SCOTUS announcement at 11 am in the Rose Garden {UPDATE: the pick is Merrick Garland}

[Wingnut]

And they say Trump doesn't draw anti-semetic bigots as supporters?

[GourmetDan]

And they say Trump doesn't draw anti-semetic bigots as supporters?

                                 


                                 

[sinkspur]

And they say Trump doesn't draw anti-semetic bigots as supporters?

And now he's doubling down.

[GourmetDan]

 
             

[Paladin]

Gotta admit this is a shocker for me. I fully expected Obama would nominate a black female. Thus when the Repubs refused to give her a hearing or refused to confirm her, the Dems could claim racism and sexism, a win-win for Hillary.

[GourmetDan]

I think it is irrelevant that he is Jewish, just as this evangelical thinks it is irrelevant that no evangelical is on the Court.  So what is it to me that there are a bunch of Catholics and no evangelical?   It is their view of the law and the Constitution that matters.

I think the relevance was in Solzhenitsyn's point...

[sinkspur]

I think the relevance was in Solzhenitsyn's point...

Jews run the media, right?

[jmyrlefuller]

                                 

Except Voltaire never said that.

[GourmetDan]

Jews run the media, right?

Do you get paid for that... or is it free?

[GourmetDan]

Are you blaming Jews for the Russian Lenin communist revolution?  I don't really know what you are saying.

If the courts did their job and stuck to the original meaning of the Constitution by those who ratified it, then it wouldn't matter if all nine judges were from Mars, so long as they understood the Constitution, became loyal citizens of the U.S. of course, and ruled accordingly.  The problem is with the long effort on the left to politicize the court, to turn it into a super legislative branch. 

The only reason diversity would matter is if the judges are ruling according to their own interests instead of according to the Constitution and its authentic meaning according to those who ratified it.  The leftist judges rule according to their own leftist interests. They change its meaning through judicial fiat rather than the constitutional way, through amendments.  Amendments are hard -- much harder that packing the court with leftist judges who usurp their power and legislate from the bench.

What do you think Solzhenitsyn's point was and what similarities do you see with what is happening in America today?

[mountaineer]

I think it is irrelevant that he is Jewish, just as this evangelical thinks it is irrelevant that no evangelical is on the Court. ...  It is their view of the law and the Constitution that matters. 

  I don't care whether this guy is Jewish. If he truly believed in upholding and defending the U.S. Constitution as it was written (and not changing it to fit the winds and tides of change), I'd be happy. But I know that's not going to happen with an Obama nominee.

[GourmetDan]

It was your quote.  Please explain to me what you mean by it and the similarities you are seeing.   Please answer your own question.  I do not get where you are leading so I am not going to play 20 questions until you at least fully explain your perspective.

It was Solzhenitsyn's quote, not mine... and if I explained it to you... people would freak-out around here...

Sorry but you will have to figure it out on your own... or not at all...

[mountaineer]

The Advocate (New Orleans) reports:

David Vitter, Bill Cassidy criticize President Obama’s Merrick Garland nomination for Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s decision to nominate the moderately liberal federal appellate court Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court had no immediate effect on Senate Republicans’ refusal to hold a hearing or allow a vote on filling the vacancy until after the presidential election.

Obama had lavish praise for Garland’s qualifications, experience and judicial philosophy in a half-hour Rose Garden ceremony on Wednesday morning and urged the U.S. Senate to act promptly on the nomination.

“I have fulfilled my constitutional duty,” Obama said, “and now it’s the Senate’s duty to fulfill theirs.”

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor within the hour to reaffirm that Republicans intend to leave the seat open for the next president.

“It is the president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice,” the Kentucky Republican said. “And it’s the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent.”

Louisiana’s senior Republican senator David Vitter, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also reaffirmed his support for deferring any action on the nomination until after the election. “President Obama has less than a year left, but a Supreme Court Justice will impact our country for decades,” Vitter said in a prepared statement.

Vitter’s Republican colleague Bill Cassidy also criticized the nomination.

“The president’s nominees have pushed our country to the left by supporting the president’s agenda,” Cassidy said in a statement. “I don’t support the president’s agenda. I don’t support the president’s nominees.”

The Supreme Court vacancy was created by the unexpected death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13. Scalia’s death at age 79 left the court evenly divided between a bloc of four conservatives, including the swing-vote moderate Anthony M. Kennedy, and four liberals.

Garland, 63, is chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has outsized influence on regulatory issues because of its role in hearing challenges to federal agency decisions. President Bill Clinton nominated him for the court in 1995. After a delay, the Senate, then with a 55-45 Republican majority, confirmed him in 1997 by a vote of 76-23.

An honors graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Garland clerked for the highly regarded federal appeals court judge Henry Friendly and then for Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. The Chicago native joined a high-powered Washington law firm, but left in 1989 to serve as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

After a brief return to the firm, he left again in 1993 to join the Justice Department as deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division. At the Justice Department, Garland oversaw the federal prosecutions of Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing and the so-called Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

Garland has a reputation as a meticulous judge, with moderately liberal views on civil liberties and social issues and somewhat conservative stands on criminal law.

“Fidelity to the Constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life,” Garland said after Obama finished, “and it is the hallmark of the kind of judge I have tried to be over the last 18 years.”

Garland rose to the position of chief judge by seniority. With 19 years on the bench as of next Sunday, he has the most judicial experience of any Supreme Court nominee in history.

The White House created a new Twitter account, @scotusnom, (you know what to do!)  to promote the nomination. Liberal and conservative groups already had started developing plans for public campaigns to support or oppose confirmation.

Obama said Garland would begin making courtesy calls on senators on Thursday. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has backed McConnell’s decision to hold no hearings on any Obama nomination, but he told the Des Moines Register on Wednesday that he would meet with Garland.

Several other Republican senators told news organizations they would meet with Garland. But many Capitol Hill observers were predicting Wednesday that Republicans would not yield to pressure to act on the nomination.

[mountaineer]

3.16.16 3:02 PM ET
Fox News Warns GOP: Merrick Garland Is a ‘Political Trap’
Daily Beast
Matt Wilstein

In the right-leaning network’s first reaction to Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, hosts warned Republicans not to dismiss Merrick Garland so quickly.

Before President Obama was even finished announcing his pick to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had confirmed that he has no intention of even holding a vote to confirm or deny D.C. Circuit Court Judge Merrick Garland.

But Republican lawmakers or their constituents who listened to the conservative commentators on Fox News’ Outnumbered early this afternoon may think twice about letting go of this chance to get an older, moderate judge on the bench before it’s too late.

After commending McConnell for refusing to budge on his no-vote stance, Andrea Tantaros stopped just short of praising President Obama for his politically savvy pick. Since Merrick Garland “prosecuted right-wing extremists in Oklahoma City,” she argued the Obama is “capitalizing”  on division within the Republican Party and predicted that the president will accuse “allegedly violent Trump supporters” of exacting payback for that prosecution.

“He knows that attack is coming,” Tantaros continued. “I believe it is political trap. He’s going to capitalize on division of the right and make himself look reasonable and bipartisan and media will ride shotgun on the entire thing.”

On the other side, liberal contributor Julie Roginsky, describing Garland as a “moderate” justice in the mold of Anthony Kennedy, said Republicans “better be darn sure that Donald Trump will win and that they’re going to hold their Senate majority.” Because if Hillary Clinton becomes president and the Senate flips, she will appoint a younger, more openly liberal justice and the GOP will be “begging” for Garland back.

“There’s the trap,” Tantaros agreed.

If there is a “trap,” then co-host Melissa Francis promptly fell into it, making an argument that appeared far more reasonable that anything coming out of Capitol Hill.

“I think you’re all absolutely right, this is a trap,” Francis said. “It is a political move laid out by President Obama, so why not call him on his bluff?” She described Garland as a “completely reasonable candidate who both sides like.” And especially because he is “older than most of the people that would be nominated,” the GOP should go ahead and confirm him.

“You know that it is killing President Obama to not appoint someone who is more in line with his own personal thinking,” she continued. “I mean this man is moderate. Call his bluff, go ahead. put him through the motions, put him on the court. I can think of nothing more disappointing to the Left. I think Republicans are making a huge mistake and take him up on his offer and take his candidate because like you said, I mean if they don't, they could really, really regret it down the road.”

“That is what they’re banking on,” Tantaros said of Democrats. “They're banking on Republicans doing what they always do.” She predicted the GOP would “take the bait” and block Garland, giving Democrats a political victory in the process. “Politics always wins and this White House does it better than anyone,” she added later, giving Obama a rare, if backhanded, compliment.

“They just checkmated Republicans if Republicans continue to block this nominee.”

“Take the cash now, because behind Door Number Two is Hillary Clinton’s young, liberal appointee,” Roginsky agreed.

But is he really "moderate"? Come on.

[mountaineer]

Here’s what I find PECULIAR about Obama’s Supreme Court nomination…
Written by Allen West on March 16, 2016


President Obama has just announced Merrick Garland as his choice to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Obama has said he’s doing his job; isn’t it peculiar that — suddenly — this president is an advocate for the Constitution?

Back in my Army days, we had a reference called “Spotlight Rangers” — referring to those who situationally decided when trying to appear a leader was advantageous to them. That appears to be exactly what President Obama is doing now.

Yesterday Brett Stephens had a piece in the Wall Street Journal based upon the recent Atlantic Magazine online interview of Obama entitled, “Obama Doctrine.” Stephens surmised Obama’s responses in the interview basically reflected someone who had “checked out” and was just riding the tide. If Obama is suddenly deciding to appear as a leader, I’d prefer Obama declaring ISIS as committing genocide against Christians, as the House voted 396-0 earlier this week affirming such — rather than suddenly showing an apparent interest in the Constitution he has so regularly chosen to ignore.

President Obama cherry picks when he wants to play president; otherwise he’s playing golf. I recommend the spotlight be turned off and this man who has demonstrated on countless occasions his contempt of the Constitution just stay checked out. You don’t get to pick and choose based on your ideological agenda when you suddenly decide you want to be a “leader.”

[rangerrebew]

Harry Reid: GOP will confirm Obama's SCOTUS pick
'Already bargaining about what month they will fully cave'
Published: 23 hours ago
 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid tapped into tea party-type fears about the Republican leadership’s ability to stand fast in the face of President Obama’s storm of demands, and put out a Twitter message saying bluntly: Yes indeed, the GOP is already on its way to caving on Merrick Garland.

Garland was announced as Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death.

The ‘Stop Hillary’ campaign is on fire! Join the surging response to this theme: ‘Clinton for prosecution, not president’

He wrote: “Republicans are backing down so quickly that they’re already bargaining about what month they will fully cave and confirm Obama’s nominee,” Mediaite found.

And in another tweet just four minutes later, Reid wrote: “No question in my mind that Sen. McConnell will cave, and President Obama will fill this vacancy this year.”

Can the Republican Party save itself? Richard Viguerie has the prescription in “Takeover.”

Reid predicted similarly in February.

On an MSNBC appearance with host Chris Matthews, Reid called the Republican Party’s attempt to hold off hearings on any Obama nomination to the court a “hurtful” move for the country.

And, he added then: “McConnell and all his Republican colleagues are going to cave. The American people won’t put up with this.”

Conservatives across the country, particularly those of tea-party ideology, have criticized Republican leadership for giving in to Democratic Party demands too easily, including Obama’s many debt-ceiling hikes.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/harry-reid-gop-will-confirm-obamas-scotus-pick/#dsQpmR6ZIzGKLyxX.99

[mountaineer]

There Is Absolutely No Reason GOP Should Confirm Merrick Garland
SCOTUS judges cannot moderate decisions, they can only pick a side.
March 17, 2016 By David Harsanyi
The Federalist

Understanding there would be only a negligible chance of getting his SCOTUS nominee confirmed, President Obama did the smart thing nominated a candidate that the media and Democrats could incessantly describe as “centrist” or “moderate.” Now, I’ll leave specific characterizations about Merrick Garland’s legal temperament to the experts—though even the New York Times places him to the left of Kagan and Breyer—whether he’s a centrist or a hardcore progressive doesn’t matter one bit.

But if his “centrism” is important, then it’s also fair to point that the likelihood of Garland siding with conservatives on preserving the individual right of gun ownership in Heller or free expression in Citizens United, or any other case with implications the average conservative might care about, is zero.

SCOTUS judges can’t make “moderate” decisions, they can only pick a side.

This is why the preemptive position of rejecting all nominees was important. There is no need for interviews and no need for hearings. Republicans have no constitutional duty to accept Obama’s nominee. The GOP beef should be with Obama’s transformation of American governance. Garland might have a wonderful personal story, but Obama, who has spent the majority of his presidency arguing against checks and balances, shouldn’t be allowed to create a post-constitutional court in his last year that would displace law for empathy.

Though the Republicans’ claim that the “people” should decide the nominee is kind of a silly formulation, whatever repercussions there might be for this supposed obstructionism—and I’ll continue to point out that every time the GOP is warned about its imminent demise because of these stands it wins a wave election—none could be as destructive as conceding the Supreme Court to Obama in the months before November 2016.

Republicans are told that if they accept a moderate today they can avoid a bogeyman (bogeyperson?) in the future. After the election, Clinton will nominate the craziest most-progressive judge ever, and you’ll be sorry!  (So you mean to tell me that Hillary isn’t going to be a conciliatory president and try and bring America together?) Whoever that judge is will do exactly what Garland would do: vote with the progressive wing on most issues.

If Clinton wins in the general election, the GOP might move in December to confirm Garland, hoping to snag the marginally less destructive nominee. If that happens, Greg Sargent at the Washington Post lays out this possibility:

    That scenario goes like this: If Republicans don’t give Garland any hearing, and a Democrat (most likely Hillary Clinton) wins the presidential election, Republicans could then move to consider him in the lame duck session, to prevent Clinton from picking a more liberal nominee. But at that point, Obama could withdraw his nominee, to allow his successor to pick the next justice, instead.

Not only would Obama have every right to this, he would simply be pilfering the Republican position about the electorate having a say in the process.

But so what?  With Donald Trump leading the GOP pack—and the prospects of him being able to win in the general, much less name constitutionalists to the court, are exceedingly low—all this might be a moot point soon enough. But with a Democratic Party frontrunner facing accusations of wrongdoing and impressive unfavorability ratings, the GOP has no reason to jump the gun. It’s been a crazy year, and a lot can happen. And if the worst case scenario unfolds for movement conservatives, they lose nothing.

I mean, they lose everything, but preemptively giving it all away makes no sense.