# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/41 "2016-03-16T15:51:17Z")
According to Nina Totenberg on NPR, the Republicans have found some wiggle room. They wait until after the election; if Hillary wins, they confirm Garland. They can then say that they “let the people speak” or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stainless_steel_rat/32/5727_2.png) [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stainless_Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/42 "2016-03-16T15:51:28Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > I dunno - the Republicans pre-emptively painted themselves into a corner by already announcing they wont consider anyone Obama nominates. If they back down and consider Garland, they look like fools. If they hold tight and don’t consider Garland, they remain looking like fools. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > IMHO the Republicans should make a few more speeches and then decide that in the interests of national harmony (or some other BS reasons) they’ve decided to hold a vote after all. Then let the guy get confirmed. > > At this point, with Trump’s chances at the nomination looking good, the Republican chances at holding the Senate are looking correspondingly bad. And if they lose the presidency and the Senate, they will wish they had another chance at Garland. > [@WordMan](#): > > No worries - yours ended up getting the comments. > > This seems like a shrewd choice - if Congress blocks, they look awful and an elected Clinton will go more liberal. If a hearing proceeds, they look silly and more like the owners of all the obstructionism. > > ::your move:: Yep, you guys have it, ABC. The Senate Republicans will, as others mentioned, try to walk it back, but their comments on “not consider any nomination made by Obama, nope, nope, nope…” is going to come back to haunt them, even with the best spin doctors out there. Will be interesting to see/hear Fox News/Conservative Blogosphere/Candidates have to say. It does seem like a shrewd move by Obama; we’ll see how it plays out for the next couple of days. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/43 "2016-03-16T15:52:53Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > They don’t believe in evolution. 😛 > > Seriously though, if it had just been one press conference or similar where they said they wouldn’t consider anyone at any point before the election, one can see them walking that back. But when you say it repeatedly and published a letter with signatures writ large saying that you won’t, any compromise will weaken your credibility. > > They didn’t just draw a line in the sand; they dug a trench. It’s not going to be easy to move. The people who will brow beat the Republicans over this are, IMO, mostly those who are opposed to them already. The only real potential is a few senators face a primary challenge as a result which is a risk. What the Democrats think is largely irrelevant. By November I think this is a non-issue. Of course, that assumes the confirmation process proceeds. If the Republicans string it out, all bets are off. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/44 "2016-03-16T15:58:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I wanted Sri Srinivasan, but that was solely because it would have been nice to have an Indian on SCOTUS. Garland is probably the most qualified choice out there, and because the DC Circuit spends so much time on government cases he doesn’t have any controversial opinions floating out there on social policy. > > Still, I think Obama missed an opportunity when he didn’t nominate one of his own prior appellate nominees. I would have been fun to watch the GOP Senators try to explain why they couldn’t approve a SCOTUS nominee who had been confirmed to the circuit bench 100-0. My thoughts exactly. I’m disappointed he didn’t anyone other than a white male. If the Repubs dither and delay until November and Hillary wins, I’d hope/expect Obama to w/draw the nomination. I’m viewing Garland as a placeholder - a sacrificial lamb to try to make the Repubs look bad. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/45 "2016-03-16T15:59:13Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > According to Nina Totenberg on NPR, the Republicans have found some wiggle room. They wait until after the election; if Hillary wins, they confirm Garland. They can then say that they “let the people speak” or whatever. Sure. They can depict it as a noble way for Marco Rubio, Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson to end their careers in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/46 "2016-03-16T16:03:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The people who will brow beat the Republicans over this are, IMO, mostly those who are opposed to them already. The only real potential is a few senators face a primary challenge as a result which is a risk. What the Democrats think is largely irrelevant. By November I think this is a non-issue. > > Of course, that assumes the confirmation process proceeds. If the Republicans string it out, all bets are off. Given the Republican penchant for doubling down, I would bet that the Republicans are going to string it out. ---
**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 16, 2016, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/47 "2016-03-16T16:11:23Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The people who will brow beat the Republicans over this are, IMO, mostly those who are opposed to them already. The only real potential is a few senators face a primary challenge as a result which is a risk. What the Democrats think is largely irrelevant. By November I think this is a non-issue… Maybe only the Dem supporters will brow beat them over it, but everything I’ve seen seems to indicate there’s bipartisan support for the idea that the nominee should at least get a hearing. The CNN poll I’m looking at now shows an insignificant number of people said “depends on who it is”, so that’s not going to be a popular walk back path. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/48 "2016-03-16T16:16:06Z")
So, interestingly, Merrick Garland is Jewish. Meaning the Catholic-Jewish split in the Supreme Court would be 5-4 (no Protestants on the bench since Stevens, which is just kind of strange). ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/49 "2016-03-16T16:17:56Z")
[QUOTE=Mitch McConnell, in his speech on the floor] Biden Rule Biden Rule Opposition based on process, not the person Biden Rule [/QUOTE] Did I miss anything? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/50 "2016-03-16T16:25:32Z")
> [@Grsz11](#): > > Republicans can always confirm AFTER Hillary wins and avoid a super liberal nominee. Not if the nomination is withdrawn. Which is what I would do before or right on Election Day. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/51 "2016-03-16T16:27:11Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Not if the nomination is withdrawn. Which is what I would do before or right on Election Day. Day after. See how the Senate shakes out. If the Democrats retake the Senate, Karlisha Marx is a dish best served cold. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/52 "2016-03-16T16:29:32Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > If the Repubs dither and delay until November and Hillary wins, I’d hope/expect Obama to w/draw the nomination. I’m viewing Garland as a placeholder - a sacrificial lamb to try to make the Repubs look bad. Obama’s not under any obligations to give his choice to anyone else, even a fellow democrat. Besides, I fully expect Hillary to applaud Garland’s selection. Anyone thinking that Hillary will go full-Liberal once she gets elected is going to be sorely unhappy. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/53 "2016-03-16T16:30:28Z")
[McConnell, predictably, is already back to stonewalling.](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitch-mcconnell-cites-constitutional-deny-obama-supreme-court/story?id=37692915) ---
**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 16, 2016, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/54 "2016-03-16T16:30:59Z")
But Hillary can use the GOP rhetoric against them: “you wanted the people to decide, and they have. So now you have to confirm Hippy McWhackadoodle.” ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/55 "2016-03-16T16:31:40Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Obama’s not under any obligations to give his choice to anyone else, even a fellow democrat. Besides, I fully expect Hillary to applaud Garland’s selection. Anyone thinking that Hillary will go full-Liberal once she gets elected is going to be sorely unhappy. Not full-Liberal, per se… but I’d think she’d be more than happy to pick Srinivasan over Garland among left-of-center justices (and I think Obama would to if he had a Democratic Senate). For one, Sri is a good deal younger and will be on the bench longer. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/56 "2016-03-16T16:32:43Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Obama’s not under any obligations to give his choice to anyone else, even a fellow democrat. Besides, I fully expect Hillary to applaud Garland’s selection. Anyone thinking that Hillary will go full-Liberal once she gets elected is going to be sorely unhappy. Wouldn’t surprise me on the Supreme Court - she is definitely pro-choice and pro-gun control, which implies pretty liberal court nominations. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/57 "2016-03-16T16:34:49Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > [McConnell, predictably, is already back to stonewalling.](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitch-mcconnell-cites-constitutional-deny-obama-supreme-court/story?id=37692915) Or “All this responsibility of running the Senate is exhausting. Lets let the other guys do it for a while.” All those Republicans in tight Senate races are thinking how best to strangle McConnell in his sleep. ---
**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:** [March 16, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/58 "2016-03-16T16:39:05Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The people who will brow beat the Republicans over this are, IMO, mostly those who are opposed to them already. The only real potential is a few senators face a primary challenge as a result which is a risk. What the Democrats think is largely irrelevant. By November I think this is a non-issue. > > Of course, that assumes the confirmation process proceeds. If the Republicans string it out, all bets are off. If the early days after Scalia’s death, there was a huge outpouring of concern by the extreme right wing that the stupid RINOs would roll over and confirm a replacement. They were up in arms, I tell ya. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/59 "2016-03-16T16:39:55Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Not full-Liberal, per se… but I’d think she’d be more than happy to pick Srinivasan over Garland among left-of-center justices (and I think Obama would to if he had a Democratic Senate). For one, Sri is a good deal younger and will be on the bench longer. He’s also got a corporatist bent. She’ll have other openings to fill, and probably not the ones you’d most expect (who had Scalia in the SCOTUS Death Pool?). Srinivasan is now In Play for her if she wants. And let’s not pretend Clinton wasn’t closely involved in this decision. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/60 "2016-03-16T16:44:15Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > I dunno - the Republicans pre-emptively painted themselves into a corner by already announcing they wont consider anyone Obama nominates. If they back down and consider Garland, they look like fools. If they hold tight and don’t consider Garland, they remain looking like fools. They ARE fools. Why should they have any heartburn about looking like fools? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=4)