# 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:** 16
**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, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/301 "2016-03-18T18:09:38Z")
I mean his non-recess “recess appointments” were doomed to be defeated. You may not agree but I don’t see how my meaning was unclear. ---
**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, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/302 "2016-03-18T18:26:50Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I mean his non-recess “recess appointments” were doomed to be defeated. You may not agree but I don’t see how my meaning was unclear. I thought you were saying that he was being disingenuous in fulfilling his duty and nominating Garland now. He makes appointments. They can be struck down. What does that have to do with not being gentlemanly? Will it be gentlemanly for the senate to avoid a technical recess for the rest of Obamas term by having someone go in and tap a gavel once every couple of days? ---
**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, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/303 "2016-03-18T18:37:03Z")
I said I didn’t think it showed canniness by trying to push those recess appointments and getting unanimously defeated in the Supreme Court over it. Then I said I don’t know what gentlemanliness has to do with anything. Sure, Obama is a perfect gentleman. ---
**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, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/304 "2016-03-18T22:07:18Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I said I didn’t think it showed canniness by trying to push those recess appointments and getting unanimously defeated in the Supreme Court over it. Then I said I don’t know what gentlemanliness has to do with anything. Sure, Obama is a perfect gentleman. I don’t see what his recess appointments have to do with being not canny. If you think he isn’t canny just compare him to Rupublicans behavior right now, running from their own inventions. I would say watch the behavior of the next R president, but it doesn’t look like we’re going to have one, ever. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/305 "2016-03-18T22:26:19Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I mean his non-recess “recess appointments” were doomed to be defeated. I think it was worth a try. The question was: does a Senator showing up and banging a gavel every three days show that the Senate is actually in session? We didn’t know the answer for certain; now we do. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2016, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/306 "2016-03-20T21:18:21Z")
“I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg should get _two_ votes until we get this all sorted out.” - Paula Poundstone ---
**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 21, 2016, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/307 "2016-03-21T00:27:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 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. Why the judiciary committee, which the Constitution doesn’t even mention? ---
**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 21, 2016, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/308 "2016-03-21T13:25:22Z")
Because the judiciary committee is a Senate body that is duly constituted for the “advice and consent” role - under the Senate rules, which the Constitution _does_ mention. What it certainly doesn’t mention is a Senate Majority Leader, so McConnell’s no doubt weighty internal deliberations don’t count. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2016, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/309 "2016-03-21T13:31:47Z")
The Constitution doesn’t even mention _parties_, FTR. ---
**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 21, 2016, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/310 "2016-03-21T13:36:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Because the judiciary committee is a Senate body that is duly constituted for the “advice and consent” role - under the Senate rules, which the Constitution _does_ mention. What it certainly doesn’t mention is a Senate Majority Leader, so McConnell’s no doubt weighty internal deliberations don’t count. I suppose I should clarify, since McConnell’s position also exists because of the duly adopted rules of the Senate: I don’t think one person sticking in his fingers in his ears qualifies as “advice and consent” under even the broadest reading. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2016, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/311 "2016-03-21T13:46:47Z")
There \*is \*a broad reading that McConnell is doing his caucus’ will, since they do constitute a majority of the membership and did elect him their leader and have not replaced him for this. The letter and the spirit of the law rarely coincide exactly. ---
**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 21, 2016, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/312 "2016-03-21T13:53:09Z")
If McConnell really believes that, why not just put it to a vote? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2016, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/313 "2016-03-21T13:57:51Z")
He only has to believe that his caucus knows they’d be doing more harm than good by revolting. At least for now. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2016, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/314 "2016-03-21T19:53:27Z")
Mother **fuck!** [Just when you think they can’t sink any stupider!](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/20/3761908/mcconnell-no-new-supreme-court-justice-until-the-nra-approves-of-the-nominee/) > [@](#): > > McConnell offered this unusual view of the confirmation process during an interview with Fox News Sunday. In response to a question from host Chris Wallace, who asked if Senate Republicans would consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court after the election if Hillary Clinton prevails, McConnell responded that he “can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses.” > > The Majority Leader’s statement is significant for several reasons. For one thing, it suggests that his previously stated position that “this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” is a sham. Simply put, it’s unlikely that the NRA or the NFIB will change their position on a nominee just because Hillary Clinton is president and not Barack Obama. > > But it’s also worth examining exactly who McConnell would give a veto power over nominees. The NFIB, of course, was a plaintiff in NFIB v. Sebelius, the first Supreme Court case seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That lawsuit called upon the justices to impose limits on federal power that even the late Justice Antonin Scalia refused to impose in previous cases (although it’s worth noting that Scalia abandoned his previous principled stance when given the opportunity to cast a vote against Obamacare). When the NFIB isn’t fighting to take health care away from millions of Americans, it fights equally hard against raising the minimum wage. > > The NRA, meanwhile, is known for its increasingly absolutist opposition to gun safety laws. Though Garland’s record on guns is fairly thin, the NRA opposes Garland’s nomination based on two cases he considered as a judge. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2016, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/315 "2016-03-21T20:20:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Mother **fuck!** [Just when you think they can’t sink any stupider!](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/20/3761908/mcconnell-no-new-supreme-court-justice-until-the-nra-approves-of-the-nominee/) I really can’t interpret this any other way than “please take the Senate, Democrats - we’ve become so beholden to special interests that we can’t even pretend any longer.” ---
**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 21, 2016, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/316 "2016-03-21T22:24:19Z")
It explicitly removes even the pretense of any principle at all. The voters should decide, not last election’s voters who already did decide, but the coming election’s voters who might decide more my way … but whatever they decide we will still do the same thing because NRA and NFIB … so really screw the voters. Wow. He’s a Democrat’s dream! ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2016, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/317 "2016-03-21T23:35:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He only has to believe that his caucus knows they’d be doing more harm than good by revolting. At least for now. “Mr Speaker, the caucus is revolting!” “Yeah, they stink on ice.” Sorry, just couldn’t help myself. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/318 "2016-03-22T16:02:21Z")
I bet Justice Garland will eventually take his seat on SCOTUS: [I bet Merrick Garland will join SCOTUS - Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=787982) ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/319 "2016-03-22T17:06:24Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > “I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg should get _two_ votes until we get this all sorted out.” - Paula Poundstone More proof that there is no reason to take seriously anything said by a comedian. (I’m surprised to hear that Poundstone is still alive. I thought she had died of some alcoholism-related organ failure?) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2016, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/320 "2016-03-22T17:12:24Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > More proof that there is no reason to take seriously anything said by a comedian. Or reality show hosts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=17)