[QUOTE=New York Times, Mar. 16, 2016]
He Is Prepared to Face a Difficult Confirmation
That is, if the Republicans concede to a vote. Judge Garland received substantial support from Republicans when he was confirmed to the appeals court and his qualifications could make it more difficult for them to justify blocking him.
[/QUOTE]
By no means the only media outlet providing this particular analysis, but one of the more prominent ones. This was common, and anyone who wasn’t living under a rock politically or being deliberately obtuse knew about it at the time.
Now, then. Cite how the base disapproved of Garland before the nomination. Not how the Republican leadership was right not to have hearings about it let alone vote on it, but how the base thought Garland was unsuitable to be a SC Justice.
Answer the question. Provide evidence. Don’t pull the standard Republican trick of attempting to distract from the fact that you aren’t providing evidence, show actual cites. I’ve let you get away with your little game so far, but now it’s time for you to put up or shut up.
Actually, yes it does, if you want to demonstrate anything about Obama’s motivations.
You claimed that Garland was acceptable to the GOP base, and have produced nothing to show that he was, and claimed that Obama nominated Garland in order to highlight obstruction, and have produced nothing to show that this was Obama’s motivation.
So, no thanks to your attempt to shift the burden of proof.
“What we have here is a failure to communicate.” And it’s not mine.
The particular line of discussion about nominating Garland was well-covered on this very board in Elections. It was and is a thing, whether you want to admit it or not. Claiming that an analysis of Obama’s actions that didn’t come directly from him doesn’t matter is fruitless and fallacious. Historians do it all the time.
As I have said before, my argument along that line has already been presented, and I knew exactly what you would say to it, having pointed it out myself. So, once again, as the self-styled ‘expert’ on the Republican base (obviously you must be, since you claim to know that I am ignorant about it), it is up to you to prove me wrong.
All you’ve done since beginning this conversation is attempt to shift the burden of proof.
For other readers, notice that he still hasn’t provided a single piece of evidence. He has, however, impugned my knowledge, fluffed up his own, and made several unsupported assertions. This is the exact strategy I see over and over again from the other side. It appears that they think that if they keep their opponent on the defensive by continuously attacking, they’ll never have to actually prove a single thing they say.
I have now both provided evidence and answered your attacks on it. Are you EVER going to, you know, actually follow the debate form and provide substantiation for your assertions? I doubt it, but what the hell, one more college try.
It seems to me to be pretty clear that, once the GOP announced they would not consider any nominee, Obama had two choices.
One: nominate someone with a demographic appeal (for example, Paul Watford or Ketanji Jackson) and try to make the narrative about blocking a black nominee, scream about racism, and try to fire up the Democratic base.
Two: nominate someone that would otherwise be palatable to the opposing party and make the issue obstructionism and hope someone broke ranks. Merrick Garland was the clearest example of this path. But, Srinivasan would have probably qualified. Sandoval probably wouldn’t have done it, but would have been a excellent candidate for this tactic.
I figured he would take option 1. It could be that he wasn’t as confident that Clinton would win as everyone later became, although I think when Garland was nominated it was pretty clear Trump was going to be the nominee (and conventional wisdom was that he would lose bigly). But the pick of Garland seemed pretty clearly calculated to focus on the “obstructionism” attack and try to force a “moderate” on to the court.
What about anything that I (or anyone else) say removes your obligation to support your own statements? Sorry, not buying it. You don’t get to rationalize it away.
I read the article, and it doesn’t appear to say that. He hopes he has enough votes to hold a filibuster, and he doesn’t appear to make any claims about being able to stop the nuclear option beyond “There are people in [the Republican] caucus who really don’t want to change the rules, OK?”
From my perspective, the harder job for the Democrats in 2018 is going to be defending all those Senators in red states. Places like WV, ND, MT, IN, MO, and OH.
The Democrats should be supporting Gorsuch anyway, as he has a strong record of being a stickler for opposing the expansion of executive power, and with Trump as the executive that should be the prime requirement for any supreme court nominee.
That may or may not be, depending on public sentiment as we get into next year.
But it’s six of one with respect to the Dems retaking the Senate. If the Dems can win in Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, Mississippi, Utah, or Wyoming, they’re riding a freakin’ tidal wave, and their incumbents aren’t going to lose. And if they don’t take one of those states, then the GOP has 50 + Pence at a minimum, and they hold the Senate, no matter how they do in those states you mention.
Shodan, how do you think conservatives would have felt if Obama nominated Garland to replace Ginsburg (in a hypothetical scenario where Ginsburg was the one who died)? I think conservatives would probably have been thrilled to have him confirmed.
If you agree, then surely it’s not the case that conservatives found Garland unacceptable as a Supreme Court justice, but rather that they found the leftward shift of replacing Scalia with Garland unacceptable.
It could be a little bit of both. Trump won WV by 42 points and ND by 36. Dems could easily lose Manchin’s and Heitkamp’s seats (indeed, I expect the will) while still benefiting from a wave that gives them Senate seats in places like Arizona (Trump by 3) / Texas (Trump by 9)
I don’t want to replace liberal justices with moderates - I want to replace liberal justices with conservative justices. I also want to replace moderate justices with conservatives.
Garland may have been better than Ginsberg, but Gorsuch is better than both. The GOP held out against Garland, and now we have a better nominee. I didn’t think it would pay off the way it has - kudos to the GOP for knowing better than me how to bring about this improvement in the Court.
I’ve said in the past that, if Obama had nominated a genuine conservative, the GOP would have flip-flopped on their statement not to consider any nominations from Obama in the last year of his Presidency. But there would be no point in that, for Obama or for liberal causes. Obama picked someone that he thought might be moderate enough to get past the GOP-controlled Senate. Garland was a moderate (by Obama’s standards). He was not a conservative, by GOP standards, and thus he could not get past the Senate.
That last phrase is more than a teensy bit ironic, doncha think?
You are correct that elections have consequences. The consequence of Obama’s election was that he had the duty to fill any Supreme Court vacancy that occurred prior to January 20.
No, he had the Constitutional duty to nominate someone. The Senate has the Constitutional duty to advise the President on his choice, and to grant or withhold their consent to that choice.
I’d prefer the filibuster be completed removed from the Senate rules in all cases. It’s undemocratic. The Senate itself is undemocratic, allowing a minority of Senators to hold up the body makes it even worse. Compare the population of the 21 least populated states to the 29 most: the least populated 42% of the states have only 11% of the population.
Democrats made a tactical error by not eliminating the filibuster when they had the chance. They paid the price. Democrats must now make the Republicans pay the same price. Democrats should filibuster every bill and nominee they find objectionable, every time. Preferable en bloc. Either, Republicans put forward bills and nominees the Democrats find acceptable, or they remove the filibuster, or they get nothing accomplished. I’m happy with each of those outcomes.
Yes, there could be electoral consequences for obstructionism, but recent history suggests there’s a good risk-vs-reward ratio for obstructing.
