The Supreme Court vacancy, a minefield for Republicans

@joefromchicago,

But ideal candidate aside isn't this the right political strategy for Obama? Nominate a candidate that doesn't have any reason for Republicans to oppose You mentioned that nominating a moderate is the right strategy for the balance of power and given the Republican promise to be obstructionist why not exact a greater political toll on them for it? He seems moderate enough and while a more liberal judge would be nicer why not put more hurt on the Republicans in the upcoming elections.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

The supreme court has been criticized for being elitist and out-of-touch, and it certainly doesn't dispel that notion when presidents keep nominating elitist, out-of-touch judges to the bench.

e·lit·ist
əˈlēdəst,āˈlēdəst/
noun
1.
a person who believes that a system or society should be ruled or dominated by an elite.

The Supreme Court is often criticized by whoever loses the case in question, but do you really think that Garland is elitist and out of touch? That is not to say he is not an elite. He certainly is by education, profession and accomplishment in that profession but that doesn't mean he is elitist and out of touch.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

The Supreme Court is often criticized by whoever loses the case in question, but do you really think that Garland is elitist and out of touch? That is not to say he is not an elite. He certainly is by education, profession and accomplishment in that profession but that doesn't mean he is elitist and out of touch.

Didn't he take a 50% paycut to leave private practice and become a public prosecutor? I get the idea that it would be nice to have more diverse representation of schools of thought but I don't get that kind of elitist vibe out of him either.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Now you are bringing in a secondary condition: The Magic of Diversity. As if it goes without saying that if we throw in a few justices without an Ivy League education we will get better justice. You must think that merit has very little to do with obtaining an Ivy League education.

Well, in many cases, merit doesn't have anything to do with an Ivy League education. How else can you explain George W. Bush?

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

But ideal candidate aside isn't this the right political strategy for Obama?

Actually, it's the right strategy for Republicans, as I've pointed out elsewhere. They would be fools to pass up the opportunity to confirm Garland when the alternative will likely be far worse. It's their misfortune that they just so happen to be fools.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Nominate a candidate that doesn't have any reason for Republicans to oppose You mentioned that nominating a moderate is the right strategy for the balance of power and given the Republican promise to be obstructionist why not exact a greater political toll on them for it? He seems moderate enough and while a more liberal judge would be nicer why not put more hurt on the Republicans in the upcoming elections.

Right now, the only people who are complaining about Republican intransigence are people who wouldn't be voting for the Republicans anyway. I just don't see this as being a decisive issue in any election this fall. It might play a part in some senate races, but those races, such as in Illinois and New Hampshire, are already trending Democratic. The Garland nomination might tip a few more voters toward Democratic candidates in these races, but not enough to decide the election. Do you really think that Chuck Grassley is going to lose his race in Iowa because he won't give Garland a hearing?

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

The Supreme Court is often criticized by whoever loses the case in question, but do you really think that Garland is elitist and out of touch?

We shall see ... maybe.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Or he could think that it is his Constitutional duty to appoint someone who could be confirmed and sit on the bench this year. As for the window for confirmation, it could start July 21.

Or he could believe that a moderate is a better choice than someone more liberal.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Could be. His previous appointments have been reliably liberal, but not extremely so.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Do you really think that Chuck Grassley is going to lose his race in Iowa because he won't give Garland a hearing?

Yes I do. And you heard it here first.

Grassley has been pulling votes from Democrats to win elections. He is putting these votes (and his seat) in danger with the Supreme Court bluster. And, he has a credible challenger this year in Patty Judge.

The Garland fight puts this seat into play. This is going to be an interesting race.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Do you think the fact Obama is himself a centerist would make any difference?

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Could be. His previous appointments have been reliably liberal, but not extremely so.

I really think he's just trolling the Republicans, though.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Do you think the fact Obama is himself a centerist would make any difference?

Of course. I'm not saying Garland's nomination is out of character for Obama. Indeed, it's entirely consistent with his character, which is why it's so predictably disappointing.

0 Replies

No one can say with complete certainty of what will be the outcome of this upcoming presidential and congressional elections. From what I can gather it looks like the democrats have a very good chance of winning the White House and possibly retake the Senate. Now that Obama has nominated what appears to be a moderate middle of the road judge to the supreme court, will the republicans still reject this nomination?

If the Democrats win the White House and if they retake the Senate, I strongly suspect that a democratic president will nominate a liberal judge especially if the democrats take back the Senate.. At least that is my hope.

The two most destructive 5-4 decisions this conservative court included both the "Citizens United" and the "Gutting of key parts of the Voting Rights Act". Those two 5-4 rulings probably did more harm to our nation than any other supreme court decisions in a very long time. Just maybe a liberal Supreme Court can reverse those two decisions. I can only hope.

1 Reply

Certainly the senate races are far more important than the media pundits seem to think. Not nearly enough attention is being paid to them.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Ostensibly, the "evil" done by Citizen's United was the pumping of money into the election process by corporate interests.

Thus far the Democrat front runner has benefited from this "evil" a lot more than her Republican counterpart, but if anyone really believes that corporate money alone is propelling Clinton to the nomination, they are misguided.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

But a degree enabled by affirmative action does?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

As far as the Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton as well as Barak Obama, they are both anomalies in regard to benefitting from Citizens United. Because of Citizens United many more people running for office will ultimately be bought and paid for by big money interest on a much larger scale. That just gives more the reason for a liberal supreme court to reverse the Citizens United ruling. The real damage of Citizens United is in Congressional races, Gubernatorial races, and Statewide local races. The amount of money being pumped into congressional, gubernatorial, and Statewide local election is unprecedented. The amount of money that entities like the Koch brothers are pumping into these down ticket races wasn't possible until after Citizens United.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Meantime, I have a longtime friend who went to a University of California school back in the days of affirmative action. But.. her grades were spectacular in high school. Like her, a bunch of people would have gotten in anyway, given their grades, yet they had to deal with people thinking they were lesser, since she is a latina and may have been assumed to have been "let in". Also, I think I remember, that none of those affirmative action students had grades lower than what was already required before all that. It was more that the administration didn't have to pick the higher grades if there were students in these categories that had the required grades, just not the highest ones. Of course, that always has gone on for athletes and, in some schools, for people whose parents went to the school.

This is a long time ago, and I'm not 100% positive on this, not having been an administrator myself, but fairly sure.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

McConnell is also probably hoping that Trump isn't the GOP nominee.

Probably.

joefromchicago wrote:

Yeah, you keep saying that like it means something. It doesn't.

It means that Mr. Trump is going to be our next president.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

It means that Mr. Trump is going to be our next president.

ROFLAMO

0 Replies

The Supreme Court vacancy, a minefield for Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know