Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[Internationalist Bastard]

Garland was approved by the majority of the Republicans in the Senate, when he joined the appellate court. Including Senate Judiciary Committee chair Orrin Hatch, who said he was a fine jurist. So now the Republican National Committee says he is a flaming liberal leftist ideologue. It seems like the RNC is slapping their own Senators in the face.

The scrutiny for a circuit court judge and supreme court justice are different, remember when the Democrats changed the rules to only allow filibuster for Scotus nominees?

And honestly, I don't know what that means

[Pope Joan]

Garland was approved by the majority of the Republicans in the Senate, when he joined the appellate court. Including Senate Judiciary Committee chair Orrin Hatch, who said he was a fine jurist. So now the Republican National Committee says he is a flaming liberal leftist ideologue. It seems like the RNC is slapping their own Senators in the face.

The scrutiny for a circuit court judge and supreme court justice are different, remember when the Democrats changed the rules to only allow filibuster for Scotus nominees?

So "different scrutiny" means that a fine jurist suddenly becomes a flaming ideologue?

[Diopolis]

Frankly, I don't know anything on Garland

Very few things to ascertain his judicial philosophy.

What we can infer thus far is he seems to be for curtailing the second amendment, and he approved of the citizens united ruling (he joined a DC circuit opinion expanding it).

The later may have been why he was not nominated in 2010.

So this is basically a guy both sides have cause for being mad at?

[Geilinor]

Very few things to ascertain his judicial philosophy.

What we can infer thus far is he seems to be for curtailing the second amendment, and he approved of the citizens united ruling (he joined a DC circuit opinion expanding it).

The later may have been why he was not nominated in 2010.

So this is basically a guy both sides have cause for being mad at?

I think so, but both sides still like the guy. Orrin Hatch basically said, "I want Obama to nominate Merrick Garland but I know he won't".

[Greed and Death]

The scrutiny for a circuit court judge and supreme court justice are different, remember when the Democrats changed the rules to only allow filibuster for Scotus nominees?

So "different scrutiny" means that a fine jurist suddenly becomes a flaming ideologue?

A fine jurist for the DC circuit might not be acceptable for the supreme court.

[Greed and Death]

Very few things to ascertain his judicial philosophy.

What we can infer thus far is he seems to be for curtailing the second amendment, and he approved of the citizens united ruling (he joined a DC circuit opinion expanding it).

The later may have been why he was not nominated in 2010.

So this is basically a guy both sides have cause for being mad at?

That is what makes it a compromise I imagine.

[Geilinor]

So "different scrutiny" means that a fine jurist suddenly becomes a flaming ideologue?

A fine jurist for the DC circuit might not be acceptable for the supreme court.

What's unacceptable about him?

[Greed and Death]

A fine jurist for the DC circuit might not be acceptable for the supreme court.

What's unacceptable about him?

He seems less than enthused about protecting certain rights.

[The Black Forrest]

What's unacceptable about him?

He seems less than enthused about protecting certain rights.

Such as........

[Greed and Death]

He seems less than enthused about protecting certain rights.

Such as........

2nd amendment rights.

[Wallenburg]

He seems less than enthused about protecting certain rights.

Such as........

Guns. He is also "pro-prosecution", whatever that means.

[Talvezout]

This me just wild mass guessing, but: I honestly think that Obama picked Merrick Garland as a strategic move and not because he genuinely his policies.

Garland, from what I understand, is relatively well-liked by both sides, in addition to being rather experienced in judicial politics. Thus, the GOP rejecting him is gonna seem like them being needlessly petty and obstructive.

However, if they do nominate him then Obama wins since his nominee passes by.

A win-win for Obama, if you ask me.

[Greed and Death]

Such as........

Guns. He is also "pro-prosecution", whatever that means.

It means he is more likely to find evidence admissible that was arguably illegally gathered.

Sadly it appears he is the opposite of the good parts of Scalia.

[The Black Forrest]

Guns. He is also "pro-prosecution", whatever that means.

It means he is more likely to find evidence admissible that was arguably illegally gathered.

Sadly it appears he is the opposite of the good parts of Scalia.

Scalia had good parts?

[Trumpostan]

34 Senate seats are up for election in 2016. That's more than enough to change the balance.

All but 2 are in safe states for the GOP.

Also Reid's retirement puts a Democratic seat up to chance.

The DNC needs to win the 2 they might win pull 2 upsets and defend Reid's former seat. The odds are not favorable for them to retake the Senate.

About 8 GOP held seats are vulnerable. In PA and OH their candidates are behind, NH is a near certain loss, IL and LS are seen as competitive (LS because of the wreckage of the Jindal administration), FL is an open seat, IA because of obstructionism and NC is a state Obama carried.

My base case is +6 Dem, one more or less depending on the breaks. But GOP SCOTUS obstructionism is extremely unpopular in the polls and with fascist Trump their likely candidate having repeatedly insulted latinos, women, muslims etc and his record of dishonesty (Trump University, scamming workers through tactical bankruptcies ea) and him inciting violence ... it could cost the GOP dearly. I certainly hope it does.

It means he is more likely to find evidence admissible that was arguably illegally gathered.

Sadly it appears he is the opposite of the good parts of Scalia.

Scalia had good parts?

Sure he did, plenty of room for good parts between the "sieg" and the "heil" in his 'arguments'.

Such as........

2nd amendment rights.

Maybe he simply takes the "well regulated" part seriously, unlike certain people who pretend those words aren't in the 2nd amendment.

[Greed and Death]

It means he is more likely to find evidence admissible that was arguably illegally gathered.

Sadly it appears he is the opposite of the good parts of Scalia.

Scalia had good parts?

IF you were a criminal defendant he was one of the most likely to rule a search was unreasonable, and exclude the evidence. He would insist on your right to confront your accusers and exclude testimony if you were not given that opportunity.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /80575460/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... dants.html

http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/16/a ... ist-for-cr

[Gauthier]

This me just wild mass guessing, but: I honestly think that Obama picked Merrick Garland as a strategic move and not because he genuinely his policies.

Garland, from what I understand, is relatively well-liked by both sides, in addition to being rather experienced in judicial politics. Thus, the GOP rejecting him is gonna seem like them being needlessly petty and obstructive.

However, if they do nominate him then Obama wins since his nominee passes by.

A win-win for Obama, if you ask me.

And the Republicans have been indoctrinated with the belief that if Obama wins, portals to Hell will open up all over the world and demons and devils will overwhelm the Earth just like in Doom.

[Galloism]

This me just wild mass guessing, but: I honestly think that Obama picked Merrick Garland as a strategic move and not because he genuinely his policies.

Garland, from what I understand, is relatively well-liked by both sides, in addition to being rather experienced in judicial politics. Thus, the GOP rejecting him is gonna seem like them being needlessly petty and obstructive.

However, if they do nominate him then Obama wins since his nominee passes by.

A win-win for Obama, if you ask me.

And the Republicans have been indoctrinated with the belief that if Obama wins, portals to Hell will open up all over the world and demons and devils will overwhelm the Earth just like in Doom.

I want the lightning gun.

[Geilinor]

Scalia had good parts?

IF you were a criminal defendant he was one of the most likely to rule a search was unreasonable, and exclude the evidence. He would insist on your right to confront your accusers and exclude testimony if you were not given that opportunity.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /80575460/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... dants.html

http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/16/a ... ist-for-cr

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Scalia wasn't a great protector of most other rights.

[Genivaria]

This me just wild mass guessing, but: I honestly think that Obama picked Merrick Garland as a strategic move and not because he genuinely his policies.

Garland, from what I understand, is relatively well-liked by both sides, in addition to being rather experienced in judicial politics. Thus, the GOP rejecting him is gonna seem like them being needlessly petty and obstructive.

However, if they do nominate him then Obama wins since his nominee passes by.

A win-win for Obama, if you ask me.

And the Republicans have been indoctrinated with the belief that if Obama wins, portals to Hell will open up all over the world and demons and devils will overwhelm the Earth just like in Doom.

What's really sad is that for some Republicans this is pretty accurate.

[Crusader occupied mecca]

Haven't looked much into it yet but this nomination could be ok, not the end of civilization or anything.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Scalia wasn't a great protector of most other rights.

He spent a long time as the only member of the court who wasn't a partisan shit or a sycophant to those in authority, it's no wonder you don't like him.

[Ethel mermania]

Such as........

Guns. He is also "pro-prosecution", whatever that means.

That means good bye 4th amendment. (whether he is or not. I have no idea.)

[Wallenburg]

That means good by 4th amendment. (whether he is or not. I have no idea.)

It means he is more likely to find evidence admissible that was arguably illegally gathered.

I'm getting mixed information here.

[Hurdegaryp]

And the Republicans have been indoctrinated with the belief that if Obama wins, portals to Hell will open up all over the world and demons and devils will overwhelm the Earth just like in Doom.

What's really sad is that for some Republicans this is pretty accurate.

Shouldn't those specific Republicans actually be in favor of such a cataclysmic event, apocalyptic Christians as they are? Surely they will be taken away by the Rapture, given their immaculate souls.