- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is Merrick Garland an objectionable nominee?
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:40 pm
We all know that he was a pawn in the game between the parties. I was not a fan of it, but the Dems established the precedent with Biden rule, no matter how much they want to say otherwise.
I am also good with Scalia being replaced by some ideologically similar.
For the next one, assuming it is one of the more liberal justices, is Garland not a viable option? It would be one more case of taking air out of the Dem sails.
Honest question. I never dug into his judicial record simply because I knew his nomination was DOA.
I am also good with Scalia being replaced by some ideologically similar.
For the next one, assuming it is one of the more liberal justices, is Garland not a viable option? It would be one more case of taking air out of the Dem sails.
Honest question. I never dug into his judicial record simply because I knew his nomination was DOA.
27
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:42 pm to Ag Zwin
No
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:44 pm to Ag Zwin
Garland wouldn't have been put out there if it wasn't understood among democrat circles he was going to be an activist judge who reinterpreted and spun the constituion for liberals.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:44 pm to Ag Zwin
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/5/21 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:44 pm to Ag Zwin
He's pretty moderate, especially compared to Sotomayor. I was surprised Obama nominated him to be honest.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:45 pm to Ag Zwin
Why would we nominate a leftist shill? I hope we nominate three Scalia clones
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:46 pm to Ag Zwin
I liked him. I would have had no problem with him being on the SCOTUS. Ditto for Gorsuch
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:46 pm to Ag Zwin
Garland is very qualified and a pragmatic liberal. He is the liberal leaning version of a Kennedy IMO. If a Democrat is picking, he's one of the best you could hope for.
But a Democrat is not picking, so he won't be considered. If you are a liberal, you have to hope for someone more pragmatic than ideological. Alito is ideological. Gorsuch is a bit between. He is closer to a Kennedy than an Alito.
But a Democrat is not picking, so he won't be considered. If you are a liberal, you have to hope for someone more pragmatic than ideological. Alito is ideological. Gorsuch is a bit between. He is closer to a Kennedy than an Alito.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:46 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Sotomayor
A mess, just a mess
Grading law on what foreigners do versus what the constitution says is impeachable
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:48 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
. I was surprised Obama nominated him to be honest.
he was a sacrificial lamb to Obama
i do wonder if the GOP had played along and let him take Scalia's seat, if they'd have been allowed to nominate a Pryor to replace RBG (doubtful). that is the question regarding their gambit of blocking his nomination
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:49 pm to Ag Zwin
No, but I'd be fine with replacing one of the more liberal judges with Hardiman.
Someone in another post asked if we'd be ok to make a deal with the Dems to replace Ginsburg with Garland if they agreed not to filibuster Gorsuch, and let us replace Kennedy with Pryor. I might have been ok with that scenario, but with the way the Dems have been acting like 2 year olds, I'm at the point of saying screw it, replace all of the justices with far right originalist.
Someone in another post asked if we'd be ok to make a deal with the Dems to replace Ginsburg with Garland if they agreed not to filibuster Gorsuch, and let us replace Kennedy with Pryor. I might have been ok with that scenario, but with the way the Dems have been acting like 2 year olds, I'm at the point of saying screw it, replace all of the justices with far right originalist.
This post was edited on 2/1/17 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:49 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
, is Garland not a viable option? It
no.
because if it's Trump's pick...it's not going to happen.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:49 pm to Ag Zwin
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/30/23 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:50 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
For the next one, assuming it is one of the more liberal justices, is Garland not a viable option?
These mother frickers are so crazy they would filibuster Garland also. They would dig into his background and say he isn't liberal enough. Batshit crazy.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
I don't think the Dems ever refused to have hearings or a vote on a nominee by a Republican POTUS.
Merritt Garland was done dirty last year for blatant political advantage. He should have had hearings and a vote. If Repubs thought he wasn't qualified, they could have voted NO.
Merritt Garland was done dirty last year for blatant political advantage. He should have had hearings and a vote. If Repubs thought he wasn't qualified, they could have voted NO.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:50 pm to Broke
quote:
These mother frickers are so crazy they would filibuster Garland also. They would dig into his background and say he isn't liberal enough. Batshit crazy.
exactly why i want him to get nominated for RBGs seat
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:51 pm to Ag Zwin
It's a way you could go if there wasn't such an overwhelming advantage right now for Republicans.
They own all three branches and can really do damage on the Judicial branch during this administration.
They own all three branches and can really do damage on the Judicial branch during this administration.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:51 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:Not unless you assume the next Scalia-type opening coming available during a Dem Administration would no longer receive a Garland-type nomination to fill it. As that is exactly what happened last summer, there is no way a sane person would assume a different result next time.
For the next one, assuming it is one of the more liberal justices, is Garland not a viable option?
Might as well swing for the fence while you hold the bat.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:52 pm to GeorgeWest
bro Obama and the DEMs knew they weren't getting him through, which is the only reason why they went with a "moderate" nomination. they thought they had the 2016 race won already and would be able to nominate a true progressive for the seat in the face of the GOP
it just didn't gain traction AND they lost so they're grasping at straws. as stated earlier, they had no plan B
it just didn't gain traction AND they lost so they're grasping at straws. as stated earlier, they had no plan B
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:52 pm to Ag Zwin
"to the victors belong the spoils"
Why concede and nominate a judge that you, as the president, don't fully support?
Do you think if the roles were reversed that the democrats would even be contemplating the nomination of a "moderate" judge...
EDIT: Also, the dems didn't fight the the fact that he wasn't given a vote, the assumed that Hillary was going to win, and that they were going to pick up seats given them the senate. The nomination of Garland was purely political.
You think that if Hillary won and the dems won the senate back garland would have still been re-nominated by Hillary.....The answer is NO...
Why concede and nominate a judge that you, as the president, don't fully support?
Do you think if the roles were reversed that the democrats would even be contemplating the nomination of a "moderate" judge...
EDIT: Also, the dems didn't fight the the fact that he wasn't given a vote, the assumed that Hillary was going to win, and that they were going to pick up seats given them the senate. The nomination of Garland was purely political.
You think that if Hillary won and the dems won the senate back garland would have still been re-nominated by Hillary.....The answer is NO...
This post was edited on 2/1/17 at 4:57 pm
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News