SCOTUS Nominee

VarunaTT · March 2016

should be coming up soon.

Rumor: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/16/obama_nominating_merrick_garland_to_supreme_court.html

charlotte989875 · March 2016

So I get this is a strategic pick, forcing the Senate to vote on someone most of the Jusiciary Committee already voted yes on, but I'm just not that excited about him.

VarunaTT · March 2016

You're not excited about another really old white semi-conservative white man on SCOTUS?

Yeah, me neither.

And McConnell has already made his stupid speech stating the Senate is refusing to move, which was eyerollingly ridiculous. I hope someone in each state is drafting articles of impeachment b/c refusal to do constitutionally mandated job seems pretty freaking impeachable to me.

Heffalump · March 2016

VarunaTT said:

You're not excited about another really old white semi-conservative white man on SCOTUS?

Yeah, me neither.

And McConnell has already made his stupid speech stating the Senate is refusing to move, which was eyerollingly ridiculous. I hope someone in each state is drafting articles of impeachment b/c refusal to do constitutionally mandated job seems pretty freaking impeachable to me.

https49mediatumblrcomb3f8e59b0742acb21469c265279e3683tumblr_n11so2z5a41sjzfa9o1_500gif

charlotte989875 · March 2016

VarunaTT said:

You're not excited about another really old white semi-conservative white man on SCOTUS?

Yeah, me neither.

And McConnell has already made his stupid speech stating the Senate is refusing to move, which was eyerollingly ridiculous. I hope someone in each state is drafting articles of impeachment b/c refusal to do constitutionally mandated job seems pretty freaking impeachable to me.

So much this.

Likely the Senate Republicans will delay as long as possible, and pray Trump wins. Not a strategy I'd bet on working.

VarunaTT · March 2016

The man is very qualified. And he's had a helluva career. And the Republicans, though they don't care, are going to look like complete assholes with his resume before them (and previous actions on their part for his previous confirmation hearings). And I thought his acceptance speech was really kind of great. It's nice to see a public servant actually be excited by public service and believe it's important. He seemed very genuine. Him being a little choked up about being called to serve was sweet.

Ever since Notorious RGB said this though, I've gotten way more hardcore about SCOTUS:

Image: http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-so-now-the-perception-is-yes-women-are-here-to-stay-and-when-i-m-sometimes-asked-when-ruth-bader-ginsburg-65-64-14.jpg

charlotte989875 · March 2016

I think he'll make a great Supreme Court Justice, I'm just not super excited about him. And I hope the Senate confirms. I think after Justices Sotomayor and Kagan I was expecting another minority appointment. (I liked that the Sri Srivasana was being considered).

I'm a huge RGB fan, have you read the Notorious RGB book? She sat down with the women who started the tumblr and the book is the result. It's hilarious and amazing to see what she overcame to be where she is. She's a badass.

VarunaTT · March 2016

I haven't read it yet, though it's on my list.

I'm actually a little floored it wasn't Srivasana. I mean, his resume is just as semi-conservative as Garland. I kinda thought Srivasana was going to be the "safe" pick and at least it would've put another (never-represented) minority on the Court. That's a convo I would've liked to have been a fly on the wall for.

Heffalump · March 2016

VarunaTT said:

I haven't read it yet, though it's on my list.

I'm actually a little floored it wasn't Srivasana. I mean, his resume is just as semi-conservative as Garland. I kinda thought Srivasana was going to be the "safe" pick and at least it would've put another (never-represented) minority on the Court. That's a convo I would've liked to have been a fly on the wall for.

Everything I've been reading suggests that Garland is the sacrificial lamb, and once he goes down in flames, Srivasana is on the short list.

charlotte989875 · March 2016

Heffalump said:

VarunaTT said:

I haven't read it yet, though it's on my list.

I'm actually a little floored it wasn't Srivasana. I mean, his resume is just as semi-conservative as Garland. I kinda thought Srivasana was going to be the "safe" pick and at least it would've put another (never-represented) minority on the Court. That's a convo I would've liked to have been a fly on the wall for.

Everything I've been reading suggests that Garland is the sacrificial lamb, and once he goes down in flames, Srivasana is on the short list.

What makes Garland a interesting/good pick is that the Senate Republicans are going to have a hard time just shooting him down. He's moderate to conservative, has a great record, and took on hard, violent cases at the Justice Department. It's good politics by the White House; pick a nominee whose record is well known, when Trump looks like the GOP nominee. So the Senate has to either bet on Trump winning (so the nomination gets denied or pulled by Trump) or confirm Garland because once Hillary wins the White House can pull the nomination before inauguration and let her name a more liberal nominee.

VarunaTT · March 2016

I think they're just refusing to call the hearings, aren't they? Don't they do their own scheduling? So, it's not that they have to shoot him down, they just don't do their "advise and consent" job. President said in his speech to just call it to the floor for an up/down vote, I don't think the hearings are required.

kylexo · March 2016

McConnell should be impeached for advising them to forgo their constitutional duties.

artbyallie · March 2016

I have been trying to figure out if the Senate has ever in the past just not held hearings for anyone. All I have been able to find suggests that most of the relatively few nominees who were not confirmed actually dropped out on their own and some were voted down, but the most recent "no" vote for a SC judge was 1987.

It's some bullshit that McConnell et al are going to sit there and not do their fucking jobs.

kylexo · March 2016

artbyallie said:

I have been trying to figure out if the Senate has ever in the past just not held hearings for anyone. All I have been able to find suggests that most of the relatively few nominees who were not confirmed actually dropped out on their own and some were voted down, but the most recent "no" vote for a SC judge was 1987.

It's some bullshit that McConnell et al are going to sit there and not do their fucking jobs.

Right?! Our tax dollars are paying these bozos their salaries while they sit on their butts and do nothing just to flip off Obama. What a bunch of jerks.

charlotte989875 · March 2016

VarunaTT said:

I think they're just refusing to call the hearings, aren't they? Don't they do their own scheduling? So, it's not that they have to shoot him down, they just don't do their "advise and consent" job. President said in his speech to just call it to the floor for an up/down vote, I don't think the hearings are required.

They can refuse to hold hearings, but there are costs to this. Polling suggests this is really unpopular and there are members of the Senate that are up for reelection. That might be the only thing that gets them to move on the nomination. There is no comstitutional standard (or congressional rules of procedure) that says the Senate has to hold hearings. I don't think there has been a case where there has never been at least a hearing, meeting, or cloture vote. More don't get to the floor for a full Senate vote. So unfortunately there is no real grounds to impeach a Senator for not holding hearings. The best other actors or the public can do is make it politically unfavorable to do so.

scrunchythief · March 2016

I'm an independent with some conservative leanings. I'm not super thrilled that Obama gets another appointment.

BUT, that's how it works, he's the president! I'm so incredibly angry about what the republicans are trying to do with this. If "giving the American people a more direct voice in the selection of the next justice" was so important to them, then before all this, they would've been trying to amend the Constitution to change that! But no, they only care now that they think the balance will tip out of their favor and are trying to play politics with it.

If they really don't want this moderate judge with an amazing record, then sure vote against him. But fracking vote! It's literally your job.

SCOTUS Nominee

Re: SCOTUS Nominee

Choose Another Board

Search Boards