Obama to select Merrick Garland to Supreme Court, per NY Times

[Maren]

President Obama on Wednesday will nominate Merrick B. Garland as the nation’s 113th justice, according to White House officials, choosing a centrist appeals court judge widely respected even by Republicans in hopes his choice will be considered by the Senate.

link

 

[AirPo]

Anyone think the timing was deliberate?

The announcement comes after a big night in the 2016 election, with both party's front-runners -- Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump -- emerging with sweeping victories as they march toward their respective nominations. Some believed Obama would time his pick so it wouldn't get lost in the election obsession. But the timing seems suited to directly insert the selection into the political conversation.

Full story here -->

 

[stamperben]

Of course the timing was to directly insert the selection into the political conversation, it IS a political act that needs to be addressed.

 

[Arcangl86]

I think Judge Garland is a really good choice. And I'm not sure about timing. I mean yes it is primary season, but it's also almost a month since Scalia died.

 

[SummerMadness]

Wait, wait... I need to wait for the talking points before I voice my opinion regarding why I oppose his nomination.

 

[stamperben]

Wait, wait... I need to wait for the talking points before I voice my opinion regarding why I oppose his nomination.

It's almost as if the loyal party pundits didn't believe he'd have the gall to do his constitutional duty. But never fear! Fox will let them know what to think...

 

[The_Laconic_Dead]

He's terrible on gun rights.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ed-flags-raised-over-second-amendment-record/

 

[The_Laconic_Dead]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/merrick-garland-has-very-liberal-view-gun-rights/

 

[stamperben]

Better watch it! He'll be coming to your door to confiscate your weapons!

 

[Thunder Peel]

I loved hearing Obama talk about how he's done his "constitutional duty", as if the last seven years of ignoring, abusing and shredding the Constitution somehow never happened.

 

[cow451]

Wait, wait... I need to wait for the talking points before I voice my opinion regarding why I oppose his nomination.

Here are the talking points:

• Obama
  
• Obama
  
• Obama

 

[The_Laconic_Dead]

Heller was a 5/4 decision affirming the individual who right to bear arms. This pick would switch that majority opinion should Heller be challenged.

It is a real danger.

The 2ND amendment is an individual right. Any court that says otherwise is illegitimate and it's rulings are to be ignored by any self respecting American.

 

[cow451]

I loved hearing Obama talk about how he's done his "constitutional duty", as if the last seven years of ignoring, abusing and shredding the Constitution somehow never happened.

So, he's following the Constitution and now you don't like that, either.

 

[AirPo]

So, he's following the Constitution and now you don't like that, either.

Obamaed if you do.
Obamaed if you don't.

 

[Maren]

He's terrible on gun rights.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ed-flags-raised-over-second-amendment-record/

So you don't confirm the nomination because of this and, based on the polling that has been done, Clinton beats Trump in November. In January you get a new Supreme Court nominee that looks more like Ginsberg (a Clinton appointee) that is confirmed by the new Senate, that has a majority of Democrats.

 

[SummerMadness]

So you don't confirm the nomination because of this and, based on the polling that has been done, Clinton beats Trump in November. In January you get a new Supreme Court nominee that looks more like Ginsberg (a Clinton appointee) that is confirmed by the new Senate, that has a majority of Democrats.

I think it would be funny if they block the nominee until the election. Let's say Hillary wins and the Senate flips, Obama should withdraw the nomination and say, "Hillary will pick the nominee, as you wanted." Then pick the most liberal person the country has ever seen.

 

[stamperben]

I think it would be funny if they block the nominee until the election. Let's say Hillary wins and the Senate flips, Obama should withdraw the nomination and say, "Hillary will pick the nominee, as you wanted." Then pick the most liberal person the country has ever seen.

Elizabeth Warren!

Or just for the heck of it - Barack Obama!

 

[Veritas]

Better watch it! He'll be coming to your door to confiscate your weapons!

That IS the long view. However as liberals know, you have to do it incrementally through the chipping away of the 2nd Amendment. A Justice Garland will help speed things along. In fact, I suspect that gun legislation was the single most important criteria Obama was looking for when choosing Scalia's replacement. Whatever other views Garland may have are not as consequential.

http://canadafreepress.com/article/...taunch-anti-gun-judge-merrick-garland-to-scot

 

[Albion]

So you don't confirm the nomination because of this and, based on the polling that has been done, Clinton beats Trump in November. In January you get a new Supreme Court nominee that looks more like Ginsberg (a Clinton appointee) that is confirmed by the new Senate, that has a majority of Democrats.

Yes, that's a possibility, but Obama would probably do what other presidents have done and withdrawn this nomination before that.

 

[Maren]

I think it would be funny if they block the nominee until the election. Let's say Hillary wins and the Senate flips, Obama should withdraw the nomination and say, "Hillary will pick the nominee, as you wanted." Then pick the most liberal person the country has ever seen.

Basically, Garland's nomination will end with the new Senate and the new President, so Hillary will make a new nomination. I fully expect that someone quite liberal will be nominated. Worse, she'll likely nominate someone 20 years younger, with the idea they would stay on the court for 40+ years.

As things stand currently, it seems that the Republican's are making a very risky bet, if they refuse to confirm Garland. They are betting on someone like Cruz being nominated, and keeping the Senate, so a true Scalia-type replacement can be nominated. The problem is, the polls show Clinton with a huge lead and, even if she lost, it is likely with Trump as the Republican nominee. The odds currently have the House switching to the Democrats, which likely will be very antagonistic towards any nominee by a Republican president. Worse, with some of Trump's statements about who would make a good nominee, there is some question if he would even nominate a conservative justice, or just more moderates.