One of the things Trump talked about yesterday when he met with Obama is the need for unifying a divided country. I think renominating Garland would be an excellent sign that he places a unified country above partisan politics. Do any of you all think there is any chance he might do this?
I’ve thought of this too. It would be a huge gesture, and honestly wouldn’t cost much as Garland is widely liked. I think politically it would be brilliant.
It’s not gonna happen though.
No, it would just show weakness and the libs would give him no credit for it anyway. As Obama said when he won, elections have consequences. This is one of them. Do you think Hillary, if she had squeaked out a win, would nominate even a moderate, if Thomas retired? Not a chance.
Although I agree with you that it would be an excellent olive branch.
But the Senate would have defeated the Garland nomination even if it had gone to a vote in March.
In my view, the best course would be for the Senate to confirm Garland now, because Obama was entitled to the deference of seeing his qualified picks consented to. And going forward, Trump should be accorded the same deference.
But in my view, even if Trump did that, his next pick would not be accorded deference.
And while I opposed the choice to reject Garland, I recognize that it was in part based on the rejection of Bush’s picks of Owen, Pickering, Kuhl, McKeague, Saad, Griffin, and Pryor.
And those, in turn, based on rejections of Clinton’s judicial nominees.
But in my view, the genesis of this back-and-forth rests with the rejection of Robert Bork.
Now ask yourself: why was it okay for the Democrats to reject Bork, but not for the Republicans to to reject nominees they did not like?
The rules have to be the same. You cannot say that we rejected that guy 'cause he would rule in ways we don’t like, but how dare they reject our guy? After all, our guy will rule the correct way!
Yup. The judicial nominations have been going downhill ever since Bork at an alarming rate. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Senate nukes the filibuster rule for SCOTUS this time around.
Yep-We reject one of your guys, and you reject all of ours, sight unseen.
Sounds perfectly logical…if you’re Sean Connery in The Untouchables, that is.
What does this mean? Did the rejection of Bork mean Republicans were entitled to one rejection? The Democrats are entitled to decide when to break the norms, and the Republicans are only entitled to respond to the same extent? Only the Democrats can advance the boundary?
If this was done, I would as a Democrat disagree vehemently for Democrats blocking qualified Trump nominees. This would set right a wrong and show some sign of actual unity. It also won’t happen.
Not quite the same since the Republicans didn’t even consider the nomination of Garland, officially. Otherwise, yeah.
Trump is being magnanimous in what he says these days, but no way is he going to nominate Garland. Absolutely no way. (Unless he really was a stealth Democratic candidate! )
Not going to happen. There is far too much riding on the vacancy. Sure, the Republicans might throw the Dems a sop but they’re not going to give away the whole store.
I know the liberals have had a tremendous shock and I do sympathize but grasping at such feeble straws as this and the Electoral College fantasy isn’t going to help much.
Well, Bork did do that whole Watergate thing and was specifically offered a Supreme Court seat for his role in trying to shut down the investigation. It was really unfair of the Dems to deny him his reward.
I’ll freely admit that I’m still grasping at straws, and that it’s not going to help any, much less helping much. :(. I suppose I just wanted to hear it from other more knowledgeable posters.
What I’m genuinely fearful of is that he’ll nominate someone like Roy Moore. I’d happily settle for a younger Scalia if it meant avoiding someone like Moore.
It would be the intelligent, adult thing to do. No.
Well, Garland was advanced by senior Republicans as a good compromise candidate so it’s not an outrageous olive branch to extend. As others said though, it’s probably unlikely. They just won big league and want the payoff on this.
Surely you don’t actually believe that. He’s going to nominate someone to the right of Scalia.
Precisely why it will not happen.
Come on, guys. It’s also perfectly intelligent and adult for him to nominate someone from the list he gave out on the campaign. Just because you prefer something else doesn’t mean that’s the “adult” move.
Total nonsense. The Republicans DID consider Garland. And after they considered it, they replied with a resounding and emphatic “NO!”
But of course, the liberals are all butt-hurt because the Senate didn’t do the considering in the “proper” form.
You are 100% correct.
That is total nonsense.
(Of course, in Texas there’s talkof someone primarying Cruz* from the Right.* From before Cruz Saw The Light & became a True Trump Believer.)
Because the democrats actually voted on these people, rather than refusing to even meet with them.
If the Republicans had voted on garland, and voted him down, that would be fine. Disappointing, but perfectly within the realm of responsible policy. They went the obstructionist route, not even allowing a vote.
Do you not see the difference here?