Justice Merrick Garland

[_Brackite]

President Obama has chosen Justice Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick B. Garland to be the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appellate judge who could reshape the court for a generation and become the face of a bitter election-year confirmation struggle.

In selecting Judge Garland, 63, a well-known figure in Washington legal circles who has drawn praise from members of both parties, Mr. Obama dared Republican senators to ignore public pressure and make good on their promise to block consideration of any high court nominee until after the next president is chosen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/po ... minee.html



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that Republicans won’t hold hearings on Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. If McConnell follows through and makes everyone wait until next year, he and his party will be taking a serious risk. The political situation for Republicans could get a lot worse — and McConnell might no longer be in charge of the Senate.

The logic of this isn’t that complicated. Right now, the most likely person to become the next president is Hillary Clinton, who is on the verge of wrapping up the Democratic nomination. The second most likely person is Donald Trump. His path to the Republican nomination is more tenuous than Clinton’s path to the Democratic one. But Trump had a successful day of elections on Tuesday — and if it isn’t obvious how Trump will get to 1,237 delegates, it’s even less obvious how anyone else will become the Republican nominee.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rep ... ent-trump/



According to the RCP Average, Hillary Clinton is now up by +6.3 over Trump. Link

And I find this Quote from Senator Orrin Hatch very interesting.

"Merrick B. Garland is highly qualified to sit on the D.C. circuit. His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned... His legal experience is equally impressive... Accordingly, I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. I know him personally, I know of his integrity, I know of his legal ability, I know of his honesty, I know of his acumen, and he belongs on the court. I believe he is not only a fine nominee, but is as good as Republicans can expect from this administration. In fact, I would place him at the top of the list." - 1997

[_Res Ipsa]

Obama should let the Senate know he will withdraw the nomination on Election Day.

[_The CCC]

Since Republicans love GITMO so much Obama should invoke the Patriot and National Defense Authorization Acts and send them there.

[_subgenius]

President Obama has chosen Justice Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

...
"Merrick B. Garland is highly qualified to sit on the D.C. circuit. His intelligence and his scholarship cannot be questioned... His legal experience is equally impressive... Accordingly, I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. I know him personally, I know of his integrity, I know of his legal ability, I know of his honesty, I know of his acumen, and he belongs on the court. I believe he is not only a fine nominee, but is as good as Republicans can expect from this administration. In fact, I would place him at the top of the list." - 1997

So, your logic is this:
Because A is true = Merrick B. Garland is highly qualified to sit on the D.C. circuit
Then B must be true also = Merrick B. Garland is highly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court

Which may be a proper and correct conclusion

BUT:
C = "...if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks... President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not -- and not -- name a nominee until after the November election is completed. ... Once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over." - Joe Biden

AND
this all explains why you see no problem with:
D = Obama: Who Cares if I Filibustered Alito, Republicans Have to Vote on My the Supreme Court Nominee

[_The CCC]

The so called "Biden Rule" was never a thing. All nominees were given a hearing and a vote. Mitch McConnell is a lying POS.
SEE http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/mitch ... biden-rule

[_moksha]

The relative merits of Judge Garland have no relevance to Republican actions. The GOP has the power to obstruct and they intend to use it to the fullest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland

[_ajax18]

The GOP has the power to obstruct and they intend to use it to the fullest.

If only that were true. Boehner signed off on $5 trillion of the debt Obama has run up. They did nothing to stop Obama's illegal unconstitutional executive amnesty. They caved on defunding Obamacare when Obama threatened to shut down the government. These are the reasons that the Republican establishment has fallen out of favor and Trump is trouncing each one of their candidates in the Republican presidential primaries.

[_cinepro]

The so called "Biden Rule" was never a thing. All nominees were given a hearing and a vote. Mitch McConnell is a lying POS.
SEE http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/mitch ... biden-rule

The biggest problem I have with the Republican intransigence on this issue is that many of the Republicans doing this have taken pride in being hard-line constitutionalists. But here is a situation in which the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, but they refuse to follow it for purely political purposes.

That's all well and good if they believe their political purposes are more important than the Constitution, but then don't pretend like the Constitution is the standard upon which you are basing your politics. This is a test for whether they really believe in the Constitution or not, and they are failing.

And whining that "the Democrats did the same thing" is irrelevant, since they also accuse the Democrats of not being appropriately faithful to the Constitution in the first place. If anything, this just shows that the Democrats are at least more honest about where their priorities lie.

[_subgenius]

The so called "Biden Rule" was never a thing. All nominees were given a hearing and a vote. Mitch McConnell is a lying POS.
SEE http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/mitch ... biden-rule

I never said there was a Biden-rule, i merely provided his quote...if you believe the quote is inaccurate or misquoted, please feel free to dispute that quote.
Otherwise recognize that the Vice President for Obama's Executive Branch of Government has the same political logic as the current Republican Senate.

To save you some trouble, here is the video of Biden saying what I quoted:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-o ... t-vacancy/

[_subgenius]

But here is a situation in which the Constitution is clear and unambiguous...

really? perhaps you could provide the citation for whatever Constitution you are referring to.

Are you claiming that the President made his nomination "by and with the advice and consent" of the Senate?

[The President] shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Councils, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

I can't find the text in the Constitution that requires the Senate to do anything beyond "as they think proper" with the President nomination.....

so, please help me out with this "clear and unambiguous" text you speak of