It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Obama To Nominate Merrick Garland To The Supreme Court


Settling for a centrist candidate with nearly two decades of judicial experience, President Barack Obama will nominate Merrick Garland, a federal appeals judge in Washington, D.C., to the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, according to The Associated Press and congressional sources.

If confirmed, Garland, 63, wouldn't bring diversity to the court as much a lengthy résumé in public service, including stints in the Department of Justice and on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he has served since 1997 and is now the chief judge.

An eventual appointment for Garland is also less likely to mark a liberal shift in the Supreme Court. If anything, his contributions -- given his age and his moderate record so far -- are likely to be more pragmatic than path-marking for some of the country's most hotly contested legal issues, such as voting rights, gun control and the scope of presidential powers.

For those very reasons, Garland is the least controversial -- and likely the most confirmable -- of all the candidates who were reportedly considered for the vacancy. It is possible Obama chose him for the post to defuse the confirmation fight that Senate Republicans have promised since the moment Scalia died.


So Obama is going with a centrist instead of a liberal or a conservative. Looks good to me. Now the balls in the Republicans' court. I wonder how they will play this. Though it looks like there is going to be a grueling battle ahead. I don't see a problem with the nomination. In fact, it is likely the least decisive nomination Obama could have made. A centrist is going to appeal to both sides and won't tip the balance to far with partisan politics. That's what we need.

I'm sure the Republicans won't care though. Gotta stop Obama at any costs... Though I wonder if McConnell and co can risk this fight against Obama with the fight they are gearing up to undertake against Trump. Craziness abounds.




posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sad thing is, they're going to vote Hillary to make sure Trump is denied. Don't they know Hillary is just going to continue the Obama agenda? So in other words, they're willing to continue obstruction for the next eight years? So it will be sixteen years total we will have to deal with the gridlock that McConnell promised from day one of Obama. The only good thing is McConnell will be hopefully be gone by 2025.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Well 12 years. Hillary would still have to win reelection, and a singular party winning the national election 4 times in a row is pretty much unheard of in the modern era.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I like the pick a good decision by our President. If the Republicans block the nominee like they said they would I will not vote for any republicans in november it will be all independents and democrats. But I am sure they will confirm so as not to lose votes in november ….I hope .

a reply to: Krazysh0t



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
They should just take this guy if the Republican goal is the railroad Trump at any cost aka a Hillary administration



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: nyjet67

Yea with them planning on trying to steal the nomination away from Trump, it may not be politically wise to stack unpopular fights like this ontop of each other so close to election time.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, until you consider the Republic party is in the process of imploding.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yesterday, I watched Mr. Obama speak about his upcoming address about his SC justice nominee. In honesty I heard nothing he said, but noted the lack of white hair. His hair was quite dark. The date of the interview was yesterday morning and aired last evening.

I am watching the POTUS naming Garland to the SC in a live address. I note his hair is substantially different in color. Mostly white.

This really is intriguing to me. Anyone else notice this?

As to the nominee, his speech started with him being very emotional, near tears. Is this a good thing?



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, until you consider the Republic party is in the process of imploding.


Well historically, even after a political party implodes, there isn't a very long time on the political scene that politics is dominated by one political party before a second one rises to create the duality again. So even if the Republican party completely falls apart into nothingness with this election, there will probably be a new political party to replace it by the 2020 elections (if not the 2018 elections).



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Garland is weak on the Second Amendment. No go. Up next?
edit on 16-3-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Republicans have no intention of letting this nomination get to the floor of the Senate. Just what this nation needs; another damned task force. Ugh.

The Republican Party's move to create a task force to coordinate advertising and other steps to assail Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy left by the Feb. 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia is the latest indication that the political fight could become very nasty.

And farther down the article:

The Republican National Committee said the task force will contract and team up with America Rising Squared, a conservative group, in the effort.

"This will be the most comprehensive judicial response effort in our party's history," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.


From Reuters



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose

The "holding back tears" thing is him probably just being happy to get the nomination. Or being hit with more reality that TPTB want him to do more of their bidding...

That said, didn't he lead the Oklahoma City boming investigation and the hunt/persecution/ investigation of the "uni-bomber"?

...just sayin'...

In all reality, he likely won't be accepted by the opposition.

Mitch McConnell just made a point of saying that the "people" should have a choice of their SCOTUS.

I take it they won't even entertain Garland as a nomination.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
This will be the 4th Jewish person on the court. The others are all Catholic. Interesting. Jewish Catholic monopoly?



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: nyjet67
I like the pick a good decision by our President. If the Republicans block the nominee like they said they would I will not vote for any republicans in november it will be all independents and democrats. But I am sure they will confirm so as not to lose votes in november ….I hope .



Went and read a couple bios on him first.

If Reps reject this guy, they're only gonna make themselves look more ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nyjet67
I like the pick a good decision by our President. If the Republicans block the nominee like they said they would I will not vote for any republicans in november it will be all independents and democrats. But I am sure they will confirm so as not to lose votes in november ….I hope .



Went and read a couple bios on him first.

If Reps reject this guy, they're only gonna make themselves look more ridiculous.


So naturally that will be the first thing they do.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: nyjet67
I like the pick a good decision by our President. If the Republicans block the nominee like they said they would I will not vote for any republicans in november it will be all independents and democrats. But I am sure they will confirm so as not to lose votes in november ….I hope .



Went and read a couple bios on him first.

If Reps reject this guy, they're only gonna make themselves look more ridiculous.


So naturally that will be the first thing they do.


Probably.



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
This was written about him in 2010, when he was also considered for appointment on the supreme court but by passed.




Of the three principal candidates "“ the other two being Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Judge Diane Wood "“ Judge Garland would also likely have the most immediate influence on the Court. 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.

www.scotusblog.com...


It's a pretty long article but would probably give a far more review of his past positions on many issues.




To the contrary, Senator Orrin Hatch called him "not only a fine nominee, but as good as Republicans can expect from [the Clinton] administration" (a sentiment Hatch repeated in 2003).

(same source)


a statement that is probably just as true today.. the question is, will the conservatives in congress play ball with him, or continue on with their ideological stubbornness, since it's served them so well up to this point.....
The republican party is starting to remind me of that guy on wall street that killed himself supposedly by repeatedly shooting himself with a nail gun... anyone want to lay odds on weather refusing to hold hearings on this nominee will be the nail that delivers the final and deadly blow to the party?



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Garland has a long record, and, among other things, it leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...


Second Amendment....non-negotiable.


edit on 16-3-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: WP4YT
This will be the 4th Jewish person on the court. The others are all Catholic. Interesting. Jewish Catholic monopoly?


All Roads Lead to Rome.




posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Wonder when the Pope is going to weigh in on this? (If you know what I mean.)




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join