Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[Washington Resistance Army]

Garland is too liberal for me, but not even holding hearings is fairly dickish.

It's going to cost them the senate

Doubtful, Democrats are notoriously bad when it comes to midterms.

Not to mention Republicans will probably be out in force if Hillary (shudders) wins.

As for me? I think they should hold the hearing but reject him.

[Wallonesia]

Garland is too liberal for me, but not even holding hearings is fairly dickish.

It's going to cost them the senate

There's no better way to lose the Senate floor more like a hearing refusal. Losing the party nom to Trump/Cruz and then this?

I wish Republicans good luck for the rest of the year.

[Greed and Death]

It's going to cost them the senate

They've done plenty of things that would cost them the Senate. This may or may not be the breaking point.

On an individual level those not on the judiciary committee can claim they were willing to consider just the candidate never made it out of the committee.

[Jamzmania]

No nominees should be considered until after the presidential election so that the people may have their say.

[Gauthier]

No nominees should be considered until after the presidential election so that the people may have their say.

Sure, Mitch.

[Greed and Death]

Reviving the thread intentionally since most relevant debate is already here.

We appear to have a nominee.

Merrick Garland.

He'll get blocked by the Senate for having a dubious 2A record. Hell, they'd probably block him no matter what.

So what's an American Centrist when they're in Europe?

Center-right probably.

He has written his opinions very narrowly to avoid being nailed down (all judges hoping for higher appointment do), though he did seek to grant enblanc review in Heller.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

No nominees should be considered until after the presidential election so that the people may have their say.

Luckily, the judiciary is not a democracy. The people get a say through their elected representative, whose mandate is still as strong as the day he was elected. The democratic mandate does not wane over the course of a four-year term.

[MERIZoC]

No nominees should be considered until after the presidential election so that the people may have their say.

The people had their say in November 2008 and 2012. Each time they gave Obama the mandate to nominate SCOTUS justices for the next years.

[Gauthier]

No nominees should be considered until after the presidential election so that the people may have their say.

The people had their say in November 2008 and 2012. Each time they gave Obama the mandate to nominate SCOTUS justices for the next years.

Remember, Obama is only entitled to 3/5ths of a Presidency.

[Thermodolia]

It's going to cost them the senate

Doubtful, Democrats are notoriously bad when it comes to midterms.

Not to mention Republicans will probably be out in force if Hillary (shudders) wins.

As for me? I think they should hold the hearing but reject him.

Though this isn't a midterm year

[Jamzmania]

No nominees should be considered until after the presidential election so that the people may have their say.

The people had their say in November 2008 and 2012. Each time they gave Obama the mandate to nominate SCOTUS justices for the next years.

And they also had their say in 2014, which was a resounding rejection of Obama's policies.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Doubtful, Democrats are notoriously bad when it comes to midterms.

Not to mention Republicans will probably be out in force if Hillary (shudders) wins.

As for me? I think they should hold the hearing but reject him.

Though this isn't a midterm year

I just use the term as a catchall for non-POTUS elections. I myself don't see this costing them the senate, if years of obstruction and other nonsense didn't I don't think this will.

[MERIZoC]

The people had their say in November 2008 and 2012. Each time they gave Obama the mandate to nominate SCOTUS justices for the next years.

And they also had their say in 2014, which was a resounding rejection of Obama's policies.

Point me to the president that was elected in 2014.

[MERIZoC]

Though this isn't a midterm year

I just use the term as a catchall for non-POTUS elections. I myself don't see this costing them the senate, if years of obstruction and other nonsense didn't I don't think this will.

This is a POTUS election year....

[Wallenburg]

The people had their say in November 2008 and 2012. Each time they gave Obama the mandate to nominate SCOTUS justices for the next years.

And they also had their say in 2014, which was a resounding rejection of Obama's policies.

I wasn't aware we held a presidential recall election in 2014. Wait, we didn't? That's unconstitutional? Balderdash!

[Thermodolia]

Though this isn't a midterm year

I just use the term as a catchall for non-POTUS elections. I myself don't see this costing them the senate, if years of obstruction and other nonsense didn't I don't think this will.

I think this just might do it. Remember the current Republican Party is shambles, so there's something. I think this stunt will cost them the senate especially if the the senate leaders go back on no nominations. Even if it doesn't cost them Th senate it will hurt them.

[Thermodolia]

And they also had their say in 2014, which was a resounding rejection of Obama's policies.

I wasn't aware we held a presidential recall election in 2014. Wait, we didn't? That's unconstitutional? Balderdash!

Oh you didn't see that rule? It's right next to thou shalt not approve of thy presidents SCOTUS nominations during thine election year.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I just use the term as a catchall for non-POTUS elections. I myself don't see this costing them the senate, if years of obstruction and other nonsense didn't I don't think this will.

This is a POTUS election year....

...

Where exactly did I say it wasn't? Reading comprehension isn't a difficult thing.

I just use the term as a catchall for non-POTUS elections. I myself don't see this costing them the senate, if years of obstruction and other nonsense didn't I don't think this will.

I think this just might do it. Remember the current Republican Party is shambles, so there's something. I think this stunt will cost them the senate especially if the the senate leaders go back on no nominations. Even if it doesn't cost them Th senate it will hurt them.

We'll just have to wait and see I guess, I'm hoping the GOP holds it myself.

[Greed and Death]

No nominees should be considered until after the presidential election so that the people may have their say.

Judge Garland is moderate the judiciary committee will look to his gun rights record to try and extract something to deny nomination or to get some sort of promise to moderate, like a view that once a right is establish it should not be removed lightly.

Judge Garland was on the short list to replace Stevens in 2010, and was the presumptive nominee, rumor is that he was removed from the short list when he admitted to the President was correctly decided. And he did side with the majority in Speechnow.org v. FEC, which extended the Citzens United ruling and created SuperPACs.


Overall I think the GOP will confirm him as his seat on the bench will mean that they will continue to be able to out spend Democrats in non-Presidential election.

[Jamzmania]

And they also had their say in 2014, which was a resounding rejection of Obama's policies.

Point me to the president that was elected in 2014.

You realize that the president is not the sole participant in choosing justices, yes? The president must act with the advise and consent of the Senate, which the people delivered into Republican hands.

[Greed and Death]

No nominees should be considered until after the presidential election so that the people may have their say.

The people had their say in November 2008 and 2012. Each time they gave Obama the mandate to nominate SCOTUS justices for the next years.

And the GOP the power to veto those nominations.

[Alvecia]

Point me to the president that was elected in 2014.

You realize that the president is not the sole participant in choosing justices, yes? The president must act with the advise and consent of the Senate, which the people delivered into Republican hands.

So the Senate is allowed to not do their job if they think it will benefit them as a party later down the line?

[Thermodolia]

Point me to the president that was elected in 2014.

You realize that the president is not the sole participant in choosing justices, yes? The president must act with the advise and consent of the Senate, which the people delivered into Republican hands.

That's true. But the senate can't act like a two year old and sit in the corner and pout.

[Ifreann]

No nominees should be considered until after the presidential election so that the people may have their say.

No appointee should be considered until after all the Senate elections. Class III are up for election this year, Class I are up in 2018 and Class II in 2020. So confirmation hearings can start in January 2021, and the people may have their say.

[MERIZoC]

Point me to the president that was elected in 2014.

You realize that the president is not the sole participant in choosing justices, yes? The president must act with the advise and consent of the Senate, which the people delivered into Republican hands.

Hard to see how that's possible since they've decided already not to consider any nominees. The Senate is neglecting their constitutional duty.