# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/341 "2016-03-23T18:46:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If immunity from defamation suits is your interpretation of “the nature of comedy,” you may not fully understand the concept (leaving aside the fact that comedians _can_ be sued for slander or libel under the proper circumstances). It’d have to be pretty extreme to eclipse the First Amendment and its subsequent interpretations. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/342 "2016-03-23T18:49:29Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > You do understand the nature of comedy, right? If an audience reacts to a comedian by going “hmmm…food for thought” instead of laughing, they may need to find another line of work. You laugh first, then you say “hmmm…food for thought.” That’s good comedy…political comedy, anyway. ---
**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 23, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/343 "2016-03-23T18:56:22Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > It’d have to be pretty extreme to eclipse the First Amendment and its subsequent interpretations. Whether or not it’s extreme has nothing to do with it. In fact, the more extreme the statement, the less likely it is actionable. Whether it would be generally understood to be satirical or not is the most important question, followed by who the target of the statement was. ---
**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 23, 2016, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/344 "2016-03-23T19:02:30Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > It’s not the comedians fault. They are just looking for a shtick that someone will pay them to perform. The content is based on what pays more. Their heavily-edited-for-laughs-instead-of-the-facts comedy routines are what pays the bills, if they can find an audience for their comedy. If I had to get bunched up panties over the satirists and comedians like Colbert et al, and deny it’s funny and make socio-economic excuses for it, just so I could be supporting some “opposing” team; in other words to give up on what’s funny in life so I could push for some point of view; I would rather be dead. I really pity anyone who is in that position, but they are bringing it on themselves. The advent of Trump is telling them in no uncertain terms that they are pulling the walls in on themselves. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/345 "2016-03-23T19:32:24Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > If I had to get bunched up panties over the satirists and comedians like Colbert et al, and deny it’s funny and make socio-economic excuses for it, just so I could be supporting some “opposing” team; in other words to give up on what’s funny in life so I could push for some point of view; I would rather be dead. (post shortened) Hahahaha. I didn’t say comedians aren’t funny. Some are, some aren’t. You can get you panties in a bunch over any subject you wish. Just because comedians are writing comedy routines for a living, that doesn’t make them political experts. Especially when those comedy routines are heavily edited for time, cherry-picked for content, and written to appease a specific audience. There are other sources, more reliable sources, for political news. \*You must choose. But choose wisely, for as the true Grail will bring you life, a false one will take it from you. - Grail Knight (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)\* ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/346 "2016-03-23T20:08:32Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Just because comedians are writing comedy routines for a living, that doesn’t make them political experts. . . . > There are other sources, more reliable sources, for political news. But, for years now, such outlets as _The Daily Show_ and the _Colbert Report_ (RIP) and _The Nightly Show_ somehow have been better, more reliable political news sources than Fox or CNN. How did that happen?! ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/347 "2016-03-23T23:31:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, for years now, such outlets as _The Daily Show_ and the _Colbert Report_ (RIP) and _The Nightly Show_ somehow have been better, more reliable political news sources than Fox or CNN. How did that happen?! According to whom? ---
**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 23, 2016, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/348 "2016-03-23T23:39:21Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > According to whom? Intelligent people. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2016, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/349 "2016-03-23T23:45:52Z")
Take the discussion of political comedy shows to a new thread, (in a different forum). [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2016, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/350 "2016-03-24T20:58:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I agree. But I think some action on the nomination is constitutionally required beyond McConnell’s middle finger. “The Senate can refuse to confirm a nominee simply by saying nothing and doing nothing.” Robert Byrd, 2005. Approvingly cited by Joe Biden on the floor of the senate. [Page S4365](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2005/4/27/senate-section/article/s4356-1?resultIndex=138) ---
**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 25, 2016, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/351 "2016-03-25T13:01:26Z")
New poll on the Garland nomination: [http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2016, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/352 "2016-03-29T22:02:19Z")
Update: in a Politico article, R Senator Grassley of the Judiciary Cmte indicates that the Democrats can force a vote by calling for a Motion to Discharge the nomination in an Executive Session. If the Republicans vote to block that, they are in effect voting on the nomination - or can be portrayed as such. If the Motion to Discharge carries, then there would be an actual vote on the nomination: > **[How Democrats could force a Supreme Court vote](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/chuck-grassley-supreme-court-vote-merrick-garland-221344)** > > Sen. Grassley expects them to use a rare procedural maneuver to press the issue. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2016, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/353 "2016-04-01T23:14:05Z")
[More Senate Pubs are defecting from the no-hearings position.](http://www.salon.com/2016/04/01/cracks_in_the_gop_wall_the_republicans_hardline_supreme_court_obstruction_is_crumbling/) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/354 "2016-04-02T13:52:22Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > R Senator Grassley of the Judiciary Cmte indicates that the Democrats can force a vote by calling for a Motion to Discharge the nomination in an Executive Session. Almost as if he’s begging the Dems to bail him out, isn’t it? ---
**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:** [April 2, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/355 "2016-04-02T14:40:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Almost as if he’s begging the Dems to bail him out, isn’t it? I would be highly skeptical of invitations to throw the Republicans into the briar patch. I suspect there is a procedural angle they aren’t revealing that would backfire on Democrats if they take this bait. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/356 "2016-04-02T17:03:45Z")
Agreed. There’s definitely something behind Grassley’s suggestion. Though I think it’s more likely that he’s just trying to placate his constituents to raise his chances in the upcoming election. “See? _I_ think we should vote on Garland! Really! It’s not _my_ fault! Don’t punish me for McConnell’s sins! Here, I’ll even give Democrats a way to force the issue!” I can’t tell whether these Republicans are signs of “cracks in the wall” of opposition, or whether they’re just trying to cover their asses. They know that McConnell is the one who sets the schedule, so they can try to sound like the reasonable ones without actually having to do anything. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2016, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/357 "2016-04-03T02:05:41Z")
[The GOP wall solidifies.](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/us/politics/2-republican-senators-revoke-support-for-garland-hearings.html?_r=0) > [@](#): > > The wall of Republican opposition to the nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to the Supreme Court has been shored up by two Republican senators revoking their support for holding confirmation hearings. > > Their moves highlight the immense pressure that Republican leaders are placing on senators as they try to build unified opposition to President Obama’s choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. > > As the White House heralds the growing number of Republicans agreeing to meet with Judge Garland, Senators Jerry Moran of Kansas and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have reversed themselves and say they now back the decision made by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, not to hold hearings. Interestingly the talking point tact is shifting to “hearings, we don’t need no stinkin hearings.” > [@](#): > > “As Senator Moran has said, he is opposed to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. He has examined Judge Garland’s record and didn’t need hearings to conclude that the nominee’s judicial philosophy, disregard for Second Amendment rights and sympathy for federal government bureaucracy make Garland unacceptable to serve on the Supreme Court.” > > Mr. Moran’s announcement, first reported by National Review, came a week after he said the Senate should move forward with the nomination process, including holding hearings and meeting with Judge Garland. Again, ideal from my POV. Obama has done his job. He offered up a reasonable consensus candidate. Too reasonable to my POV but necessarily so. Defending their inaction will hurt the GOP in the Fall. Going into November elections Obama should announce that unless the nomination is given an up down vote before the election he will withdraw it. The prospect for the GOP then is to accept this reasonable consensus candidate then, or (my preference) deal with the highly likely prospect of dealing with a more appropriately slightly left of center candidate nominated by Clinton dealing with a Senate under Democratic control. Let them enjoy their briar patch. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/358 "2016-04-04T02:39:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Going into November elections Obama should announce that unless the nomination is given an up down vote before the election he will withdraw it. I have a hard time seeing Obama doing that. He’d be basically saying, “Yeah, I said Merrick Garland was the best person for the job, but now that we can get an ultra-liberal, never mind.” (And I say that as someone who’d love to get someone more liberal.) On the other hand, if the Republicans who swore up and down that it was all about letting the people decide with an election then go back on that and confirm before Clinton can take office, they’ll look like _massive_ hypocrites. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2016, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/359 "2016-04-04T02:49:59Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I have a hard time seeing Obama doing that. He’d be basically saying, “Yeah, I said Merrick Garland was the best person for the job, but now that we can get an ultra-liberal, never mind.” (And I say that as someone who’d love to get someone more liberal.) > > On the other hand, if the Republicans who swore up and down that it was all about letting the people decide with an election then go back on that and confirm before Clinton can take office, they’ll look like _massive_ hypocrites. He would be acting reasonably if he withdrew the name if they attempted to sneak in hearings after the election. It’s not a statement of his to make, it’s just what the senate chose. It would be a betrayal of progressives who voted for him if he didn’t. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2016, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/360 "2016-04-04T03:06:20Z")
It would be stated before the election was held, albeit with some confidence over the result. It see him saying “I put forth an excellent candidate for the job, a judge who has had the respect and admiration of leaders from both sides of the aisle. I have asked for an up or down vote and have been very patient waiting for one. I have persistently lobbied for one. If after _half a year_ of these efforts the Senate persistently refuses to do their job I must respect their wish to let the next president decide. If by one week from today no action is taken I will, with great regret, withdraw the nomination and leave the selection of a new Supreme Court Justice nominee to whoever the next President may be, as the GOP Senate leadership and rank and file desires.” Yes the Senate wins … a quite Pyrrhic victory. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=19)