# 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:** 21
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/401 "2016-04-06T18:40:30Z")
> [@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? Last I looked, a resume isn’t a statement meant for public consumption. I know mine isn’t. ---
**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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/402 "2016-04-06T18:42:08Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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. Really? Are you suggesting that any possible future Supreme’s name is/has been drawn out of a hat that contained names drawn randomly from the phonebook? Shirley must have had some idea (aka vetted) that a nominee was somewhat qualified for the job before they were nominated. ---
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/403 "2016-04-06T18:45:18Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Last I looked, a resume isn’t a statement meant for public consumption. I know mine isn’t. Are you running for a public office? ---
**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, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/404 "2016-04-06T18:46:16Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Really? Are you suggesting that any possible future Supreme’s name is/has been drawn out of a hat that contained names drawn randomly from the phonebook? Shirley must have had some idea (aka vetted) that a nominee was somewhat qualified for the job before they were nominated. His judicial record is already available. Why would he need to submit anything? ETA: How do you think he was selected to begin with? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/405 "2016-04-06T18:47:07Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Are you running for a public office? If you have to go to this level of goofy in order to make your point, maybe your point isn’t all that defensible? ---
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/406 "2016-04-06T18:47:20Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Are you running for a public office? Neither is Judge Garland, in case you weren’t aware. This is an appointment process, not an election. There are 100 people directly concerned with it (not counting Garland himself), and that is _not_ public. ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/407 "2016-04-06T18:49:41Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Maybe he already did send his rezume to all the Senators. Are you privy to all the communications they’ve been having?😕:eek: Probably should be sent to the Senators AND the Senators constituents. You know, those people who write letters and send emails demanding that a hearing should OR SHOULD NOT be held. ---
**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, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/408 "2016-04-06T18:53:45Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Neither is Judge Garland, in case you weren’t aware. This is an appointment process, not an election. There are 100 people directly concerned with it (not counting Garland himself), and that is _not_ public. Are we talking about a public sector or private sector job? ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/409 "2016-04-06T19:01:53Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Are we talking about a public sector or private sector job? Are you kidding? Give it up. You’re not winning this one. ---
**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, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/410 "2016-04-06T19:04:31Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I would let **doorhinge** issue his own statements. If I were you, that is. At least the statement would be correct. :eek: Having read many of your prior statements, I can comfortably dismiss this one as incorrect. ---
**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, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/411 "2016-04-06T19:04:32Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Are you kidding? Give it up. You’re not winning this one. He is, however, amusing. I have not seen this much random flailing about since **adahr** tried to explain how all of the 2012 presidential polls were “skewed” ---
**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, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/412 "2016-04-06T19:10:19Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Probably should be sent to the Senators AND the Senators constituents. You know, those people who write letters and send emails demanding that a hearing should OR SHOULD NOT be held. You are saying he should mail his resume to the entire voting age nation because some of them write letters? That seems a rather unreasonable burden, don’t you think? Should every federal appointee also send out their resume to the entire nation?😕 ---
**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, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/413 "2016-04-06T19:24:54Z")
Sure, that’s unreasonable. Post it on a website and be done with it. Paper? Mail? That is so _totally_ 1900’s. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/414 "2016-04-06T19:55:13Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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. I refer you to the case of Cheney v. Bush ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/415 "2016-04-06T20:00:43Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Are you kidding? Give it up. You’re not winning this one. Garland wants the job. Garland needs the support of the voters to overcome the reluctance of the majority of the Senate. He can chose to make his position clear on whether or not the U.S. Bill of Rights is a bill of individual rights. That might overcome any/some resistance from the voters. Unless there’s been a change, it’s Garland and Obama who don’t seem to be winning this one. ---
**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, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/416 "2016-04-06T20:03:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Having read many of your prior statements, I can comfortably dismiss this one as incorrect. I’ve already dismissed your interpretation of my future statement as not being my statement. ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/417 "2016-04-06T20:05:28Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You are saying he should mail his resume to the entire voting age nation because some of them write letters? That seems a rather unreasonable burden, don’t you think? Should every federal appointee also send out their resume to the entire nation?😕 How bad do they want the job? How they chose to pursue that job is up to them. ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/418 "2016-04-06T20:09:55Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Garland wants the job. Garland needs the support of the voters to overcome the reluctance of the majority of the Senate. He can chose to make his position clear on whether or not the U.S. Bill of Rights is a bill of individual rights. That might overcome any/some resistance from the voters. > > Unless there’s been a change, it’s Garland and Obama who don’t seem to be winning this one. Just to put a fine point on this, there is not going to be some kind of grass roots Republican groundswell forcing their Senators to consider Garland. Matter of fact, most are probably secretly if not openly pleased that their elected representatives are continuing the same old obstructionist path, preventing ‘that evil President’ from getting anything done. Once again, Garland has _absolutely nothing_ to gain from such a public statement, nothing forcing him to do so, and things to lose. It’s simply not going to happen. Period. End of discussion. ---
**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, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/419 "2016-04-06T20:10:00Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > the reluctance of the majority of the Senate We don’t know that to be the case without a vote, now do we? > [@](#): > > That might overcome any/some resistance from the voters. The opposition to even having hearings, much less a vote, isn’t \*from \*the voters, or even a majority of Republicans. It’s from McConnell and those who follow him, which does not include all of his own caucus. > [@](#): > > Unless there’s been a change, it’s Garland and Obama who don’t seem to be winning this one. Are the Republicans winning? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/420 "2016-04-06T20:11:32Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Unless there’s been a change, it’s Garland and Obama who don’t seem to be winning this one. Garland isn’t. Obama is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=22)