The President will perform his Constitutional duty to present a prospective SCOTUS Justice appointee, very soon. The Republican Senate will not even consider performing their Constitutional duty to advise and consent. Rather they will launch a massive campaign to attempt to justify their obstruction.
Their first major line of BS will be that the American voters deserve to have a say in the selection of the next Court appointee. (They will conveniently ignore the fact that the American voters have already had that say, by voting Obama for his 2nd term.)
The President will perform his Constitutional duty to present a prospective SCOTUS Justice appointee, very soon. The Republican Senate will not even consider performing their Constitutional duty to advise and consent. Rather they will launch a massive campaign to attempt to justify their obstruction. Their first major line of BS will be that the American voters deserve to have a say in the selection of the next Court appointee. (They will conveniently ignore the fact that the American voters have already had that say, by voting Obama for his 2nd term.)Yes indeed. As they say, you can always tell a Republican, but you can't tell him much. LL
When I said “very soon”, I didn’t know it would be less than 24 hrs, but here it is.
Merrick Garland. A White Male. Ideologically moderate. (Not young - 63 yrs of age.) From relatively humble beginnings. A person who had opportunities to make more money in his life than he has, but chose public service, instead. Unquestionably intelligent and supremely qualified for the position of SCOTUS Justice. Well liked by Chief Justice Roberts. What is there for Republicans not to like? (Other than he is not a rabidly reactionary conservative ideologue? Oh… well… he is a Jew nominated by a black guy that they hate. So there is that.)
I suspect that Merrick Garland will be the last opportunity for an ideologically moderate person to become a SCOTUS Justice. The Repubs are playing with fire, by not appointing him while they have the chance. They could look good, politically, by having a quick hearing and approval. By obstructing the process, they continue to look bad, politically. They also risk the possibility that the Dems hold the Presidency, and that, then, an ideologically progressive person WILL get the SCOTUS seat.
Here is the 2nd line of bullshit that the repubs are using: “The Biden Rule”. Words from Joe Biden, almost 25 years ago, in a different context, are being elevated to not just a rule (which they are not and never were), but to a holy inviolable principal, that justifies not even considering any nominee, no matter how, supremely qualified for the SCOTUS. A holy inviolable principal that they say justifies their obstruction of filling a SCOTUS vacancy for possibly a full year or more.
All day, I have heard Repubs saying. “Let the voters decide.” The voters have decided twice that Obama is President. OBAMA IS THE SELECTED PRESIDENT NOW. The vacancy in the SCOTUS is NOW. The Constitution does not say that some FUTURE selected President is to appoint a SCOTUS Justice.
If either party is allowed to get away with this bullshit, then why should either party not simply obstruct until they get their guy in power. “Let the voters decide in the next election cycle!” This could go on ad infinitum until 2049, when a wizened old Marco Rubio (who has eventually personally developed enough to give up religion) and has won the Presidency as an Independent, is finally allowed to appoint Justices to the 7 Supreme Court vacancies. (Just in time before Kagan and Roberts also croak from old age.)
All day, I have heard Repubs saying. "Let the voters decide." The voters have decided twice that Obama is President. OBAMA IS THE SELECTED PRESIDENT NOW. The vacancy in the SCOTUS is NOW. The Constitution does not say that some FUTURE selected President is to appoint a SCOTUS Justice. If either party is allowed to get away with this bullshit, then why should either party not simply obstruct until they get their guy in power. "Let the voters decide in the next election cycle!" This could go on ad infinitum until 2049, when a wizened old Marco Rubio (who has eventually personally developed enough to give up religion) and has won the Presidency as an Independent, is finally allowed to appoint Justices to the 7 Supreme Court vacancies. (Just in time before Kagan and Roberts also croak from old age.)Agree, except for one point. Obama was not "selected" but elected. Only Bush II has the distinction of having been selected as President--by a combination of the Supreme Court (which was acting illegally, IMO) and the Florida Attorney General who declared Bush the winner of Florida's electoral votes. He was definitely not elected by the electorate in a democratic election. Lois
They also risk the possibility that the Dems hold the Presidency, and that, then, an ideologically progressive person WILL get the SCOTUS seat.This is the only really relevant remaining point. All the rest about who said what when and principles is nothing more than rhetoric now. Do they accept a "moderate conservative" that they praised in the past? Or do they take a chance on one of the following scenarios? 1) Kasich or Cruz (or any non-Trump candidate) gets the GOP nod AND is elected President AND they maintain a Republican majority so they can put forth another Scalia-like conservative toady? 2) Trump get elected and picks a nominee they like? 3) Trump gets elected and just to piss them off, picks someone they don't like. 4) A Democrat gets in and picks a Black/Hispanic/Woman/Lesbian/Atheist? (THAT would be sweet!) 1) is their (wet) dream. 2) they would live with. 3) and 4) would make them look like fools. Do they roll the dice? Or do they take "the bird in the hand"? Their judgement these past several years has been more than suspect. Perhaps they will all pray to god to tell them what to do.
They have another possible option. Some Repub Senators have already indicated that they will wait until after the election, and if the Dems win the Presidency and Senate majority, they will be happy to approve Garland during the lame duck period (so as to avoid a less moderate &/or younger choice by the next President). Of course, in doing this, they would prove, absolutely, that their made-up justifications, for not approving him earlier were politically motivated lies. Also, I would like to point out that politically motivated lies, are a special kind of rhetoric. It is not rhetoric that is meant to inspire, but to deceive. We should not give lies a pass as being "nothing more than rhetoric". Too many Americans believe what they hear repeatedly regardless of whether it is true. The Repubs bank on this. It helps keep them in power.They also risk the possibility that the Dems hold the Presidency, and that, then, an ideologically progressive person WILL get the SCOTUS seat.This is the only really relevant remaining point. All the rest about who said what when and principles is nothing more than rhetoric now. Do they accept a "moderate conservative" that they praised in the past? Or do they take a chance on one of the following scenarios? 1) Kasich or Cruz (or any non-Trump candidate) gets the GOP nod AND is elected President AND they maintain a Republican majority so they can put forth another Scalia-like conservative toady? 2) Trump get elected and picks a nominee they like? 3) Trump gets elected and just to piss them off, picks someone they don't like. 4) A Democrat gets in and picks a Black/Hispanic/Woman/Lesbian/Atheist? (THAT would be sweet!) 1) is their (wet) dream. 2) they would live with. 3) and 4) would make them look like fools. Do they roll the dice? Or do they take "the bird in the hand"? Their judgement these past several years has been more than suspect. Perhaps they will all pray to god to tell them what to do.
...[4) A Democrat gets in and picks a Black/Hispanic/Woman/Lesbian/Atheist? (THAT would be sweet!)...Yes, let's give the Repubs nightmares: Hillary or Bernie win, along with a Majority Senate. The vacancy on the SCOTUS remains. On the first day in office, Hillary or Bernie, appoints.... Dr. Rachel Maddow! Progressive, in her 40's, PhD in Pol. Sci., Lesbian. That would be sweet.
Let’s assume what seems obvious to most, that the appointment of a SCOTUS Justice is mostly about partisan political ideology.
President Obama, in his partisan political ideology, has nominated possibly the most qualified person who has EVER been nominated for the position of SC Justice. A person who is not a left or right political ideologue.
The Republican Senate, instead of doing their job (of advising and consenting re: appointments, or doing anything else for that matter, except fundraising) in their partisan political ideological motivation, are doing everything that they can to insure that a right wing ideologue will be appointed to the Supreme Court.
So it is obvious whose partisan political ideology is the most demented in it’s potential outcome, at the moment.
Any true statesman (one who cares about the country more than partisan ideology) among the Repubs, should jump at the chance to approve Merrick Garland.
They could do it now, before Trump (most probably) wins the nomination, and look good, and get on with the business of governing. (If they wait until after the election they risk an appointment by Hillary (probably) or Trump (probably). It is unlikely that someone put forth by either Hillary or Trump will be as palatable to sane Repubs, as is Merrick Garland.
Let's assume what seems obvious to most, that the appointment of a SCOTUS Justice is mostly about partisan political ideology. President Obama, in his partisan political ideology, has nominated possibly the most qualified person who has EVER been nominated for the position of SC Justice. A person who is not a left or right political ideologue. The nerve of Obama to do that! No wonder Republicans hate him. The Republican Senate, instead of doing their job (of advising and consenting re: appointments, or doing anything else for that matter, except fundraising) in their partisan political ideological motivation, are doing everything that they can to insure that a right wing ideologue will be appointed to the Supreme Court. So it is obvious whose partisan political ideology is the most demented in it's potential outcome, at the moment. Any true statesman (one who cares about the country more than partisan ideology) among the Repubs, should jump at the chance to approve Merrick Garland. There are no longer any Republican statesmen. They are now ridiculously out of fashion in the Republican Party. They could do it now, before Trump (most probably) wins the nomination, and look good, and get on with the business of governing. (If they wait until after the election they risk an appointment by Hillary (probably) or Trump (probably). It is unlikely that someone put forth by either Hillary or Trump will be as palatable to sane Repubs, as is Merrick Garland.They'll never see that.
They could look good, politically, by having a quick hearing and approval. By obstructing the process, they continue to look bad, politically.Oh but they look like hero's to their BB eyed fans. You're talking about enlightened self interest rearing its head. But I fear neo-Republican have battered and buried that dude too deep for resurrection. We can hope, and I am hoping against hope. Merrick Garland does seem like he'd make a great Supreme Court Justice - It would be very cool to see Republican show a little sense and follow your advice. Yet, again I'm wishing my low estimation of today's crop of Republicans, is proven wrong.
They could look good, politically, by having a quick hearing and approval. By obstructing the process, they continue to look bad, politically.Oh but they look like hero's to their BB eyed fans. You're talking about enlightened self interest rearing its head. But I fear neo-Republican have battered and buried that dude too deep for resurrection. We can hope, and I am hoping against hope. Merrick Garland does seem like he'd make a great Supreme Court Justice - It would be very cool to see Republican show a little sense and follow your advice. Yet, again I'm wishing my low estimation of today's crop of Republicans, is proven wrong. You're right, the Repub Senators will do what is in their own self-interest. I suppose this is primarily looking good to their own ill-informed constituents who they constantly ill inform. But I tend to believe that they are also motivated by some underlying racism that takes the form of opposing absolutely everything Obama. (But then, I guess racism is a kind of demented version of self-interest.) They have added a new line of bullshit: They claim that Garland is anti-2nd amendment (by which they mean he is opposed to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as a personal right of all to keep and bear arms). (We don't know whether this is true.) They base the claim on a previous ruling from a Garland court, in which this position was upheld. The problem is that the ruling by the Garland Court was prior to the Supreme Court ruling in the "Heller" case, in which the Supreme Court changed the previously existing interpretation to what it is currently. A District Court (which is what Garland is Chief Justice of) has to follow the interpretations of The Supreme Court. That is what Garland's court did. If the same district court had the same case today, they would be compelled to rule differently, because the Supreme Court has now changed the interpretation of the 2nd amendment to be a personal right of all. So once again, the Repubs pile bullshit upon bullshit (and broadcast it effectively) to try to convince the public that they have some ethically supportable reason to not do their Constitutional duty. If they wanted to actually determine the Centrist, Garland's, stance on the 2nd amendment interpretation, they could try asking him.