# 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:** 5
**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, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/81 "2016-03-16T17:39:01Z")
It’s a bit thin to ascribe any meaning to a vote against rehearing _en banc_, though. The default position is that rehearing en banc will be denied. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/82 "2016-03-16T17:39:12Z")
> [@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. That’s the best they can make of the bad situation they’ve gotten themselves into. What I think actually _will_ happen is that after the election returns come in giving the Democrats the White House and Senate, the GOP will immediately declare that it’s too late for Obama to withdraw the nomination and try to hold a vote on it. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/83 "2016-03-16T17:40:05Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The language was chosen intentionally to mirror [Obama’s utilization](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/timeline-of-obamas-evolving-on-same-sex-marriage/) of the phrase. OK, but Obama’s use of “evolve” as documented in that article covered a timeline of 16 years and concerned a major social issue that did, indeed, evolve in public acceptance over that period. If you go from “absolutely no way” to “yes” in a couple of months, it seems to be… something entirely different. Of course we don’t know that the Republicans will do that, but as noted, they’re screwed either way, just as they are with Trump. Also, I forgot to mention in the other post that Trump is already calling for mass rioting if he doesn’t get the nomination, as if everyone needed to be reminded that Republicans are already mired in a totally no-win situation. ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/84 "2016-03-16T17:41:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s a bit thin to ascribe any meaning to a vote against rehearing _en banc_, though. The default position is that rehearing en banc will be denied. It was a vote in favor of rehearing en banc. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/85 "2016-03-16T17:41:43Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > And now, [Hatch’s statement on why the man he said should be nominated to the Supreme Court shouldn’t be nominated to the Supreme Court.](http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=6D07239A-7E03-4B2D-8A88-BC59A6FFF7BB) > [@Orrin Hatch](#): > > I think highly of Judge Garland. But his nomination doesn’t in any way change current circumstances. I remain convinced that the best way for the Senate to do its job is to conduct the confirmation process **after this toxic presidential election season is over**. …he said, emptying another barrel of radioactive waste into the water supply… ---
**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:** [March 16, 2016, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/86 "2016-03-16T17:42:16Z")
> [@Caldazar](#): > > If those senators want to wait a bit to see how the GOP nomination shakes out, fine. If they just want to get on with it and put in the rear-view mirror, okay. But it seems to me like they had an easy way to save face and pander to their base. In years gone past, perhaps. Today, no. The trouble is, that Obama has been painted for 7 years as not merely wrong; not merely someone with a different way of governing; not someone from the “other side of the floor”. The Republican establishment and media has painted Obama as EVIL. Not just wrong, but actively TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA. Not just a political opponent, but THE LITERAL ANTICHRIST. And the base ate this up. They believed it. They did not see this as powerful rhetoric, but as the actual, factual truth. Now… You cannot compromise with PURE EVIL. You don’t make a deal with the LITERAL ANTICHRIST. The Republican establishment and media have painted themselves into a corner, where compromise is not possible at all anymore. And compromise is necessary to get anything done. So they can’t get anything done. (Which of course, they then blame on Obama) ---
**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, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/87 "2016-03-16T17:45:08Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > And now, [Hatch’s statement on why the man he said should be nominated to the Supreme Court shouldn’t be nominated to the Supreme Court.](http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=6D07239A-7E03-4B2D-8A88-BC59A6FFF7BB) We are too obnoxious to nominees, therefore we can’t consider this fine judge > [@](#): > > Doing so will keep what should be a serious confirmation discussion from becoming denigrated by the toxic politics of this election season, and it will give the American people a voice in the direction of our nation’s highest court. This approach to the Senate’s advise-and-consent role isn’t about the individual the President has chosen—it’s about the broader principle." ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/88 "2016-03-16T17:45:35Z")
> [@Grsz11](#): > > Republicans can always confirm AFTER Hillary wins and avoid a super liberal nominee. Nope. The nomination would no doubt be withdrawn before the echoes of “…we are now calling the election for Hillary Clinton…” have fully dissipated. ---
**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, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/89 "2016-03-16T17:50:43Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It was a vote in favor of rehearing en banc. I see. I thought the district court had struck down the ban and the original panel had reversed. There’s still not much to that, though. Perhaps Garland approved of the result but not the reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/90 "2016-03-16T17:52:23Z")
I’m loving it. And with the primaries having gone the way they’ve gone, the Dems can ask the voters, “who do you want to select Scalia’s replacement, Obama, or Donald Trump?” The heat is on. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/91 "2016-03-16T17:55:43Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > as if everyone needed to be reminded that Republicans are already mired in a totally no-win situation “Captain, the Teaparti have threatened to destroy this ship if we cross the party line and attempt to retrieve our Senate candidates from the _Trumpayashi Maru_…” ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/92 "2016-03-16T17:58:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I see. I thought the district court had struck down the ban and the original panel had reversed. > > There’s still not much to that, though. Perhaps Garland approved of the result but not the reasoning. It’s not definitive, but it does look like a duck. Based on the current fact pattern, I’d say Merrick is in favor of additional gun control as opposed to less. Being in the DC circuit, I’m not sure if more info will come out. ---
**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, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/93 "2016-03-16T18:01:13Z")
Well, he’s a (D) nominee. If anything, it would be surprising if he were not in favor of more gun control. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/94 "2016-03-16T18:08:23Z")
Yay, yet again another white guy. ---
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/95 "2016-03-16T18:14:38Z")
Not sure if it was linked to already but SCOTUSblog did [an in-depth review](http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/) of Garland’s judicial career prior to the nomination. ---
**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:** [March 16, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/96 "2016-03-16T18:20:41Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > Yay, yet again another white guy. I know they’re already over-represented, and correct me if I’m forgetting someone, but haven’t Obama’s last two nominees been women, and one of them Latina? Not sure this deserves a “yet again” if it is, in fact, the first white guy he’s nominated. And one who will probably never be confirmed at that. ---
**Author:** ![Caldazar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Caldazar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caldazar)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/97 "2016-03-16T18:41:09Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Now… You cannot compromise with PURE EVIL. You don’t make a deal with the LITERAL ANTICHRIST. > > The Republican establishment and media have painted themselves into a corner, where compromise is not possible at all anymore. Agreed, but I think the GOP could have spun it so it doesn’t look like a compromise at all, and so avoid a problem entirely. “We first suggested Judge Garland because we felt he was a solid candidate for the position; see Orrin Hatch’s comments on the matter. Left to his own devices, the President would have picked an activist judge and damaged the Supreme Court, like he’s been damaging everything else. Fortunately, we spoke up on behalf of the people and saved the country from another disaster.” Own the idea and present it as something the GOP created and that Obama stole to try to “play politics”; don’t allow Obama to get any credit for the nomination. I think you could get the GOP base to buy into such a narrative. Of course, Hatch has now backpedaled and seems to have fallen in line with the other “we won’t confirm Obama nominees” senators, so that’s out the window. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/98 "2016-03-16T18:43:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If so, [according to the NYTs](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html), they’ll be confirming someone smack in the middle of the liberal justice bloc. If this is correct then I retract my prior post, which was premised on Garland being a moderate. But I don’t know if this NYT assessment is correct. Orrin Hatch clearly doesn’t agree with it, and given his background and experience I would be more inclined to go with his judgment. But I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/99 "2016-03-16T18:57:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I were a senator, I would vote to confirm. This. The Republicans need to basically suck it up and vote on the nomination…and, if they are smart, vote to confirm. They seriously misplayed this whole thing…again…and look really stupid…again. If they wait for the people to speak they are going to have either Trump sending forth his nomination or Hillary sending hers and from a much stronger hand than Obama has right now. ---
**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, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160/100 "2016-03-16T19:00:29Z")
Hatch just got a pretty hard ride in his Fox interview. They played video of his previous endorsements of Garland. He’s sticking with his “not at this time” and hedged his bets with “maybe I haven’t study his[Garland’s] career for the past 19 years enough”. You see, it’s too political right now. Everything will be totally calm in 10 months. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-nominates-judge-merrick-garland-to-the-scotus/749160.md?page=6)