# Obama nominates Judge Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 16, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160 "2016-03-16T14:13:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/1 "2016-03-16T14:13:26Z")
> **[Obama nominates Merrick Garland to Supreme Court | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/obama-supreme-court-announcement/index.html)** > > President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, who is respected across political lines, to the Supreme Court Wednesday, in an epic power play targeting the resolve of Republicans who have vowed to block any replacement for the late Justice... By most accounts Judge Garland is a moderate. He is also a little older at 63 years old. I think that under other circumstances this is someone that Republicans would be happy to confirm to the SCOTUS. How do you all think this will go? ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/2 "2016-03-16T14:15:58Z")
Never mind. There is already a thread on this. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/3 "2016-03-16T14:16:06Z")
He could dig up Scalia, reanimate him, and nominate him and the Republicans would refuse to nominate him. There’s an outside chance they could schedule a hearing by say October but he won’t even get out of committee. Or more likely into committee. ---
**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:** [March 16, 2016, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/4 "2016-03-16T14:16:06Z")
I think they’ll hem and haw for a while – weeks and maybe even months, but they’ll eventually hold a hearing and a vote. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/5 "2016-03-16T14:20:38Z")
Here’s an article about Garland and his background - > **[Obama Nominates Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nomination_n_56e85c4ce4b065e2e3d788f0?75nchl2oiqhipsc3di=)** > > He's by far the least controversial -- and most confirmable -- candidate from the president's short list. I’m especially fond of this bit: > [@](#): > > Garland has some pluses that could serve him well in a polarized environment, including knowing Chief Justice John Roberts – the two clerked for famed New York judge Henry Friendly and participated in cases together on the D.C. Circuit, when Roberts served there between 2003 and 2005. Well played, Mr. President. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/6 "2016-03-16T14:25:22Z")
Garland has nothing to lose by accepting the nomination, whether it proceeds or not. He already works and lives in Washington, and there is no downside or even inconvenience to him. McConnell, Grassley, et al. now have to claim they want Donald Trump to make the nomination. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![snowthx](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowthx/32/10660_2.png) [@snowthx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snowthx)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/7 "2016-03-16T14:26:19Z")
I dunno - the Republicans pre-emptively painted themselves into a corner by already announcing they wont consider anyone Obama nominates. If they back down and consider Garland, they look like fools. If they hold tight and don’t consider Garland, they remain looking like fools. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/8 "2016-03-16T14:28:54Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > I dunno - the Republicans pre-emptively painted themselves into a corner by already announcing they wont consider anyone Obama nominates. If they back down and consider Garland, they look like fools. If they hold tight and don’t consider Garland, they remain looking like fools. So they have a choice about which kind of fool they want to look like: ones who get better, or ones who don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/9 "2016-03-16T14:31:43Z")
IMHO the Republicans should make a few more speeches and then decide that in the interests of national harmony (or some other BS reasons) they’ve decided to hold a vote after all. Then let the guy get confirmed. At this point, with Trump’s chances at the nomination looking good, the Republican chances at holding the Senate are looking correspondingly bad. And if they lose the presidency and the Senate, they will wish they had another chance at Garland. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/10 "2016-03-16T14:33:17Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > So they have a choice about which kind of fool they want to look like: ones who get better, or ones who don’t. They’ll probably wait to see if Trump’s support inside the party strengthens or weakens before deciding. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/11 "2016-03-16T14:35:18Z")
> [@FlikTheBlue](#): > > Never mind. There is already a thread on this. No worries - yours ended up getting the comments. This seems like a shrewd choice - if Congress blocks, they look awful and an elected Clinton will go more liberal. If a hearing proceeds, they look silly and more like the owners of all the obstructionism. ::your move:: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/12 "2016-03-16T14:42:33Z")
President Clinton will especially go more liberal with her own nomination with a Democratic-controlled Senate, which is looking even likelier today. If the GOP Senators come to realize their \*real \*options are the moderate Garland and a progressive like, say, Goodwin Liu, with the contingency being Trump’s choice of some other whacko, why, they’re good enough pols to come up with a pretext for changing their minds. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/13 "2016-03-16T14:43:58Z")
Very well played indeed, Mr President. [Just last week, Orrin Hatch said](http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-gizzi-orrin-hatch-obama-will-nominate/2016/03/13/id/718871/): > [@](#): > > “The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him,” Hatch told us. > > \*\*“[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” \*\*he told us, referring to the more centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia who was considered and passed over for the two previous high court vacancies. > > But, Hatch quickly added, “He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.” BOOM. The ball is back in your court and about to smack you in the face, Senator. At least **doorhinge** will be happy, as I know the amount of time Obama was taking to select a nominee was a particular concern. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/14 "2016-03-16T14:48:50Z")
It was just a month, in an unexpected situation. That’s pretty normal. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/15 "2016-03-16T14:56:17Z")
Republicans will obstruct until Clinton and enough Dem senate candidates win in November and then scramble to confirm before they lose the Senate and Clinton nominates Karl Marx. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/16 "2016-03-16T14:59:29Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Very well played indeed, Mr President. [Just last week, Orrin Hatch said](http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-gizzi-orrin-hatch-obama-will-nominate/2016/03/13/id/718871/):BOOM. The ball is back in your court and about to smack you in the face, Senator. > > At least **doorhinge** will be happy, as I know the amount of time Obama was taking to select a nominee was a particular concern. Hatch needs to remember “Loose lips sink ships.” And political grandstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/17 "2016-03-16T15:07:50Z")
I wanted Sri Srinivasan, but that was solely because it would have been nice to have an Indian on SCOTUS. Garland is probably the most qualified choice out there, and because the DC Circuit spends so much time on government cases he doesn’t have any controversial opinions floating out there on social policy. Still, I think Obama missed an opportunity when he didn’t nominate one of his own prior appellate nominees. I would have been fun to watch the GOP Senators try to explain why they couldn’t approve a SCOTUS nominee who had been confirmed to the circuit bench 100-0. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/18 "2016-03-16T15:11:49Z")
If I were a senator, I would vote to confirm. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/19 "2016-03-16T15:11:54Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Republicans will obstruct until Clinton and enough Dem senate candidates win in November and then scramble to confirm before they lose the Senate and Clinton nominates Karl Marx. A 25 year old Karl Marx who has personally had an abortion. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/20 "2016-03-16T15:13:41Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > A 25 year old Karl Marx who has personally had an abortion. Wouldn’t that be Karla Marx? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=2)