The same Republicans who praised Garland up and down before he was nominated. They’re caught in a bind of their own making; they’re hypocrites no matter what they do.
So some questions then…
- What is a reasonable time for some next action to be taken? (hearings or something else?)
- If that reasonable time passes - what can / should Obama do next?
- What can / should the Democrats do?
It cannot be a case that the nomination is just ignored until the election - there must be a next course of action on all sides right?
No. There is no safety valve. The Senate is within its rights to block all permanent appointments to the Supreme Court in perpetuity if it wishes, and it can also remain in session permanently to block any temporary recess appointments.
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.
that wasn’t exactly the question - it’s been discussed adnaseum here that the senate doesn’t have to act -
More what I was asking - assuming they do refuse to act, what is Obama’s next course of action? The Democrats? Hillary?
It can’t be that they will all sit around quietly mumbling into their Earl Grey “oh dear me, whatever can be done?” right? There must be some sort of strategy - whether it be shadow hearings, an announcement of who Hillary will (or won’t) nominate, a threat from Obama?
I don’t believe for a second that all parties will sit with their thumb up their butt till November
One thing that astounds me is that the majority of politicians (on both sides) seem not to care one jot about whether they look like (or actually are) hypocrites.
The voters don’t punish them for it so why would they care?
it seems to me that people mistake the national level for the same thing as a given politician’s constituency and also the generic polling even for that constieuncy for the actual voters who bother to vote in that constituency. They then making sweeping conclusions incorrectly
When has that ever, ever bothered them before?
“As Senator Moran has said, he is opposed to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. He has examined Judge Garland’s record and didn’t need hearings to conclude that the nominee’s judicial philosophy, disregard for Second Amendment rights and sympathy for federal government bureaucracy make Garland unacceptable to serve on the Supreme Court.”
Previously the GOP senators said that it had nothing to do with Garland’s qualifications, which whey whole-heartedly and overwhelmingly praised when he was nominated to the Circuit Court. Instead, they said, it was about process and timing. So were they lying then, or are they lying now? Or both, and it’s really just about playing politics at the expense of the American people?
Indeed. “Congress (as a whole) sucks, but I like my Congressman / Senator.”
An interesting article on how the SC is functioning without Justice Scalia:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/politics/supreme-court-scalia-eight-justices/index.html
McConnell said it was the principle, not the specific nominee, and some GOP senators echoed him. It’s probably unfair to ascribe their motivations to Moran, unless he said that himself.
Yes, it was - thanks. Still sorry the Chief Justice hasn’t weighed in publicly and said it would be best to have a full complement of nine justices.
(post shortened, underline added)
“As Senator Moran has said” vs. “the GOP senators said”. Is it possible that different Senators can have different opinions or reasons for their actions? Is it possible that those answers could change, depending on how the media phrases the questions?
FYI, If Merrick Garland has not made it clear that he believes that the rights ensconced in the U.S. Bill of Rights are all INDIVIDUAL rights, then I do not believe that Merrick Garland is qualified to be a member of the Supremes. IMHO, of course.
Gee, gosh, why don’t a handful of Senators ask him that?
You mean, perhaps they could have some kind of, I don’t know, gathering where Garland and some Senators sit in a room and they ask him questions? Like a, I dunno, like a hearing or something? That’s just crazy talk.
Is there any reason why Garland should not stand up on his own and voluntarily make such a statement? He’s the one who wants the job.
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.
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’m think more (what show, I don’t recall) where the character cross examines himself hostilely until he breaks.