Frankly, at this point any means will do. Poison, shotgun, knife wounds. Everything is on the table.
No need, just flip him on his back and let him die of thirst.
I respect the people’s choice to give adaher nightmares if they want, since the people’s desires clearly override all constitutional concerns these days, apparently.
Drown him in a bathtub, maybe?
Valet, maybe. Pullman porter?
Jebus, Bricker. You are one of the board’s resident conservatives, but you have taken many, many non-conservative positions. Why would you confirm a moderate/leftist to replace Scalia?
I understand that the Court is supposed to be above politics, but Obergefell, Kennedy v. Louisiana, Casey, Lawrence, have blown that facade out of the water. We need strict constructionists in these positions or else rule by the people will be no longer: we just submit our proposals to nine lawyers.
What’s a “moderate/leftist”?
So, it looks like Bricker, adaher, and astorian have all said that if they were Senators, they would vote to confirm. I’m guessing that all three of you voted for Republican senators. Are the senators you voted for willing to confirm him? And if not, does that affect your likelihood of voting to re-elect those senators? Or, if despite your votes your senators are Democrats, would you consider a hypothetical future challenger’s decision in a case like this to have any bearing on your vote for them?
EDIT:
Not to speak for Bricker, but the way our system works is that the President nominates justices, and it’s to be expected that a President will nominate them from his or her own side of the aisle. Given that, when the President is from the other party, a moderate is the best you can realistically hope for.
Doorhinge, that’s way too much for a quote. Don’t violate other site’s copyright, please.
One who insists on trying the capitalists before shooting them.
So what is your plan of action should the people decide to have Hilary Clinton as POTUS for the next 8 years? Just keep stalling and refusing to even hold hearings on any of her Supreme Court nominees?
And what if the people think “fuck this shit, let’s have a functional government”, and elect a majority Democrat senate? What then? Do you propose to have an armed takeover of a Federal Bird Sanctuary until you get your way?
I still would have preferred Akhil Reed Amar. But Garland is a good, and under circumstances other than these, a non-controversial pick, who would probably make a good Justice.
Since your own party’s nominee will be Trump, you’ll be voting for Clinton?
Good to hear it. I’m sure you’ll be in extremely numerous company.
Oh good, this gives me the chance to tell my Amar anecdotes:
[ul]
[li]As of ten years ago, he still listed his high school GPA on his CV[/li][li]Supposedly, when he interviewed for a SCOTUS clerkship, the justice told him, “I’ve had clerks who thought they were smarter than me, and I’ve had clerks who were smarter than me, but I’ve never had one tell me they were smarter than me in the interview.”[/li][li]He went on a profanity-laden tirade against a classmate who accidentally suggested that Jefferson was involved in the constitutional convention[/li][li]He lowered another classmate’s grade, well after the grading cutoff, after she submitted a negative teacher evaluation[/li][/ul]
He’s a weird dude. Obviously brilliant, but bad with humans.
I was hoping for Srinivasan, but this article by my close personal friend* Noah Feldman raises some excellent points. Especially regarding how Garland’s age acts as an advantage.
[QUOTE=My close personal friend*, Noah Feldman]
For Garland, too, age is an explanation of why he’d agree to be nominated. Every appellate judge dreams of being on the Supreme Court someday, and Garland is certainly no exception. A younger judge might have to consider the risk of becoming a sacrificial nominee. Not so Garland, for whom this is the last chance.
If Garland has bad luck and isn’t confirmed, he can happily remain on the D.C. Circuit, secure in the knowledge that his country honored him with the nomination. The nomination is a net plus for him, however it goes.
[/QUOTE]
*We were at the same dinner once; we spoke for a few minutes and he didn’t tell me to get the fuck away from him.
And at 52% and +7 spread (Gallup), which is where he is right now, even more so.
Is he assured of staying up there or going higher? No. But this kind of battle with the GOP is the best way to guarantee it!
They are put themselves into a no win position. Even the cute out of trying to approve only after Clinton wins is blocked. At that point his name is withdrawn pending Clinton’s inauguration. (And I suspect that that possibility has already been discussed and will, quietly be made clear to GOP leadership). He is by far the best deal they could get, fairly moderate, well qualified, and relatively likely more time limited, not likely three decades. But this deal does have an expiration date.
I’ll be pretty surprised if he pulls Garland after a Clinton win. For better or worse, he just has never really played political hardball like that.
Moreover, the GOP is probably still gonna have enough seats to filibuster. Do you think Clinton wants to start her presidency with a fight over killing the filibuster? I doubt it. I’ll bet Clinton and Obama would both be happy to take Garland and lay the groundwork for Clinton’s other eventual nominees.
I can just see it: Clinton elected, Obama withdraws this nomination, and Clinton nominates whomever. They then accuse her of subverting the constitution by not respecting the nomination of the man that was duly elected at the time of the vacancy.
And they may already be backing down, realizing that backing down now is their least poor option.
Haven’t you heard? Gary Johnson is the LP candidate. He’ll be the best qualified candidate on the ballot resume-wise.