Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Democrats The Courts United States Government Republicans News Politics

Obama Nominates Merrick Garland For Supreme Court (usatoday.com) 629

According to the New York Times, President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick B. Garland as the nation's 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appeals court judge for the lifetime appointment and daring Republican senators to refuse consideration of a jurist who is highly regarded throughout Washington. Like Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Garland comes from the powerful D.C. Circuit court. The president said Judge Garland is "widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence. The qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle." Mr. Obama said it is tempting to make the confirmation process "an extension of our divided politics." But he warned that "to go down that path would be wrong." Mr. Obama demanded a fair hearing for Judge Garland and said that refusing to even consider his nomination would provoke "an endless cycle of more tit for tat" that would undermine the democratic process for years to come. Merrick B. Garland will serve in the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Nominates Merrick Garland For Supreme Court

Comments Filter:
  • Non-offensive (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @08:50PM (#51712025) Homepage Journal
    A very non-offensive, centrist choice. He has no chance.
    • by LifesABeach ( 234436 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @08:53PM (#51712039)
      But does he use Linux!?
    • I think it is a really smart move. He will say to them: "this is as conservative as you're going to get". Because "do you think Clinton/Sanders will give you some more conservative?" The Cruz or Trump will probably go down with disastrous losses. But it is not guaranteed. So Obama gives them an moderately attractive candidate, and if they refuse, then the next candidate will be less conservative.
    • Maybe (Score:4, Informative)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @11:58PM (#51712905)
      Here's the thing. The nominee has to be approved by a majority of the Senate (and contrary to the rhetoric I've been hearing, every Supreme Court Nominee rejected by the Senate [wikipedia.org] in the last 100 years has been a Republican nominee; so it's the Democrats who haven't been shy about shooting down nominations).

      The Republicans hold a 4 seat majority in the Senate. The Senators up for re-election this year came in during the Tea Party wave in 2010 - Obama's first mid-term election. Consequently, a disproportionate number of them are Republicans. There are 24 Republicans up for re-election and only 10 Democrats. They Republicans need to win 21 of 34 seats to keep the Senate.

      Right now, 13 of those Republican seats are considered safe, 4 are likely to be re-elected. That's 17. 3 are leaning Republican which would only get them up to 20. And there are 3 toss-ups. So there's a very real possibility the Democrats could take the Senate, or we have a 50/50 split with the tie-breaking vote cast by the Vice President (which right now is more likely to be a Democrat).

      As we get later in the year, if the polls begin to clarify the Senate and Presidential races going in the Democrats' favor, expect a change of heart from the Republican leadership. They will take a centrist justice over a hard-left liberal nominated by a Democrat President and approved by a Democrat senate.
  • Clever appointment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @08:58PM (#51712073) Journal
    Harvard, Harvard Law, DC Circuit Court...

    He'll be a difficult nominee to dismiss out of hand, and I suppose that's the point.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @09:06PM (#51712099)

    I mean President Obama's administration studied the keystone pipeline for 7 years before deciding that it is more environmentally friendly to haul crude oil in trucks and rail. I say the senate should do him the same favor and consider this appointment for at least a couple years before deciding he was not qualified.

    I mean let's not be mean spirited about it. The Senate should consider him, and consider him some more. Then after that is all done why not consider him again. Let's consider the fuck out of him. Make him the most considered appointment never to get appointed.

    It is after all the Senate's constitutional duty.

    • by mdsolar ( 1045926 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @11:19PM (#51712735) Homepage Journal
      The State Department handled that because the President never appoint an administrator for the Economic Regulatory Administration which would normally handle cross border pipelines. It took the State Department a while to get up to speed on regulatory issues.
    • I mean President Obama's administration studied the keystone pipeline for 7 years before deciding that it is more environmentally friendly to haul crude oil in trucks and rail. I say the senate should do him the same favor and consider this appointment for at least a couple years before deciding he was not qualified.

      I mean let's not be mean spirited about it. The Senate should consider him, and consider him some more. Then after that is all done why not consider him again. Let's consider the fuck out of him. Make him the most considered appointment never to get appointed.

      It is after all the Senate's constitutional duty.

      Always amusing to see people cutting off the proverbial nose.

      "Let's break the highest court in the nation for a few years just to make the point that we don't like Obama"

      Brilliant.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @09:37PM (#51712257)

    Scalia died in Texas, while on a hunting trip - yet the government STILL hasn't told us where Dick Cheney was during that time period.

    I strongly suspect he's finally optimized his killing technique.

  • Sharp legal mind? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2016 @10:23PM (#51712485) Homepage Journal

    "widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence."

    I don't want a Supreme Court Justice who is one of the "sharpest legal minds". I want one who's level of reading comprehension equals or exceeds that of a five-year-old. And make sure he's read the Constitution.

    [...] respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle.

    I want someone who both parties hate.

    • by readin ( 838620 ) on Thursday March 17, 2016 @03:22AM (#51713397)
      I want someone like Scalia or Thomas, willing to make unpopular decisions not because they want to, or because they think it is good policy, or because they think it will make the country richer, more compassionate, kinder, gentler, or happier, but because it's what the law says and it's their job to decide what the law is and not what's good for us.
      • Re:Sharp legal mind? (Score:4, Informative)

        by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Thursday March 17, 2016 @06:32AM (#51713721)
        Scalia wasn't the worst, but he did bring lots of politics and social engineering to the table as well.
        • by readin ( 838620 )
          I guess I missed it. He was "conservative" in that he ruled based on written law and precedent rather than trying to change things to what he wanted. That's not political, that's a judges job.
          • Scalia was a proponent of originalism, but he didn't practice it consistently. Arguably, he deviated from it more when it fit his ideological preferences. Have a look at McDonald v. Chicago.
  • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday March 17, 2016 @02:05AM (#51713235)

    If Obama was playing just for the election he'd nominate a liberal minority for the Republicans to reject (or ignore) and build up extra Democratic support among that minority.

    And if he was going for legacy he'd nominate a younger liberal.

    Instead Garland is white, male, old, and relatively moderate. His impact will be far shorter and far less liberal than anyone else a Democratic president is likely to nominate. If you're a Republican it's easy to weasel out of the election year thing by saying that you forced Obama to nominate a compromise candidate. But if you keep it up and ignore the nomination you probably end up with President Hillary Clinton who nominates someone 15 years younger and more liberal.

    • If Obama was playing just for the election he'd nominate a liberal minority for the Republicans to reject (or ignore)

      He's trying to be reasonable, anticipating a rejection by Congress. To make the Senate look stupid, in the hopes that it switches the Senate to a Democratic one come November.

    • by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Thursday March 17, 2016 @10:58AM (#51715037)

      Instead Garland is white, male, old, and relatively moderate. His impact will be far shorter and far less liberal than anyone else a Democratic president is likely to nominate. If you're a Republican it's easy to weasel out of the election year thing by saying that you forced Obama to nominate a compromise candidate. But if you keep it up and ignore the nomination you probably end up with President Hillary Clinton who nominates someone 15 years younger and more liberal.

      This has been the story of the last 8 years: Obama pre-compromises to Republican complaints without any assurances of cooperation whatsoever, and then the Republicans refuse to even accept their big win, like what they asked for all along has somehow been tainted with Obama cooties now.

A successful [software] tool is one that was used to do something undreamed of by its author. -- S. C. Johnson

Working...