I have a hunch that, despite GOP obstructionism, Garland will eventually take his seat on the U.S. Supreme Court - either before Election Day (unlikely), or in a lame-duck session (a bit more likely), or between the convening of the new, hopefully Democratic-controlled Senate in early January and President Obama leaving office on Jan. 20, 2017 (perhaps most likely).
I’m willing to bet US$100 right now that we’ll see Justice Garland take his seat by the time a new President is sworn in. I’ll bet $20 with the first five Dopers who say otherwise. If you want to take my bet, simply post in this thread, in bold, “I’ll take your bet.” Say anything else you want to, discuss the question to your heart’s content, but those are the magic words - and the only way - to take the bet.
We’ll exchange real names and snail-mail addresses via PM. If I win, each of the five will send me a check for $20 within a month of Justice Garland being sworn in. If I lose, I’ll send each of the five winners a check for $20 by Feb. 20, 2017. These terms are non-negotiable.
Wait, what if it’s a recess appointment? I’m not at all convinced Merrick Garland will make it through the Senate, but Obama may well do a recess appointment. Especially if Hillary drops the ball. The Republicans in the Senate have tools to help stop his ability to do this, but
I’ll put money on him not getting a vote, or if he does get a vote, not getting confirmed, but that’s not what you said, you said “takes his seat” which could happen due to a recess appointment.
I’m willing to bet he won’t take a seat with the advice and consent of this Senate. Too many people see that as “Scalia’s seat” and will risk losing their Senate races to hold onto the possibility of that being filled by a conservative president. But even if Hillary starts curb stomping Trump and the Senate starts seeing visions of a Hillary appointee on the horizon odds are they’ll drag it out as long as possible by voting down Merrick Garland, restoring their “see we did our jobs” cred in time for their re-election campaigns, and trying to run out the clock by making Obama nominate someone else.
I don’t know. I think that there is the possibility he’s in as a sacrificial lamb. That if the Senate and Presidency both go to Democrats, he’ll bow out or be pulled and Democrats will punish Republicans with a younger and more liberal justice. I don’t think such a move would be anything more than partisan bullshit, but I think its a possibility.
I think the GOP is likely to drop its obstructionism once it becomes inevitable that they’ll otherwise have to deal with a nomination by President Clinton or President Trump.
I don’t bet money, but I think you’re wrong. The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. If they back down now, they piss of their base. I think if the nomination isn’t complete before the election, it should be withdrawn unless the president-elect is okay with it going forward. If Hillary is elected, she may very well want to pick her own justice.
As for recess appointment- forget about it. Congress will never be in recess long enough for a recess appointment again. These sham pro forma sessions are ironically enough endorsed by the Supreme Court and will be used to prevent Obama from making a recess court appointment.
“by the time a new president is sworn in…” - Ha! I see what you’re doing. What about when Obama cancels the election and declares himself president for life? What then huh?
I think Garland will take his seat too, I’m just not willing to bet on it.
I know this isn’t the election forum, but I kind of agree. The way things are headed, I think the Republicans are heading for a loss in November. While they can not tell for sure, of course, it’s a mess now and it would be a huge risk to wait and end up with Clinton.
So, has anyone actually taken you up on your bet Elendil’s Heir? Because I will if you haven’t hit five yet. Although, do recess appointments count? Or must he be confirmed by the Senate, then sworn in?
[Re-reads thread] No one’s taken you up on it yet that I see. If, it’s that Garland must be confirmed by the Senate, then sworn in, I’ll take you up on that bet and say, “No, the Senate won’t confirm him by the time Obama leaves office on Jan 20, 2017.”
Why? Garland’s pretty four-square against Heller and that’s the closest thing to Roe v. Wade now for a lot of Republican voters. If GOP Senators roll over on this, they’ll be either primaried or enough of their constituents’ll stay home that they’ll lose their 2016 Elections. And they’ve been told this.
The Republic will live with 8 Justices until Jan 2017, and if November is the GOP asskicking that so many of you are gleefully anticipating, the Dems can nominate anyone they wish, and not be stuck with the ‘moderate’ Garland.
I don’t want to interfere with your betting calculus, but the idea that Garland is “four square against Heller” is laughable. A few people have drawn that conclusion based on a single vote for rehearing of the original panel decision which SCOTUS upheld in Heller. Not a vote to overturn that decision, just a vote for rehearing.
Garland may well be against Heller, but there’s no actual evidence of it.
I’d consider his vote to grant the petition for rehearing Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370 (D.C., 2007) en banc along with his vote for Tatel’s majority opinion in NRA v. Reno, 216 F. 3d 122, (D.C. 2000), sufficient to doubt that he’d uphold Heller. Dave Kopel lays out the logic in an article he wrote at the time of the Parker vote:
I fail to see how a Justice that agrees with Heller, would vote to try and rehear Parker, after the 2-1 panel ruled that D.C.'s ban on handgun possession and of keeping firearms loaded infringed the Second Amendment and needed to be overturned. I fully expect him to explain it during his confirmation hearings, of course.
Everyone’s assuming that Hillary will get a SCOTUS pick if she wins and Obama withdraws the Garland nomination.
If the GOP retains control of the Senate, what’s to stop them from saying, “Meh. We’re okay with having just eight justices. We’ll let the American people decide in 2020 if they really want nine.”
I might have to take up this bet, if only in hope that I would lose. I would love to see the Senate Republicans back down on this. But I don’t think they will, even if it means possibly losing their majority. Obama Derangement Syndrome is just too powerful with these guys and gals.
