Obama nominates Judge Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS.

[CarnalK]

Wow. Hatch is doing another Fox interview and they are kind of hammering him again. Doesn’t seem like Fox is onboard with this obstruction at all.

[Fear_Itself]

@HMS_Irruncible

Exactly. Justice Elizabeth Warren FTW.

She’s older than Garland. Clinton should appoint a liberal who is no older than 50, tops.

[ElvisL1ves]

@adaher

They also elected a Senate which has to confirm nominees. The election argument is a poor one. Plus it ignores a little Political Science 101 concept called “political capital”, which basically says that unpopular Presidents don’t usually get their way.

Obama has always been, and remains, far more popular than the Congress he’s had to deal with, hasn’t he? :dubious:

[Voyager]

@Dangerosa

All those Republicans in tight Senate races are thinking how best to strangle McConnell in his sleep.

That would solve the problem. But you mean “smother him with a pillow” don’t you?

[astorian]

There was never a chance I was going to be thrilled by Obama’s choice, and I’m not.

But he’s the least bad choice a Republican could have hoped for, and much better than we’ll get when Hillary stomps Trump.

I’d hold my nose and vote to confirm.

[Voyager]

@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.

Two problems with this. First, they get hammered for obstructionism during the campaign. It is going to be hard for them to blame Obama for it, not convincingly at least, especially given the nominee.
Second, when you refuse to consider a nominee 10 months before the end of a term it is hard to justify considering him two months in.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Jophiel

McConnell will spend his time as leader of the minority party wishing he had confirmed Garland instead of Clinton’s pick.

I think Clinton’s picks (either for this slot or the next one) will not be markedly different from Obama’s - *she *isn’t markedly different philosophically from him, after all.

Garland’s record seems to fit right in with RBG, Kagan, and Sotomayor, which would be fine. If it comes to that point, she might well renominate Garland himself, just to show who’s in charge.

[tim314]

@iiandyiiii

According to the NYT, he’s in-line with the current SC “liberal bloc”. That doesn’t sound like a win for the Republicans.

From that article:

Garland’s score is based on the score of his appointing president, Bill Clinton

I’m a bit skeptical of that methodology.

[John_Mace]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Reality is not the Republican’s strong suit at the moment.

I don’t think they have even acknowledged that Obama is really the president.

Think of him more as a Steward than a president. He’s holding the place until the real president is elected in the fall.

[DigitalC]

@ElvisL1ves

I think Clinton’s picks (either for this slot or the next one) will not be markedly different from Obama’s - *she *isn’t markedly different philosophically from him, after all.

Garland’s record seems to fit right in with RBG, Kagan, and Sotomayor, which would be fine. If it comes to that point, she might well renominate Garland himself, just to show who’s in charge.

It has nothing to do with any difference between Obama and Clinton, it has to do with the difference in their circumstances.

[iiandyiiii]

@tim314

From that article:
I’m a bit skeptical of that methodology.

D’oh, I missed that. Yeah, that seems like a weak way to measure.

[iiandyiiii]

I think there’s a good chance we’ll see shadow hearings in the next few weeks – Democratic Senators will call for hearings, invite Garland and the Republicans (who inevitably will refuse to come), and hold in-depth questioning and discussions with Garland on judicial philosophy and stuff, while the media records.

[XT]

@John_Mace

Think of him more as a Steward than a president. He’s holding the place until the real president is elected in the fall.

Wonder how that will work out for them when/if it’s Hillary verse Trump.

[ElvisL1ves]

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog weighed in back in 2010, when Garland was on the short list to replace Stevens:

On a number of issues, particularly those related to criminal law, Judge Garland is the least likely to adopt a liberal position. There are, however, some potential counter-examples involving the First Amendment and environmental law.
…
Garland also notably voted in favor of en banc review of the D.C. Circuit’s decision invalidating the D.C. handgun ban, which the Supreme Court subsequently affirmed.
…
Judge Garland rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants’ appeals of their convictions.
…
Unlike many other judges, Judge Garland’s position on criminal law issues is not reflective of a broader ideology. One might expect that a judge with such a record on criminal law questions would be generally quite conservative across the board. That does not appear to be true, however.

Judge Garland has not been called upon to decide many civil-rights-related claims of great significance. It is difficult to label him as inclined either towards or against such claims, given that the panels on which he sat in such cases were generally unanimous.

When, however, Judge Garland participated in a divided ruling, it was generally in favor of the plaintiff.

Judge Garland has strong views favoring deference to agency decisionmakers. In a dozen close cases in which the court divided, he sided with the agency every time.

On environmental law, Judge Garland has in a number of cases favored contested EPA regulations and actions when challenged by industry, and in other cases he has accepted challenges brought by environmental groups. This is in fact the area in which Judge Garland has been most willing to disagree with agency action.

One final area of the law that comes regularly before the D.C. Circuit is the Freedom of Information Act and similar provisions related to transparency in government. Judge Garland’s rulings reflect a preference for open government.

Most interesting to me, though, is this:

He is well known to the Justices and is likely the most respected by them collectively, particularly the more conservative Justices. The fact that Judge Garland is not only extremely intelligent and respectful but exceptionally careful and quite centrist would mean that his views would have particular salience with, among others, Justices Kennedy and Alito.

Things can change in 6 years, but not fundamentally.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Any chance that the GOP does the math and realizes that the odds are pretty strong that the next president is either going to be HRC or (god help us) Trump? Either way, the party is not going to have much say in a nominee. This might be as good as it gets for them.

[Bricker]

@doorhinge

Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling.

He wanted the circuit to rehear the case. That means he wanted to change the panel decision.

Or he wanted the precedent to be a full ruling for the circuit instead of a panel.

Or he wanted different language in the circuit’s opinion while retaining the result, language that would have weakened the right.

Or he wanted different language in the circuit’s opinion while retaining the result, language that would have strengthened the right.

In other words, you have no idea what motivated his vote.

I have spent four years in the “Voter ID,” thread arguing against the unprincipled idea that we can discern homogenous malign motives from simple legislative votes. The same principle applies here, only more so. There are a kajillion reasons to vote to rehear a case en banc.

I fully support the reasoning and results in Heller and MacDonald. But I don’t support this weak inferential assassination trick, no matter how it is wielded or against who.

[BrainGlutton]

McConnell cites non-existent “Biden Rule” as reason why there will be no hearings for Merrick Garland.

[Smapti]

@CarnalK

Wow. Hatch is doing another Fox interview and they are kind of hammering him again. Doesn’t seem like Fox is onboard with this obstruction at all.

Fox is as terrified by the prospect of letting President Trump fill a nomination as we are, apparently.

[D_Anconia]

@GIGObuster

IMHO to have their way the Senate should at least give him a hearing and express their reasons why they reject him, but since they are not giving him that right

Where in the Constitution, statutory law, or case law do you find that right?

[Chronos]

In the part of the Constitution where it says that the Senate shall advise the President on nominations to the Supreme Court.