# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![Arcite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/67e7ee/32.png) [@Arcite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arcite)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/281 "2016-03-18T03:42:25Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > As the article states, it’s more like a “Biden observation”, and at any rate, he referred to a nomination during the **summer** of a president’s last year in office. Is March “the summer” now? It’s not more like a “Biden observation” (no surprise that a Salon article contains a bald-faced lie.) He was making imperative statements. [Watch the clip yourself.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0) Regardless of the fact that he was speaking in June and not March, the then-Senator said that the President should not nominate a new Supreme Court Justice “in the full throes of an election year,” and furthermore, even claimed it was historical precedent not to do so. He also stated that if the President were to do so anyway, the Senate should not hold confirmation hearings. This makes the Democrats look like total hypocrites. Not that that ever stops them. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/282 "2016-03-18T03:51:09Z")
Taking one position then, and another now, in the reversed situation? Yes, that is rank hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/283 "2016-03-18T04:16:37Z")
> [@Arcite](#): > > It’s not more like a “Biden observation” (no surprise that a Salon article contains a bald-faced lie.) He was making imperative statements. [Watch the clip yourself.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0) Regardless of the fact that he was speaking in June and not March, the then-Senator said that the President should not nominate a new Supreme Court Justice “in the full throes of an election year,” and furthermore, even claimed it was historical precedent not to do so. He also stated that if the President were to do so anyway, the Senate should not hold confirmation hearings. This makes the Democrats look like total hypocrites. Not that that ever stops them. He said wait until the election is over to have hearings, meaning in November. Not the same thing as saying they would not entertain any suggestion the man had out of hand. Did they ever refuse to hear a Rebuplican nominee? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/284 "2016-03-18T05:20:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > From whom? Which one are you waiting for? Plenty of people on this board have concluded and conceded that it is within the power of the Senate to not hold hearings if they don’t want to. There is no cite that will say there is a legal requirement to hold hearings. > > [Washington Post:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/16/does-the-senate-have-a-constitutional-responsibility-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nomination/) This was already cited in post #184, btw. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/285 "2016-03-18T05:41:29Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > The Republican policy seems to be that Obama is merely a placeholder, and has never actually held the office of President of the United States. Yep: > [@Mitch McConnell](#): > > The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration… Funny you say that Mitch, as that’s exactly what’s just happened. I’m surprised you didn’t hear about it…it’s on all the news channels. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/286 "2016-03-18T05:48:29Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Then there is no remedy. > > Tell me how he isn’t being both canny and a gentleman in this. Yes there is no remedy. Tell me how he is being canny or gentlemanly? How is pushing for a Supreme Court defeat canny? What the heck does gentlemanly have to do with anything? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/287 "2016-03-18T06:27:20Z")
> [@Arcite](#): > > It’s not more like a “Biden observation” (no surprise that a Salon article contains a bald-faced lie.) He was making imperative statements. [Watch the clip yourself.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlzhULrJC0) Regardless of the fact that he was speaking in June and not March, the then-Senator said that the President should not nominate a new Supreme Court Justice “in the full throes of an election year,” and furthermore, even claimed it was historical precedent not to do so. He also stated that if the President were to do so anyway, the Senate should not hold confirmation hearings. This makes the Democrats look like total hypocrites. Not that that ever stops them. Please listen to the full speech. Not only are you missing Biden’s actual point really hard, but Biden _explicitly_ states that if the president proposes a moderate or actually consults with the senate before nominating, they would accept said person. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/288 "2016-03-18T12:58:39Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > The actual Majority position couldn’t be assumed until the new Congress, but the ascendant party can certainly _choose_ their leader, to step into that role, in the weeks following the election. As the Republicans did for Mitch McConnell in November 2014. In fact, we \*already \*know it will be Schumer. ---
**Author:** ![not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_what_you_d_expect/32/3246_2.png) [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_what_you_d_expect)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/289 "2016-03-18T13:18:34Z")
The Republicans should just go ahead and vote. It would be easy to claim a win by declaring that Obama played right into their hands. They can say they used reverse psychology and got just who they wanted. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/290 "2016-03-18T16:07:40Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > Though, he wasn’t elected to his position by the voters; he was elected to it by his fellow Republican senators. A grand total of 54 people were involved in that election. > > Why aren’t the American people allowed to have a voice in who leads the majority in the U.S. Senate, Senator? > > (Yes, I’m being facetious. Mostly.) You might be confusing the peanut gallery with your facetiousness? The American people did have a voice in who leads the majority in the U.S. Senate. Some of candidates that the people voted for lost their election bid. They had a chance. They had a voice. Majority rules. The U.S.A. is a Democratic Republic. The voters elect representatives to represent them. Step 1 - We the voters elected our U.S. Senators. Step 2 - The majority in the Senate elect the Senate leader. Millions of voters were involved in the process to elect the people who elect the Senate leader. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/291 "2016-03-18T16:27:39Z")
So, tell us, how is it that the \*President \*gets to make the nominations? Who elected _him_? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![oft\_wears\_hats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@oft\_wears\_hats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oft_wears_hats)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/292 "2016-03-18T16:29:18Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You might be confusing the peanut gallery with your facetiousness? > > The American people did have a voice in who leads the majority in the U.S. Senate. Some of candidates that the people voted for lost their election bid. They had a chance. They had a voice. Majority rules. The U.S.A. is a Democratic Republic. The voters elect representatives to represent them. > > Step 1 - We the voters elected our U.S. Senators. > Step 2 - The majority in the Senate elect the Senate leader. > > Millions of voters were involved in the process to elect the people who elect the Senate leader. Quite so. And I lament the fact that we can’t use our voice more often. I sincerely hope that the American people use their voice this November to vote these goldbricking clowns out of office. Even so, you do know it’s not that simple, right? Gerrymandering and other methods of disenfranchisement are issues. Not to mention our first-past-the-post system. It’s nowhere near as simple as “majority rules.” But that’s a hijack. On topic, what do people think about the few republican Senators who have agreed to meet with Garland? I’d like to think that they are truly breaking ranks and acting like adults, but the cynic in me thinks that it’s just for show. They don’t have the ability to force a vote, so they are likely doing this because they think it could improve their reelection chances, while not actually having any effect on McConnell’s grand plan. I hope it doesn’t work. ---
**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 18, 2016, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/293 "2016-03-18T16:32:51Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You might be confusing the peanut gallery with your facetiousness? > > The American people did have a voice in who leads the majority in the U.S. Senate. Some of candidates that the people voted for lost their election bid. They had a chance. They had a voice. Majority rules. The U.S.A. is a Democratic Republic. The voters elect representatives to represent them. > > Step 1 - We the voters elected our U.S. Senators. > Step 2 - The majority in the Senate elect the Senate leader. > > Millions of voters were involved in the process to elect the people who elect the Senate leader. Even more people were involved in the process to elect the person who nominates people to fill Supreme Court vacancies. ---
**Author:** ![oft\_wears\_hats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@oft\_wears\_hats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oft_wears_hats)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/294 "2016-03-18T16:32:53Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So, tell us, how is it that the \*President \*gets to make the nominations? Who elected _him_? > > :rolleyes: Not the American people, that’s for sure. That was five _unelected_ judges who…oh wait, that was the guy before him. Nevermind. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/295 "2016-03-18T16:33:45Z")
> [@oft\_wears\_hats](#): > > … > > Even so, you do know it’s not that simple, right? Gerrymandering and other methods of disenfranchisement are issues. Not to mention our first-past-the-post system. It’s nowhere near as simple as “majority rules.” But that’s a hijack… Gerrymandering plays a part in the Senate? :dubious: Do tell. ---
**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 18, 2016, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/296 "2016-03-18T16:37:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The “this” bolded above refers to whether the Senate “must advise and consent”. The assumption is wrong. He was certainly not wrong as to tradition and practice. I think it’s fair to say that the senate is obligated to consider the merits of a nomination. I think it’s also fair to say that if the nomination doesn’t make it beyond the judiciary committee the Senate has done all that is constitutionally required. ---
**Author:** ![oft\_wears\_hats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@oft\_wears\_hats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oft_wears_hats)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/297 "2016-03-18T16:52:42Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Gerrymandering plays a part in the Senate? :dubious: Do tell. Fair enough, that’s not applicable to US Senate races, I misspoke. Still, my other points stand, it’s not as simple as “majority rules.” But I’d rather not continue the hijack here. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/298 "2016-03-18T17:19:07Z")
> [@oft\_wears\_hats](#): > > Fair enough, that’s not applicable to US Senate races But small-state over-representation is quite real there. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/299 "2016-03-18T17:29:34Z")
Out of curiosity **doorhinge** , how do _you_ want the GOP to handle this? We may even want them to do the same thing. I want them to stand their unprincipled ground and refuse to hold hearings, waiting to see what the election will bring. In my case I expect that such will bring about more of a Senate change to D than otherwise would occur and I _hope_ that then Gardner withdraws or is withdrawn allowing Clinton to nominate someone else, younger and a bit less the conservatives’ choice, after all the people would have spoken. Gardner really is more of a consensus candidate than is ideal in my mind, I would go to much more left but a wee bit and younger for sure. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/300 "2016-03-18T17:33:58Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Yes there is no remedy. > > Tell me how he is being canny or gentlemanly? How is pushing for a Supreme Court defeat canny? What the heck does gentlemanly have to do with anything? He has been a gentleman for 7 years and let the Rebups do their thing. They can’t open their mouths without trying to de-legitimize him. In what way is he “pushing for a supreme court defeat”? What does that statement even mean? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=16)