# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/441 "2016-04-08T16:20:35Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > supposed to=your choice? 😕 Would you prefer the term “expected to”? As in, “At least they’re expected to”. Unless, of course, the individual constituent choses not to communicate with their elected representatives. Their choice. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/442 "2016-04-08T16:32:56Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Why would any Republican people bother talking to their representatives about Garland’s suitability? What would the point be? His good and bad points are completely moot. > > The Republican leadership have made it very clear that it DOES. NOT. MATTER. who Obama nominates. ANYone will be unsuitable, as long as the current president nominates them. Period. This has been made VERY clear. > > There is one and only one reason for Garland not getting a hearing; The Republicans in the Senate. You must be a Democrat. 😃 What are you so afraid will happen if constituents were to communicate with their elected representatives? Government by The People? :eek: Are you just going to wait for someone else to settle the issue? Do you believe others are more qualified to communicate with your elected representatives than you are? Until Garland’s position on the Bill of Individual Rights, and his position on the 2nd Amendment are made clear, I’m telling my U.S. Senators that Garland should not be given a hearing because I do not consider Garland to be qualified. This isn’t rocket surgery. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/443 "2016-04-08T16:38:48Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > If that ends up being the case, I hope Hillary makes them pay by nominating a staunch liberal to the court (assuming, of course, that the Dems win the Senate in the fall). Who knows, it might be an improvement anyway. (post not shortened, underline added) And assuming that Hillary isn’t arrested by the FBI. That could/might cut Hillary’s support within the Democrat collective by 50%. And Bernie takes the party nomination in a (perp?) walk. Bernie! Bernie! Bernie! ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/444 "2016-04-08T16:49:53Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Until Garland’s position on the Bill of Individual Rights, and his position on the 2nd Amendment are made clear, I’m telling my U.S. Senators that Garland should not be given a hearing because I do not consider Garland to be qualified. Exactly what do you think the purpose of having a hearing is? “No hearings until he has answered all our questions satisfactorily and we have determined he is qualified!” 😕 ---
**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 8, 2016, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/445 "2016-04-08T16:50:45Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You must be a Democrat. 😃 What are you so afraid will happen if constituents were to communicate with their elected representatives? Government by The People? :eek: Are you just going to wait for someone else to settle the issue? Do you believe others are more qualified to communicate with your elected representatives than you are? I’m still unclear if you are deliberately missing the point, or if you genuinely don’t comprehend… Let’s try again. The Republican Senate leadership has clearly indicated that they will not consider ANYBODY WHATSOEVER that Obama nominates. Nobody. At. All. So there is no point for any constituents to talk to their representatives about Garland’s suitability. It’s a moot point. The Senate Republicans have already indicated that NOBODY is suitable, if they are nominated by Obama. Garland’s qualifications have nothing to do with anything. I’m unclear as to how you could read this, and think I am somehow" afraid of what will happen if constituents were to communicate with their elected representatives" Certainly people should communicate with their representatives, and possibly say “You should hold hearings, and then find Garland unsuitable for the following reasons…” However, the first part of the comment does not apply; The Senate Republicans still REFUSE TO HOLD A HEARING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Your comments are nonsensical. They are responding to something completely different than what I wrote. Once again, you are constructing a man of straw. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/446 "2016-04-08T17:06:36Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Exactly what do you think the purpose of having a hearing is? > > “No hearings until he has answered all our questions satisfactorily and we have determined he is qualified!” 😕 I appreciate the fact that you chose to do nothing and are willing to let others do the work. ---
**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 8, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/447 "2016-04-08T17:11:04Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post not shortened, underline added) > > And assuming that Hillary isn’t arrested by the FBI. That could/might cut Hillary’s support within the Democrat collective by 50%. And Bernie takes the party nomination in a (perp?) walk. > > Bernie! Bernie! Bernie! Let’s try to keep to some semblance of reality here. She isn’t going to be arrested, regardless of your wet dreams. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/448 "2016-04-08T17:11:33Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > …So there is no point for any constituents to talk to their representatives about Garland’s suitability. It’s a moot point. The Senate Republicans have already indicated that NOBODY is suitable, if they are nominated by Obama. Garland’s qualifications have nothing to do with anything. (post shortened) I’m glad that you have given up trying to get a hearing for Garland. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/449 "2016-04-08T17:13:21Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Let’s try to keep to some semblance of reality here. She isn’t going to be arrested, regardless of your wet dreams. Tell that to the FBI. I’m sure they are willing to listen to any reasonable offer. ---
**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 8, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/450 "2016-04-08T17:18:38Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Tell that to the FBI. I’m sure they are willing to listen to any reasonable offer. Blah di blah bloo bloo. You should work for a tabloid…I’m sure you could drum up some _fantastic_ fabrications. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/451 "2016-04-08T17:25:47Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > I’m glad that you have given up trying to get a hearing for Garland. If the Republicans are willing to risk control of the Senate by their Reindeer games, all the better. Failure to hold hearings may very well change the tide of an election. It feeds all the worst stereotypes of the Republican Party. Their choice, as you have noted, but I’m assuming there are some restless nights in the GOP these days. ---
**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 8, 2016, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/452 "2016-04-08T17:37:32Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > If the Republicans are willing to risk control of the Senate by their Reindeer games, all the better. Failure to hold hearings may very well change the tide of an election. It feeds all the worst stereotypes of the Republican Party. Their choice, as you have noted, but I’m assuming there are some restless nights in the GOP these days. Exactly. They are playing games, and will reap what they sow. And certain posters here are also playing games. It’s simply laughable at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/453 "2016-04-08T17:38:37Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I appreciate the fact that you chose to do nothing and are willing to let others do the work. I’m not empowered to hold hearings, so that’s why I elect Senators to hold the hearings, ask questions and determine the candidate’s suitability. You seem to think the Senate should only hold hearings after the public has decided the candidate’s qualifications based on what we read on the internet. ---
**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 8, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/454 "2016-04-08T17:51:48Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > I’m glad that you have given up trying to get a hearing for Garland. Glad to see you finally acknowledge the petty obstructionism of the Republican Senators. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/455 "2016-04-08T19:00:36Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > …You seem to think the Senate should only hold hearings after the public has decided the candidate’s qualifications based on what we read on the internet. And you’d be wrong. I’m suggesting that there is more than one way to accomplish a goal. Many of the posters here seem to have already thrown their hands into the air and conceded defeat. \*Bluto: Hey! What’s all this laying around shit? Stork: What the hell are we supposed to do, ya moron? D-Day: [to Bluto] War’s over, man. Wormer dropped the big one. Bluto: What? Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! Otter: [to Boon] Germans? Boon: Forget it, he’s rolling. Bluto: And it ain’t over now. ‘Cause when the goin’ gets tough… [thinks hard of something to say] Bluto: The tough get goin’! Who’s with me? Let’s go! [Bluto runs out, alone; then returns] Bluto: What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you’re gonna let it be the worst. “Ooh, we’re afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble.” Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I’m not gonna take this. Wormer, he’s a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer… Otter: Dead! Bluto’s right. Psychotic… but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part! Bluto: We’re just the guys to do it.\* ---
**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 8, 2016, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/456 "2016-04-08T19:03:11Z")
Except that this isn’t a movie. Beating your head against a rebar-reinforced cement wall only leads to brain injury. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/457 "2016-04-08T19:29:14Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > And you’d be wrong. I’m suggesting that there is more than one way to accomplish a goal. Many of the posters here seem to have already thrown their hands into the air and conceded defeat. You’re missing the point. We’re conceding Republican obstructionism (always a safe bet), but we don’t see that as defeat, but as a huge opportunity. Obama outsmarted the opposition again, and has thus achieved his goal. They are in a no-win situation and look like idiots. What’s the Republican goal here? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Greenjeans](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.greenjeans/32/551_2.png) [@Mr.Greenjeans](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Greenjeans)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/458 "2016-04-08T20:48:10Z")
To make Obama a one-term president? ---
**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 8, 2016, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/459 "2016-04-08T21:13:55Z")
That really is the point. Having an up or down vote on Garland is not the goal, that is a move. What are the actual goals? To have a qualified jurist on the Supreme Court. To have that jurist be likely to rule in ways that you think are just as much as is possible. To have control of the Senate. To win the presidency. Committing to blocking ANY nomination was boneheaded and put McConnell in this position in which “winning” is losing more than losing is. The first, something hopefully everyone wants, will still eventually occur, albeit delayed now. The others are all more likely to favor the Democratic side as a result of these actions. Go Mitch go! ([Roy “Wrong Way” Riegels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Riegels) would be proud! Mitch though won’t be redeeming himself as well as Reigels did in the second half.) ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2016, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/460 "2016-04-08T21:27:50Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Let’s try to keep to some semblance of reality here. She isn’t going to be arrested, regardless of your wet dreams. It is specifically against the rules to state that another poster is deriving any sexual gratification from his or her posts. Warning issued. Please don’t do it again. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=24)