# 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:** 20
**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:** [April 5, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/381 "2016-04-05T23:57:25Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > It’s like Blazing Saddles. He should hold a gun to his own head and yell “Seat me or the white boy gets it” I just got an image of a bunch of GOP Senators eating beans and farting around the campfire. 😃 ---
**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 6, 2016, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/382 "2016-04-06T00:16:09Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > I just got an image of a bunch of GOP Senators eating beans and farting around the campfire. 😃 I think you vastly overestimate their productivity. ---
**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:** [April 6, 2016, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/383 "2016-04-06T01:03:04Z")
> [@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. 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… This seems to feeding into one line of thinking that has come upon on the Dope. But it is faulty. The Constitution allows that the president shall nominate, and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, appoint… This has been interpreted as a three step process, not a two step. First the President nominates a candidate. Second the Senate votes to confirm. Third the President appoints. Steps two and three are optional. The Justice Department, IIRC under Bush, interpreted this to mean that a president could refuse to sign the appointment papers even if the Senate had voted to confirm. So assuming Hillary wins and the Dems will take the Senate it’s not like Obama is in a race to withdraw Garland’s nomination before the current GOP Senate can vote to confirm. The Senate could then vote to give Advice and Consent but Obama could refuse to sign the appointment and leave it all up to Hillary. > [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > … > **It’s never happened with the Supreme Court, but positions have been left unfilled for years because the Senate simply didn’t want to confirm anybody.** The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms didn’t have a permanent director for something like seven years. **bolding** is mine It [has happened before](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/26/long-supreme-court-vacancies-used-to-be-more-common/) with SCOTUS nominees. Sheesh fighting ignorance about SCOTUS nominees in days of yore is taking longer than I thought. President Tyler fought a recalcitrant Senate resulting in a vacancy of 841 days… more than 2 years and 3 months until after Polk took office. Then Buchanan faced a similar fate, with a SCOTUS vacancy dragging on for 781 days… still more than 2 years, until Lincoln took office. Arguably Lincoln and the Senate were a little busy with other things so perhaps we can forgive them. Aside from those two examples, six more vacancies were more than one year, but only once since World War II. ---
**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 6, 2016, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/384 "2016-04-06T01:23:00Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > … So assuming Hillary wins and the Dems will take the Senate it’s not like Obama is in a race to withdraw Garland’s nomination before the current GOP Senate can vote to confirm. The Senate could then vote to give Advice and Consent but Obama could refuse to sign the appointment and leave it all up to Hillary. … Completely missing the point of the proposed action … ---
**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:** [April 6, 2016, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/385 "2016-04-06T01:39:01Z")
No. Not missing the point at all. Obama could threaten to pull the nomination prior to the election. And the Republicans will crow that they were right - that the issue of the nomination should be handled after the election and/or after the new president and Senate take office. Either the voters will punish the GOP or reward them. Either way the GOP got what they want. And if the GOP win the presidency and hold the Senate then their big gamble paid off. But the subtext is a “watch what you wish for” lesson. The GOP could lose it all. Could happen. What cannot happen is that Obama is stuck with a nominee. If the election splits and the Dems take the presidency but the GOP holds the Senate then perhaps Hillary would want to change the nominee. And perhaps the GOP would want to vote to give Advice and Consent in a lame duck session. But Obama could refuse to sign the appointment. And if the GOP win the presidency but lose the Senate then Obama could again refuse to sign an appointment hoping that the incoming Senate could block an unacceptable nomination from Cruz/Trump. But that seems a more doubtful route, as the Dems would likely be happy to end up with Garland in that circumstance. ---
**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 6, 2016, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/386 "2016-04-06T02:02:11Z")
There was no question of Obama being “stuck with a nominee” and believing that was the point was completely missing it. ---
**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 6, 2016, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/387 "2016-04-06T03:22:41Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > No. Not missing the point at all. > > Obama could threaten to pull the nomination prior to the election. And the Republicans will crow that they were right - that the issue of the nomination should be handled after the election and/or after the new president and Senate take office. Either the voters will punish the GOP or reward them. Either way the GOP got what they want. And if the GOP win the presidency and hold the Senate then their big gamble paid off. > > But the subtext is a “watch what you wish for” lesson. The GOP could lose it all. Could happen. > > What cannot happen is that Obama is stuck with a nominee. If the election splits and the Dems take the presidency but the GOP holds the Senate then perhaps Hillary would want to change the nominee. And perhaps the GOP would want to vote to give Advice and Consent in a lame duck session. But Obama could refuse to sign the appointment. > > And if the GOP win the presidency but lose the Senate then Obama could again refuse to sign an appointment hoping that the incoming Senate could block an unacceptable nomination from Cruz/Trump. But that seems a more doubtful route, as the Dems would likely be happy to end up with Garland in that circumstance. Once Hillary wins it will be normal course of business, cooperation, and succession for him to withdraw Garland. You just like to imagine otherwise. ---
**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:** [April 6, 2016, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/388 "2016-04-06T03:26:21Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > I think you vastly overestimate their productivity. No, their digestion works just fine. It’s their ideology that sucks. ---
**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:** [April 6, 2016, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/389 "2016-04-06T11:07:04Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > Once Hillary wins it will be normal course of business, cooperation, and succession for him to withdraw Garland. You just like to imagine otherwise. I think about the theoretical possibilities, albeit excluding the fringe parties and assuming the control of the presidency and Senate will remain with the GOP and/or Dem parties. And I excluded a tied Senate since the winner of the VP slot would break that tie. ---
**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:** [April 6, 2016, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/390 "2016-04-06T13:12:45Z")
A bit tardily, George Mason U. is reconsidering the name of their new Scalia law school: [http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/george-mason-university-antonin-scalia-law-school-name-change/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/george-mason-university-antonin-scalia-law-school-name-change/index.html) ---
**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:** [April 6, 2016, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/391 "2016-04-06T13:20:48Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > A bit tardily, George Mason U. is reconsidering the name of their new Scalia law school: [http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/george-mason-university-antonin-scalia-law-school-name-change/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/george-mason-university-antonin-scalia-law-school-name-change/index.html) I saw that. As it was April 1st, I thought it was possibly a joke. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/392 "2016-04-06T15:23:58Z")
The Antonin Scalia School Of Law’s acronym is ASSOL. Already mentioned in the Stupid Republicans thread in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/393 "2016-04-06T17:24:59Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > You’re funny. > > You actually seem to think that it is up to Garland to hold HIS OWN confirmation hearings, all by himself. I hope you’re actually trying to be humorous here. Otherwise, your comment is just rather sad. Hahahaha. Are you actually suggesting that Merrick Garland can’t, or isn’t allowed to, make his own public statements concerning his personal beliefs unless it’s before a committee? When did that rule come in to being? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/394 "2016-04-06T17:33:07Z")
The point is that it’s futile. ---
**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:** [April 6, 2016, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/395 "2016-04-06T17:36:59Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahahaha. Are you actually suggesting that Merrick Garland can’t, or isn’t allowed to, make his own public statements concerning his personal beliefs unless it’s before a committee? When did that rule come in to being? Why would he want to provide public fodder for opponents to pick holes through before a hearing? What does he possibly gain by doing so? Advancing the hearings by a single second? Good luck with that. ---
**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:** [April 6, 2016, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/396 "2016-04-06T17:48:03Z")
If Garland decided to have a press conference about his beliefs **doorhinge** would be demanding to know why he’s not letting the senate deliberative process play out. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/397 "2016-04-06T17:50:30Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahahaha. Are you actually suggesting that Merrick Garland can’t, or isn’t allowed to, make his own public statements concerning his personal beliefs unless it’s before a committee? When did that rule come in to being? I can’t tell if you’re still trying to be funny, are being deliberately obtuse, or you really don’t understand. It is not up to the NOMINEE to vet himself. This is not how it works. This is never how it works for any position, ever. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/398 "2016-04-06T18:28:03Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Why would he want to provide public fodder for opponents to pick holes through before a hearing? What does he possibly gain by doing so? Advancing the hearings by a single second? Good luck with that. Did you ever hear of someone sending their resume to a future employer? That’s usually done before the actual interview, wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/399 "2016-04-06T18:32:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If Garland decided to have a press conference about his beliefs **doorhinge** would be demanding to know why he’s not letting the senate deliberative process play out. I would let **doorhinge** issue his own statements. If I were you, that is. At least the statement would be correct. :eek: ---
**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:** [April 6, 2016, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/400 "2016-04-06T18:37:56Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Did you ever hear of someone sending their resume to a future employer? That’s usually done before the actual interview, wouldn’t it? Maybe he already did send his rezume to all the Senators. Are you privy to all the communications they’ve been having?😕:eek: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=21)