice him just yet. His name will come up again.

∞∞∞ wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: I don't know where you came up with this line of argument. Garland's legal acumen is solid -- at least as good as Srinivasan, and better than the third candidate. Not enough far-left Indians around to get agitated about ol' Sri getting passed over. I think it was a perfect pick for Obama to make his point.

I think Srinivasan has a bright future and at his age, it wasn't really necessary to sacrifice him just yet. His name will come up again.

Yes, that's true. Save him for Hildabeast to pick after Ginsburg corks off.

Ivytalk wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Yup. Still surprising that he didn't pick someone that would be more painful for the GOP to block. No one's really going to get upset that this guy doesn't get a real consideration. He isn't a real darling of the far left, he doesn't excite any particular group, and he's not such a superstar legal mind that the GOP would be remiss to not allow to the bench. I think Obama went with it because he was a fellow Chicagoan.

I would've liked Srinivasan instead.

I don't know where you came up with this line of argument. Garland's legal acumen is solid -- at least as good as Srinivasan, and better than the third candidate. Not enough far-left Indians around to get agitated about ol' Sri getting passed over. I think it was a perfect pick for Obama to make his point.

Eh, Garland wasn't really considered liberal enough when he was passed over with the Sotamayor pick. And his real standout thing of note really was the Heller case and similar cases before then. If anything, that case and having him replace Scalia is like a poke in the eye for the GOP. I think that makes it easy for the GOP to block him and they aren't going to lose anything election-wise by doing so. I think the danger for the GOP is to block him, and then lose the election in the fall and have Hillary go far left with the pick. I don't think she will as I think Srinivasan will be one of the picks and he's not far left at all. So I don't see the damage to the GOP in blocking this guy.

GannonFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: I don't know where you came up with this line of argument. Garland's legal acumen is solid -- at least as good as Srinivasan, and better than the third candidate. Not enough far-left Indians around to get agitated about ol' Sri getting passed over. I think it was a perfect pick for Obama to make his point.

Eh, Garland wasn't really considered liberal enough when he was passed over with the Sotamayor pick. And his real standout thing of note really was the Heller case and similar cases before then. If anything, that case and having him replace Scalia is like a poke in the eye for the GOP. I think that makes it easy for the GOP to block him and they aren't going to lose anything election-wise by doing so. I think the danger for the GOP is to block him, and then lose the election in the fall and have Hillary go far left with the pick. I don't think she will as I think Srinivasan will be one of the picks and he's not far left at all. So I don't see the damage to the GOP in blocking this guy.

Fine. As is often the case, and as you usually insist on having the last word, we'll agree to disagree.

GannonFan wrote: he's not such a superstar legal mind that the GOP would be remiss to not allow to the bench.

How could you possibly know this one way or another?

I'm not saying you're wrong... I frankly don't know much about the guy at all.

If the Senate votes & says no the the nominee that's one thing, but I'm part of the angry at the establishment crowd & this is the shat I don't wanna see - the Senate taking no action.

All the Senate does is take no action, do your goddamn jobs.

Just saw a tweet from my Senator Pat Toomey saying:

Senator Pat Toomey ‏@SenToomey 22m22 minutes ago
Should Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination... #SCOTUS

Are you f'ing serious? By thw way Toomey is up for re-election to the Senate this fall. By tweeting out crap like this, I'll be very likely to vote against WHOEVER his opposition is.

Ivytalk wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Eh, Garland wasn't really considered liberal enough when he was passed over with the Sotamayor pick. And his real standout thing of note really was the Heller case and similar cases before then. If anything, that case and having him replace Scalia is like a poke in the eye for the GOP. I think that makes it easy for the GOP to block him and they aren't going to lose anything election-wise by doing so. I think the danger for the GOP is to block him, and then lose the election in the fall and have Hillary go far left with the pick. I don't think she will as I think Srinivasan will be one of the picks and he's not far left at all. So I don't see the damage to the GOP in blocking this guy.

Fine. As is often the case, and as you usually insist on having the last word, we'll agree to disagree.

Where's that settle down Francis copy and paste when you need one!

bluehenbillk wrote:If the Senate votes & says no the the nominee that's one thing, but I'm part of the angry at the establishment crowd & this is the shat I don't wanna see - the Senate taking no action.

All the Senate does is take no action, do your goddamn jobs.

Just saw a tweet from my Senator Pat Toomey saying:

Senator Pat Toomey ‏@SenToomey 22m22 minutes ago
Should Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination... #SCOTUS

Are you f'ing serious? By thw way Toomey is up for re-election to the Senate this fall. By tweeting out crap like this, I'll be very likely to vote against WHOEVER his opposition is.

I agree, have the vote and vote him down if that's what you want to do, but at least go through the motions.

Just read this, 6 times in the last 100 years the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court judge in the final year of a President's term. Ted Cruz & the other blowhards talk about being Constitutional scholars, well did they re-write the Constitution lately?

#doyourjobs

bluehenbillk wrote:Just read this, 6 times in the last 100 years the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court judge in the final year of a President's term. Ted Cruz & the other blowhards talk about being Constitutional scholars, well did they re-write the Constitution lately?

#doyourjobs

As has been posted by someone before, there's no Constitutional requirement for the Senate to vote on a President's nominee. That said, you're right that the Senate should go ahead and vote, one way or the other. If they vote Garland down, the Dems have a talking point. If they confirm him, he'll probably be an OK justice and a lot better than some of the hard-left alternatives.

bluehenbillk wrote:Just read this, 6 times in the last 100 years the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court judge in the final year of a President's term. Ted Cruz & the other blowhards talk about being Constitutional scholars, well did they re-write the Constitution lately?

#doyourjobs

Its been 84 years, since 1932, since there was a SCOTUS vacancy occurring, and nomination and confirmation hearings, all 3 occurring in an election year.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... vacancies/

bluehenbillk wrote:If the Senate votes & says no the the nominee that's one thing, but I'm part of the angry at the establishment crowd & this is the shat I don't wanna see - the Senate taking no action.

All the Senate does is take no action, do your goddamn jobs.

Just saw a tweet from my Senator Pat Toomey saying:

Senator Pat Toomey ‏@SenToomey 22m22 minutes ago
Should Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination... #SCOTUS

Are you f'ing serious? By thw way Toomey is up for re-election to the Senate this fall. By tweeting out crap like this, I'll be very likely to vote against WHOEVER his opposition is.

Good for Toomey. If he were to vote to hold confirmation hearings I definitely wouldn't be voting for him in the fall. The Supreme Ct doesn't need 9 judges to do its job..

BDKJMU wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:If the Senate votes & says no the the nominee that's one thing, but I'm part of the angry at the establishment crowd & this is the shat I don't wanna see - the Senate taking no action.

All the Senate does is take no action, do your goddamn jobs.

Just saw a tweet from my Senator Pat Toomey saying:

Senator Pat Toomey ‏@SenToomey 22m22 minutes ago
Should Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination... #SCOTUS

Are you f'ing serious? By thw way Toomey is up for re-election to the Senate this fall. By tweeting out crap like this, I'll be very likely to vote against WHOEVER his opposition is.

Good for Toomey. If he were to vote to hold confirmation hearings I definitely wouldn't be voting for him in the fall. The Supreme Ct doesn't need 9 judges to do its job..

On a Court with as many 5-4 splits on key issues as we've had, it sure does.

Ivytalk wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Just read this, 6 times in the last 100 years the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court judge in the final year of a President's term. Ted Cruz & the other blowhards talk about being Constitutional scholars, well did they re-write the Constitution lately?

#doyourjobs

As has been posted by someone before, there's no Constitutional requirement for the Senate to vote on a President's nominee. That said, you're right that the Senate should go ahead and vote, one way or the other. If they vote Garland down, the Dems have a talking point. If they confirm him, he'll probably be an OK justice and a lot better than some of the hard-left alternatives.

But if the Senate doesn't even schedule a vote, the Dems will have a bigger talking point. That's my point. Get the point?

BDKJMU wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:If the Senate votes & says no the the nominee that's one thing, but I'm part of the angry at the establishment crowd & this is the shat I don't wanna see - the Senate taking no action.

All the Senate does is take no action, do your goddamn jobs.

Just saw a tweet from my Senator Pat Toomey saying:

Senator Pat Toomey ‏@SenToomey 22m22 minutes ago
Should Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination... #SCOTUS

Are you f'ing serious? By thw way Toomey is up for re-election to the Senate this fall. By tweeting out crap like this, I'll be very likely to vote against WHOEVER his opposition is.

Good for Toomey. If he were to vote to hold confirmation hearings I definitely wouldn't be voting for him in the fall. The Supreme Ct doesn't need 9 judges to do its job..

It's not like the Senate has a full session of agenda to complete in the next few months do they?

Vote for the guy, up or down, do your job. You sound like a Millennial when you say you want Toomey to be a do-nothing Senator.

Ivytalk wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Good for Toomey. If he were to vote to hold confirmation hearings I definitely wouldn't be voting for him in the fall. The Supreme Ct doesn't need 9 judges to do its job..

On a Court with as many 5-4 splits on key issues as we've had, it sure does.

So what. A 4-4 tie means the lower court decision is upheld.

The Supreme Court can deal with eight justices
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/03/the-supr ... tices.html

BDKJMU wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:

On a Court with as many 5-4 splits on key issues as we've had, it sure does.

So what. A 4-4 tie means the lower court decision is upheld.

Duh. And that's not what the system is designed to do.