Talk about taking one for the team

Mar 16 2016 Published by under General Politics

How would you like to be the first person Obama nominates for the open Supreme Court seat?

And you have to go through the dog and pony show with no chance of being confirmed?

Sitting through fake interview after fake interview with Republican Senators?

Whoever volunteered for that has my respect. Service to a nation undeserving.

14 responses so far

  • K elliott says:

    Wonderfl joice by Obama & oustanding Judge. Hope nomination gets through

  • drugmonkey says:

    It won't. The Repubs can't. Quaking in their boots over being primaried by the Teabaggers.

  • Krzysztof Sakrejda says:

    For the right judge this could be pretty entertaining. It's not every white intellectual who gets to make _all_ the racists and misogynists in the country squirm at once simply by talking about how they are qualified to do the job they've been nominated for. Some of them (the racists) can be completely open about the whole racist Obama-shaped hate in their heart but for most of the ones this judge is talking to, the hate is something they have to keep hidden pretty hard.

  • DJMH says:

    Agreed. Garland is the sacrificial lamb so that someone else can be ready to go for Hillary. But it does come with the tiny sliver of possible success: if Hillary is elected in November, Republicans might be trampling over each other to resurrect and confirm Garland in the remaining months to prevent Hillary from getting to name someone much further left. Because let's face it, this was never about hearing "the people's choice".

  • Laffer says:

    Republicans will only lose if they hold hearings because once the process starts, it gains legitimacy and inertia, and it will end in an up or down vote. And this guy doesn't look like he'll lose once it gets out of committee.

  • drugmonkey says:

    DJMH,

    What on earth makes you think Hillary would nominate someone more to the left? She's to the right of Obama and even more calculating.

  • DJMH says:

    (a) Because she also plays hardball. If she's just been elected after all the R claptrap about "hearing the American people", then she gets anyone she wants and she'll go at least a small step more left. Save the moderates for later in the term when her credit isn't as good.

    but (b) the point isn't whether Hillary would actually nominate a super-lefty, it's about the fear from Republicans that she would.

  • WH says:

    DM, it's possible that the GOP loses the Senate in November. That would open up the possibility for a left-er nominee.

  • qaz says:

    Besides... didn't McConnell and the republicans say that the next president gets to choose? So, if elected, Clinton should get to pick anyone she wants. Right? Right?

    Yeah. Right.

  • Grumble says:

    "Sitting through fake interview after fake interview with Republican Senators"

    Republican Senators have vowed not to hold hearings at all. So, no interviews.

  • jmz4 says:

    "She's to the right of Obama and even more calculating."
    -Eh, Obama's rhetoric is to the left of hers, but their actions put them about the same place, IMHO. Although, he was a Clinton pick to the DC circuit.

  • The Other Dave says:

    DJMH has it exactly right. Obama nominated a highly qualified moderate to make stubborn republicans look bad in the general election. If they don't confirm by Jan 2017, then the next candidate will get to nominate the new judge. By then, there will be a LOT of pressure to get a new justice seated, which means there would be very little pressure for a new democratic president to nominate a moderate.

    Basically, the republicans now have three increasingly bad choices:

    1) Buck party line and confirm Obama's pick.
    2) Stall and hope it doesn't hurt them in the senate elections this fall.
    3) Stall, suffer, and get stuck with an even more liberal nomination after the republicans lose the presidential election.

  • Busy says:

    But it does come with the tiny sliver of possible success: if Hillary is elected in November, Republicans might be trampling over each other to resurrect and confirm Garland

    Exactly, and the chances of Hillary are far larger than a sliver. Even the most conservatives of polls put it at 50-50% and those that consider the polarizing nature of the GOP candidates put it substantially higher.

    This does not detract from the fact that Garland was willing to go down with the ship if this turned into a pure partisan game.

  • Craig says:

    I think the risk of sitting Republicans senators facing a primary challenger over voting for the nominee are pretty slim at this stage in the electoral cycle. It's just too late now, even if hearings and a vote were expedited.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the process was stalled until after the election. I also could see a vote happening around/after the Republican convention, depending on what happens there. If the convention is contested and someone other than Trump gets the nomination, the party will explode and a some grounded republicans may start cooperating. Or if Trump gets the nomination, voters end up being serious about #NeverTrump, and it becomes clear he's going to lose a moderate justice may start looking real attractive.

Leave a Reply