# Has the Merrick Garland ship officially set sail? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 6, 2019, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088 "2019-02-06T23:45:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088/21 "2019-02-07T15:03:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > We need a Constitutional amendment to fix the mess long-term. Only once that’s assured should we try to address the short-term problem, because otherwise any short-term solution will devolve into farce. If we pack the court to fix the problem, then the next time the Republicans are in power, they’ll just pack it even further the other way, and next thing you know, the Supreme Court is bigger than the House of Representin’. I agree. I’ve suggested before (as have many others, obviously) either instituting a minimum age for the SCOTUS at ~75 or so, or instituting term limits such that every year there is a SCOTUS vacancy. Without such a change, I think it’s just a matter of time before one side figures out that the way to “win” the SCOTUS is to kill justices (with a convenient nutcase) while one’s own side has the WH and the Senate. Anything else is just a temporary solution, and will probably just escalate the partisan back-and-forth on the SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088/22 "2019-02-07T15:47:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m unconvinced. If he had nominated a 45 year old very liberal judge, McConnell’s argument would have been “if you had nominated someone reasonable, like Garland, we’d be happy to consider him as a replacement for Scalia”. It would still have been bullshit, but I think it would have been a more legitimate-seeming bullshit, leaving a bunch of us thinking “maybe he should have nominated Garland”. > > On the other hand, maybe Obama should have nominated such a young liberal, and then a month later “capitulated” and nominated Garland. But that probably would have brought to the same ultimate place anyway – a bullshit argument for not even considering Garland. I’m thinking maybe the other way around - that once McConnell had demonstrated his unwillingness to consider Garland, Obama should have withdrawn the nomination, and nominated SPW, or someone of a similar bent, in order to give progressives a reason to care. But on the whole, I think Obama’s habit of ‘negotiating with himself’ and leading off with a compromise offer, was one of his least successful habits as President. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088/23 "2019-02-07T16:12:01Z")
I’d like to see a Constitutional amendment stating that failure of the Senate to vote on judicial nominations within 180 days, and any other nominations within 90 days, constitutes consent. That way, the Senate would actually have to vote against a nominee, rather than merely refuse to consider him/her, in order to block the nomination. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088/24 "2019-02-07T16:18:52Z")
I’m OK with a fairly long limit on a Supreme Court Justice’s term (25 years, say) to prevent any future Clarence Thomas-type cases where an unusually young judge is promoted to the Supreme Court, and is still deciding cases 40+ years later. There really needs to be a limit to how far into the future one party can lock its choices in place. OTOH, I’m not especially keen on the oft-proposed notion of having 18-year terms for Justices, with terms expiring at two-year intervals. First, I think the term is too short. Second, for this to work as advertised, if a Justice dies or retires before his/her 18-year term is up, someone has to be nominated for just the remainder of that Justice’s term. The notion that someone might be elevated to the Supreme Court only to finish out the last two or three years of another Justice’s term is something I’m just not particularly comfortable with. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088/25 "2019-02-07T16:51:34Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > 😕 Details of that question seemed highly tangential. Upping Scotus from 9 to 13 might be a good compromise (depending on whether Ginsburg is still alive). We’d want to stab a permanent stake through Sauron’s heart, but not appear overly farcical about it. There’s nothing “permanent” about that stake. It’ll last only until Republicans are back in power, and then they’ll just pack the Court right back. That’s the fundamental flaw in this court-packing scheme: you’re not the only ones that can do it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088/26 "2019-02-07T17:04:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **iiandyiiii** : > > I agree. I’ve suggested before (as have many others, obviously) either instituting a minimum age for the SCOTUS at ~75 or so… I don’t think that designing official policies around depending on death by old age to fix problems is a good idea, on multiple counts. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088/27 "2019-02-07T17:24:34Z")
Garland was a compromise candidate. I don’t see any room for compromises in future judicial nominations. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088/28 "2019-02-07T17:39:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Garland was a compromise candidate. I don’t see any room for compromises in future judicial nominations. No kidding. We could easily end up with Associate Justice AOC in the next decade, all thanks to Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088/29 "2019-02-07T18:37:12Z")
Garland is done. As mentioned above, he’s 66. He’ll be 69 by the next realistic vacancy not appointed by Republicans. A 69 year old is not going to be put on the court. His age almost disqualified him last time. The last appointee over the age of 55 was RBG in 1993. I don’t see that happening again. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2019, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088/30 "2019-02-07T18:43:41Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’d like to see a Constitutional amendment stating that failure of the Senate to vote on judicial nominations within 180 days, and any other nominations within 90 days, constitutes consent. Doesn’t this just create an incentive for the majority party to delay the vote on a controversial nominee until the deadline has passed? To say nothing of an incentive for an Administration to nominate hundreds of nominees at once. I mean, the Senate returning nominations to the President without action is fairly common place. I think over 250 were returned at the end of the last Senate session. All of them automatically get confirmed? ---
**Author:** ![duality72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duality72/32/3910_2.png) [@duality72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duality72)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088/31 "2019-02-08T08:55:41Z")
To the extent I fantasize about such things, I would have the court size increased to 13 with automatic reductions to 11 and 9 when Gorsuch and Kavanaugh leave the court. Unfucks the court, but emphasizes it’s a temporary fix for an unusual situation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-merrick-garland-ship-officially-set-sail/829088.md?page=1)