Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on March 16, 2016, 07:54:04 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/obama-supreme-court-announcement/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/obama-supreme-court-announcement/index.html)
Obama to nominate Merrick Garland to Supreme Court
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama will nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court Wednesday morning, multiple congressional sources tell CNN, setting up a dramatic political fight with Senate Republicans who have vowed to block any replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has been considered in the past for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Merrick Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has been considered in the past for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Garland, 63, the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has been on short lists before. An appointee of President Bill Clinton, Garland is a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School. As a Justice Department lawyer, he supervised investigations in the Unabomber case as well as the Oklahoma City bombing.
Senate Republicans do not plan to vet or have hearings on the nominee, and say the next President should be able to choose Scalia's replacement. Obama and Democrats argue that with 10 months left in his term, there is plenty of time for the Senate to take up and confirm a new justice.
Obama will formally unveil his pick at 11 a.m. ET in the White House Rose Garden, he told supporters in an email Wednesday.
"I've devoted a considerable amount of time and deliberation to this decision," Obama wrote. "I've consulted with legal experts and people across the political spectrum, both inside and outside government. And we've reached out to every member of the Senate, who each have a responsibility to do their job and take this nomination just as seriously."
Obama's announcement amplifies the ongoing political battle over the precedent and propriety of considering a Supreme Court nomination amid a heated presidential election.
The announcement comes after a big night in the 2016 election, with both party's front-runners -- Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump -- emerging with sweeping victories as they march toward their respective nominations. Some believed Obama would time his pick so it wouldn't get lost in a news cycle dominated by election results. But the timing seems suited to directly insert the selection into the political conversation.
Fueling the argument is the potential for the first shift in the court's ideological leaning in two decades. If confirmed, Obama's nominee will likely offer a vastly different legal outlook that Scalia, who was considered one of the court's most conservative members.
At 63, Garland is much older than the other contenders on the short list such as Judges Sri Srinivasan, Paul Watford and Jane Kelly. Garland's supporters argue he is the nominee that the senators couldn't refuse even in a contentious environment. "He's the establishment of the establishment," one backer said.
Obama has said his goal was to find a "consensus candidate."
"It is my intention to nominate somebody who has impeccable credentials, somebody who should be a consensus candidate," Obama told CNN en Español anchor Juan Carlos Lopez in an interview last week.
This is Obama's third nomination to the high court. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were confirmed in 2009 and 2010, respectively. But those confirmation hearings and votes occurred when Democrats were firmly in control of the Senate.
All eyes on Senate Republicans
Since Scalia's death and for the foreseeable future, the court has operated with eight justices, four appointed by Democrats and four by Republicans.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the GOP chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley of Iowa, have both expressed little leeway in their determination to forgo hearings for Obama's nominee.
"We think the people should choose as we've said repeatedly," McConnell said Wednesday morning after word of Garland's selection was made public.
There have been dissenters on the Republican side, particularly from moderate Republicans. But their ability to force hearings before the full judiciary panel appear slim.
CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said it will be difficult for them to change tactics now.
"I don't see how at this point they can go back on this promise," not to move on the nominee, Toobin said Wednesday morning.
A McConnell aide said noted the Kentucky senator voted against Garland when he was confirmed to the appeals court in 1997 and argued Obama's choice is a recognition that this pick not getting through -- otherwise the President would have picked a younger nominee who would serve longer.
Democrats, meanwhile, have already begun a campaign to pressure Republicans into considering Obama's nomination. In their sights: vulnerable senators up for reelection, some of whom are already facing backlash from opponents for refusing to consider even a hypothetical Obama nominee.
The White House launched a Twitter account, @SCOTUSnom, designed to promote the nomination as well.
How to get instantly verified on Twitter: Be Barack Obama
Polls show most Americans support giving a nominee a congressional hearing. A CNN/ORC survey taken late last month indicated sizable majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents want Senate Republican leaders to hold hearings on the nominee.
Grassley last week said the Senate retained a prerogative to forgo hearings for Obama's selection.
"It isn't any different if the President of the United States notifies Congress well in advance of a piece of legislation that he's going to veto it," Grassley said at a Judiciary panel hearing, citing criticism from Republicans over the role of the high court.
"Whether it's today or tomorrow or whether it's for the next seven or eight months, this is a very important debate that we ought to have about the Constitution and about not only who's going to be a replacement for Justice Scalia but about the role of the Supreme Court," he added. "At the grassroots of America, there's a real feeling of 'Is the Supreme Court doing what the Constitution requires?'"
Trump said he agrees with the stance of the Hill Republicans. "I think the next president should make the pick. And I think they shouldn't go forward. And I believe I'm pretty much in line with what the Republicans are saying," Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo Wednesday on "New Day."
The announcement comes 32 days after Scalia's death, only slightly longer than it took him to name his two previous appointments to the high court. Unlike his nominations of Sotomayor and Kagan, the vacancy this time wasn't expected. White House officials have said they weren't anticipating another Supreme Court nomination during Obama's term ahead of Scalia's death.
Obama oversaw a team led by his counsel Neil Eggleston, chief of staff Denis McDonough, and his senior adviser Brian Deese to select and vet a group of potential nominees. After conducting interviews last week, Obama narrowed his list to include Merrick, Watford and Srinivasan, each of them considered "consensus" candidates for their history in gaining confirmation support from Republicans.
Any replacement of Scalia has the power to tilt the ideological balance of the court for decades, something conservatives are using to move their base to hold the line.
"This seat could be transformational to the court because Justice Scalia's fidelity to the Constitution was a real anchor for the court. If he were replaced by an Obama nominee that would give the court a solid five votes for enacting an extremely liberal agenda that the American people will not be comfortable with," Carrie Severino, of Judicial Crisis Network , a conservative group opposed to any candidate getting a hearing until after the election. It would shift the court --that is somewhat balanced --to a liberal stronghold. She is a former clerk of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Since Scalia's death, justices have been considering several major cases, including a challenge to public sector unions, a race-conscious admissions plan at the University of Texas, the first big abortion case since 2007, challenges to voting rights, the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate and a challenge to Obama's executive actions on immigration. Scalia's death means not only the loss of the court's main conservative voice but also increases the likelihood of a 4-4 split on controversial issues. If the court is equally divided in a case, ruling 4-4, it means the lower court opinion stands and there is no precedent set by the Supreme Court.
-
choose your poison, republicans.
This dude is 48% a moderate, with slight slight left leanings on a few things, but about as moderate as one will ever find.
#1 in class at Harvard, brilliant man. Repubs can "settle" for him now, or let hilary appoint a massive liberal next year.
-
Does this Supreme Court represent America? 5 Catholics and 4 Jews.
I don't think so.
-
They don't by gender ratio either. 8)
-
It was hard to listen to Obama talk about how the process of nominating and confirming justices needs to happen, etc.
This from a president who sought to filibuster Justice Alito, and who voted against Roberts confirmation.
It was crazy to hear him invoke John Roberts praise of Garland, when Obama himself voted against Roberts when Obama was a Senator himself.
And how crazy to hear Obama say that the Supreme Court especially needs to be above politics. Says the person who voted against Roberts and Alito.
And can I remind us all of the Bork hearings and the Clarence Thomas hearings. Which political party is the party which has so thoroughly politicized the process of confirming judges??? Which political party started all of this???
But now the shoe is on the other foot, now says a liberal Democrat president, now is the time for politics to be cast aside as the Senate takes up a solemn constitutional task of confirming a Supreme Court justice.......
-
but the people have spoken. It was understood whether implied or overt, that if an opening on the supreme court occurred during Obama's presidency, he could appoint a replacement. Arguing that there is "only" 10 months left in that presidency is an empty argument. Have the hearings, let the chips fall where they may.
-
but the people have spoken. It was understood whether implied or overt, that if an opening on the supreme court occurred during Obama's presidency, he could appoint a replacement. Arguing that there is "only" 10 months left in that presidency is an empty argument. Have the hearings, let the chips fall where they may.
this appointee is pretty much exactly who trump would have picked.
-
this appointee is pretty much exactly who trump would have picked.
Trump is capable of appointing Judge Judy.. don't sell him so short
-
but the people have spoken. It was understood whether implied or overt, that if an opening on the supreme court occurred during Obama's presidency, he could appoint a replacement. Arguing that there is "only" 10 months left in that presidency is an empty argument. Have the hearings, let the chips fall where they may.
The people have spoken. They put the GOP in control of the Senate and the Senate is electing to invoke the Biden Rule by not confirming a nominee until after the election.
-
The people have spoken. They put the GOP in control of the Senate and the Senate is electing to invoke the Biden Rule by not confirming a nominee until after the election.
This. ^^
-
From what I understand, his observation (not a rule) was that if the nomination was made before summer, there would be a hearing on it. It's March 16th..
-
From what I understand, his observation (not a rule) was that if the nomination was made before summer, there would be a hearing on it. It's March 16th..
Your understanding is incorrect. He specifically opposed an "election year" nomination.
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed, Biden, then a Delaware senator said from the Senate floor on June 25, 1992.
There was no vacancy on the Supreme Court at the time and the Senate was controlled by the Democratic Party. But if a vacancy did occur and Bush insisted on making a nomination, the Senate should refuse to act, Biden argued.
"It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Filmore and Johnson, and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over," Biden said.
"And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times," Biden said, noting that some likely would say he was making the statement only in the hopes that a Democrat won the presidency and was able to name the next justice.
"But that would not be our intention," Biden insisted, adding that if a nomination did come before the Senate the body should consider not holding hearings until after the election.
"Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season was underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," he said. "That is what is fair to the nominee, and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution."
Biden's counsel in 1992 is not being heeded by current Democrats who argue the now Republican-controlled Senate should confirm an Obama nominee in timely fashion. Republicans have vowed to delay the process.
Biden, now vice president, suggested his boss will go with a judicial candidate already confirmed by Republicans at a lower level and that Republicans should confirm him or her.
"In order to get this done, the president is not going to be able to go out — nor would it be his instinct, anyway — to pick the most liberal jurist in the nation and put them on the court," Biden told Minnesota Public Radio. "There are plenty of judges (who) are on high courts already who have had unanimous support of the Republicans."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/joe-biden-supreme-court-justice-nomination/2016/02/22/id/715579/#ixzz40wglX5rw
-
From what I understand, his observation (not a rule) was that if the nomination was made before summer, there would be a hearing on it. It's March 16th..
It is just hard to see McConnell budging in this political environment.
Terrible political move if he gives in.
He didn't look too good in his last re-election either so that is something to think about.
-
It is just hard to see McConnell budging in this political environment.
Terrible political move if he gives in.
He didn't look too good in his last re-election either so that is something to think about.
I've little if no doubt if the roles were flipped, we'd be in the same boat. I sometimes have to remind myself that our government parties aren't about being fair, right, or just, it's about winning. The opening came during the early 4th quarter of the game.. games not over yet
-
I've little if no doubt if the roles were flipped, we'd be in the same boat. I sometimes have to remind myself that our government parties aren't about being fair, right, or just, it's about winning. The opening came during the early 4th quarter of the game.. games not over yet
Yeah bro this is all about politics.
You are right it would be exactly the same if the script was flipped.
If this is the last year of a Romney presidency with a Reid controlled Senate you would be getting the same exact result.
-
The people have spoken. They put the GOP in control of the Senate
let's be honest... they senate doesn't control much of anything, outside of what favor lube to use while they're taking the weekly obama sodomizing. They've done his bidding.
this congress has not shown much backbone... and now 3 of these GOP senators have already said they'll meet Garland.
-
I listened to Biden's speech made in June of 92 about holding off. He said during an election season. I would have to conclude that unless there is a differing description of "election season" somewhere.. we are smack dab in it.
-
I listened to Biden's speech made in June of 92 about holding off. He said during an election season. I would have to conclude that unless there is a differing description of "election season" somewhere.. we are smack dab in it.
Repubs have said Biden is full of shit and wrong on everything for 35 years.
After decades, they find one thing he said in 1992 they agree with - and suddenly they're all lining up to support The Biden Doctrine lol.
Is he full of shit, or credible, or just something to agree with when you agree with it? ;)
-
UM...I don't care... this guy is anti 2nd amendment....could be worse out there but no way in hell.
-
Repubs have said Biden is full of shit and wrong on everything for 35 years.
After decades, they find one thing he said in 1992 they agree with - and suddenly they're all lining up to support The Biden Doctrine lol.
Is he full of shit, or credible, or just something to agree with when you agree with it? ;)
And Obama has done the same with republicans including when he opposed alito...shoes on the other foot now and he wants his nominee to sail right through?
-
And Obama has done the same with republicans including when he opposed alito...shoes on the other foot now and he wants his nominee to sail right through?
so you can brag that repubs' hypocrisy is okay because obama did it too. they're just as bad as him now? cool.
-
Your understanding is incorrect. He specifically opposed an "election year" nomination.
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed, Biden, then a Delaware senator said from the Senate floor on June 25, 1992.
There was no vacancy on the Supreme Court at the time and the Senate was controlled by the Democratic Party. But if a vacancy did occur and Bush insisted on making a nomination, the Senate should refuse to act, Biden argued.
"It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Filmore and Johnson, and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over," Biden said.
"And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times," Biden said, noting that some likely would say he was making the statement only in the hopes that a Democrat won the presidency and was able to name the next justice.
"But that would not be our intention," Biden insisted, adding that if a nomination did come before the Senate the body should consider not holding hearings until after the election.
"Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season was underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over," he said. "That is what is fair to the nominee, and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution."
Biden's counsel in 1992 is not being heeded by current Democrats who argue the now Republican-controlled Senate should confirm an Obama nominee in timely fashion. Republicans have vowed to delay the process.
Biden, now vice president, suggested his boss will go with a judicial candidate already confirmed by Republicans at a lower level and that Republicans should confirm him or her.
"In order to get this done, the president is not going to be able to go out — nor would it be his instinct, anyway — to pick the most liberal jurist in the nation and put them on the court," Biden told Minnesota Public Radio. "There are plenty of judges (who) are on high courts already who have had unanimous support of the Republicans."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/joe-biden-supreme-court-justice-nomination/2016/02/22/id/715579/#ixzz40wglX5rw
Nice. This is why this guy doesn't do G&O. Moron. ::)
Dos Equis. Like shitty export beer. Bring your race nonsense up to the G&O. MORON.
-
Nice. This is why this guy doesn't do G&O. Moron. ::)
Dos Equis. Like shitty export beer. Bring your race nonsense up to the G&O. MORON.
What "race nonsense" are you talking about?
-
What "race nonsense" are you talking about?
I think dr chimps was a little soused after his St. Pattys day celebration and decided to log onto getbig and go full on "belligerent drunk uncle mode"
He was throwing grenades everywhere.
-
I think dr chimps was a little soused after his St. Pattys day celebration and decided to log onto getbig and go full on "belligerent drunk uncle mode"
He was throwing grenades everywhere.
lol Makes sense. :)
-
The people have spoken. They put the GOP in control of the Senate and the Senate is electing to invoke the Biden Rule by not confirming a nominee until after the election.
LOL! The "Biden Rule"... which piece of legislation was that? Oh, a decades old suggestion from a speech? Sheesh, setting the bar kinda low for "rules".
Mitch McConnell Wakes Up To Nasty Surprise: 16 GOP Senators Defect And Will Meet With Obama’s SCOTUS
(Bipartisan Report) NBC News is reporting that some Republican senators are starting to change their “tone” about Obama’s Supreme Count nominee, Merrick Garland. In spite of the “wall of opposition” brought about by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell against any nominee President Obama puts forward, a quarter of Republican senators 16 in total – have stated that they will “meet” with Garland about his nomination.
Progress? Perhaps, but only slightly. The fact remains that a majority of Republican senators will not even meet with Garland to discuss his potential nomination. This doesn’t even include putting it to a vote. This is literally just sitting down and talking with the man about potentially filling the vacant seat left by Justice Antonin Scalia following his death. Most remain completely hell-bent on blocking anybody Obama sends forward, no matter who it is.
This opposition is in spite of the fact that, according to recent polling, 61 percent of Americans believe that Republican Senators should do their job and put Garland’s nomination to a vote. The Senators remain firmly opposed to the American people who elected them. Only 31 percent agree that the next president should appoint the new justice.
-
There is precedence either way but with Biden being the sitting VP I don't see how they get their pick when his own stance can be used against them.
-
There is precedence either way but with Biden being the sitting VP I don't see how they get their pick when his own stance can be used against them.
biden is the sitting VP. Repubs aren't saying "let's follow biden's speech on" gun control, abortion, stem cells, min wage, amnesty, or 100 other issues. But because they agree with him on ONE THING said in a speech 25 years ago, suddenly it's a rule?
They agree with a decades-old biden speech. There is no biden RULE. There is no law. If they want to say he was credible, then open it all up, not the 1 in 1,000,000 things Biden has said into a mic over 40 years.
-
LOL! The "Biden Rule"... which piece of legislation was that? Oh, a decades old suggestion from a speech? Sheesh, setting the bar kinda low for "rules".
Mitch McConnell Wakes Up To Nasty Surprise: 16 GOP Senators Defect And Will Meet With Obama’s SCOTUS
(Bipartisan Report) NBC News is reporting that some Republican senators are starting to change their “tone” about Obama’s Supreme Count nominee, Merrick Garland. In spite of the “wall of opposition” brought about by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell against any nominee President Obama puts forward, a quarter of Republican senators 16 in total – have stated that they will “meet” with Garland about his nomination.
Progress? Perhaps, but only slightly. The fact remains that a majority of Republican senators will not even meet with Garland to discuss his potential nomination. This doesn’t even include putting it to a vote. This is literally just sitting down and talking with the man about potentially filling the vacant seat left by Justice Antonin Scalia following his death. Most remain completely hell-bent on blocking anybody Obama sends forward, no matter who it is.
This opposition is in spite of the fact that, according to recent polling, 61 percent of Americans believe that Republican Senators should do their job and put Garland’s nomination to a vote. The Senators remain firmly opposed to the American people who elected them. Only 31 percent agree that the next president should appoint the new justice.
hey while you're copying and pasting the text how about take another 2 seconds and copy and paste the link
-
biden is the sitting VP. Repubs aren't saying "let's follow biden's speech on" gun control, abortion, stem cells, min wage, amnesty, or 100 other issues. But because they agree with him on ONE THING said in a speech 25 years ago, suddenly it's a rule?
They agree with a decades-old biden speech. There is no biden RULE. There is no law. If they want to say he was credible, then open it all up, not the 1 in 1,000,000 things Biden has said into a mic over 40 years.
All that being said, it WAS his stance and he's still active and it is fair game. Politics is full of dirty opportunists. No surprise.
I think they have accepted this and have started campaigning for the Dems from the cabinet at this point....knowing that if a Repub gets in there it's going to be how much they strip out that this admin put in place, not if they do it.
-
All that being said, it WAS his stance and he's still active and it is fair game. Politics is full of dirty opportunists. No surprise.
I think they have accepted this and have started campaigning for the Dems from the cabinet at this point....knowing that if a Repub gets in there it's going to be how much they strip out that this admin put in place, not if they do it.
then call it the biden STANCE. The biden position.
They're all like "We will follow the biden rule" like it's an actual rule. They dismiss the other 9,999 things he's said in speeches but pretend he's worthy of obeying, the 1 time they agree with him
-
When we have the Affordable Care Act that isn't affordable and the Patriot Act that is in no way patriotic I think the least of our worries is whether the semantics fit Biden doing what was good or him then not being good for him now. Everybody can just go ahead and wait 6 months. A slow grind in govt doesn't bother me at all. If Dems win they get their pick.
-
If somehow a Republican wins in November I hope that Dems fillubuster all his nominations
Seems fair to me. If the people who put Obama in office don't get a voice then why should the people who put a Republican in office get a voice?