McConnell Rules Out Vote on Garland Even If Hillary Clinton Wins
bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-20/mc...
bloomberg.comPosted Mar 20, 2016, 6:34 PM UTC
238122
bloomberg.comIf Clinton wins and the Senate flips her first phone call will be to Obama demanding that he withdraw the nomination of the 63 year old moderate. Or you'd literally have the Democrats filibuster him, which would certainly be a sad end to the Obama presidency.
Then McConnell and Grassley get a 45 year old liberal...because, as they've been saying, the American people will have spoken.
That's the real risk in the Republican blockade. You take the moderate now or run the risk of not being able to credibly complain later if Clinton wins the election.
61
That's the real risk in the Republican blockade. You take the moderate now or run the risk of not being able to credibly complain later if Clinton wins the election.
If McConnell lets the confirmation go ahead, he'll piss off his constituents. He won't be re-elected.
If McConnell keeps up the fight, Clinton will win and most likely (but not certainly) nominate a more liberal judge.
He's screwed either way.
This is a political masterstroke by Obama that will make the Republicans look stupid, flip/flops the Court to the blue side, and paints Obama as the wise and responsible President for not choosing the most liberal judge he could find.
Other Republican Senators clearly see that they should take the best that they can get (a moderate judge who has maybe 12-15 years of bench time in front of him).
34
that will make the Republicans look stupid,
Too late. They are the champions of the stupid.
20
McConnell is not up for election this year, for what its worth.
6
If the Senate flips (which face it, downticket isn't exactly looking favorable for republicans, especially if the establishment tries to throw Trump under the bus at the convention), he loses his seat as Senate Majority Leader, and hopefully alot less obstructionist rhetoric.
The Shadenfreud will be delicious.
3
McConnel is the only Senator in American history to levy a filibuster against himself. I don't know how he has any credibility left at all.
4
Master Oogway has been outfoxed.
2
[deleted]
1
You take the moderate now or run the risk of not being able to credibly complain later if Clinton wins the election.
What does credibility mean to the party that has publicly disavowed fact-checking?
That is, is it at all important that the GOP complain credibly? Or just that they complain.
9
If Clinton wins she nominates Obama for the SCOTUS, holds a press conference, mic drops, then leaves.
4
Hell, throw Chelsea in there. You want young, will give you young. Remember, there's no minimum age for a Supreme.
3
Need to pass confirmation. She isn't a judge.
1
Doesn't matter, there are no such requirements. Kinda screwy that there are basically no restrictions on who can become one of the most powerful people in government, but alas that is the case. You just consensus.
1
There is precedent though, and nobody in living memory has been a SC judge that wasn't also a bigwig in the judicial world.
It's the same way why there isn't a rule that prevents a rank amateur from trying out for the NFL because they are famous in other ways, you probably won't even be on the radar unless you played college ball, and good luck with playing college ball without playing in high school.
2
If Clinton wins and the Senate flips her first phone call will be to Obama demanding that he withdraw the nomination of the 63 year old moderate.
She won't even have to make the phone call. Obama wants the USSC to trend left as well.
3
That is why it is called a gamble.
2
Sounds like the next president is going to get another 2 or 3 judges as well. Lots of time to stack the deck with out taking this one from Obama.
1
If Hillary wins, I hope they don't. I want Hillary to appoint a more liberal justice.
20
She could nominate Obama.
20
That would be hilarious, but that would ruin her presidency right off the bat.
8
Obamas not taking it. He's so young and charismatic. He's going to be getting millions in speeches and book deals every year for the rest of his life. Whoever wins the presidency out of the remaining candidates is going to make Obama look very good. He's going to remembered very fondly after he is out of office.
7
Man I don't care how much money I could make doing other things. You offer me a position on the Supreme Court in the most powerful country in the world and I'll take it.
Money's great, but power and influence for life is more my bag.
10
He will have plenty of influence over the Democratic Party for the rest of his life. He could be governor of Illinois or Hawaii if he wants.
8
Sounds like a lot of work, though. Plus you're stuck in Washington.
1
I kind of like Garland to be honest.
3
[deleted]
-1
Why would she do that? She's Less progressive than Obama.
-4†
Because she'll have a better mandate having just won and will very likely have more Democratic senators on her side, potentially a majority.
11
I bet she leaves him up.
-4
On some things. More on others. She probably supports a more robust welfare state than him. Remember, she was to his left on healthcare in the 2008 primaries.
7
No
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.
2
Iraq war. End of story.
-6
So one vote which se has publicly stated that she regrets overrides the rest of her entire voting record?
6
That's not fair. She's far more progressive on extra-legal rights for public figures AND on the definition of lying.
-6
Why not someone that actually follows the constitution?
-12
All Supreme Court judges follow their interpretation of the constitution. If you know the perfect way to interpret the constitution then you should apply for the Supreme Court.
10
Well, enjoy losing the Senate this November then.
19
But there is a chance of winning. Mitch cant go against his base.
2†
Most petty turtle ever.
14
And then Obama should pull Garland's nomination during the lame duck session and let Clinton nominate another justice like Breyer and RBG.
11
The Honorable Red Blue Green!
2
His middle name was Blue?
1
If the women don't find you handsome, at least they can find you handy
3
Her
1
Lol, I guess they can do that, if they still have the majority in the Senate.
5
He's talking about the lame duck session. When the Ds take the Senate Obama needs to pull the nomination and let Hillary nominate a liberal.
4
He's talking about the lame duck session before the new congress takes over.
2
[deleted]
1
Spite is a beautiful thing, but at least it would be consistent with his interpretation of "letting the people have a voice in the nomination process."
2
Ah, that's what I get for actually not reading the article. Not a big story.
-1
This guy will go down in history as one of the worst Americans ever to hold public office.
5
What exactly is their plan? To stonewall until a republican president gets elected again? That could be another 8 years. They won't survive in congress that long.
4
Well. I thought they wouldn't survive after the government shutdown but was proven wrong.
7
Not doing your job for a few weeks or a month or two is survivable. Not doing your job for eight years is not.
3
By the time they even remotely get that, it will have been 16 years. That is freaking 2024.
They start getting into a scenario where anybody under the age of 30 doesn't know a time when the GOP wasn't a bunch of bullies and cutthroats. The Boomers will start sliding into demographic oblivion.
Trump Is showing the party a way forward (even if it is a detestable form of Nationalist rhetoric), but it looks like they aren't interested.
1
They need to face the facts. Their demographic is dying, some of them are dying early. If they fail to adapt, conservatism as its known today will die with them. I'm not convinced that's a bad thing since they've become so authoritarian and they've discarded their fiscal conservatism.
1
Nobody has ever lost money with conservatives finding new ways to shoot themselves in the foot.
I fully plan on taking part ( and not just showing up to rallies and doing the meet and greet like I do now) when I can settle down.
1
The DNC fights for Hillary! But it's the local game that matters & they suck at it.
If they can't win against this bad a crop of Republicans, they deserve to lose.
4
I wonder how demo shifts affect this.
If the dems win big in cities and inner ring suburbs, and rural areas depopulate, it leads to an interesting scenario where the GOP gets a huge bump in the senate, but starts loosing hard in the house as their safe districts evaporate from negative population
Baring of course that the GOP decides to dump the racist rhetoric and go hard on Libertarian and Religious rhetoric and grab minority groups that would otherwise trend conservative.
1
Politics and power is so much fun.
3
Turtle won't be majority leader after the election, so it'll be better for him to have input now.
3
is this even remotely legal? are there no legal consequences?
2
That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works
1
Apparently, they can make it (not) work this way.
2
[deleted]
1
Yeah, when the new Senate is sworn in we will see what Schumer does.
1
God I cannot wait for the day that I never have to see his miserable face again.
1
So, we're paying these morons to not even do the job they're elected to do.
1
Obama didn't do Judge Garland any favors by nominating and then pushing for him.
He ruined it for Garland for all time.
Maybe that was the plan....................
-7
At Garland's level, the ONLY step higher is the Supreme Court. At his age, if the nomination doesn't go through, Garland can shrug and go back to what he was doing for another ten years or so before retiring. I don't see him pulling a Bork.
If Obama nominated someone younger, like Srinivasan, and they didn't get confirmed, it would ruin any other potential chance they had.
16
[deleted]
0
[deleted]
-2
Wake up!!
0
Garland is the oldest Supreme Court nominee in 45 years. Think about that. Do you really think the guy was going to get another shot?
6
[deleted]
-1
Because Republicans have previously named Garland as someone they would approve of. Either Obama really wants someone to be confirmed before he leaves office, or he wants Republicans to look like fools for not doing so. You can call it 11th dimensional chess or whatever, but he can't make them look stupid without their cooperation.
17
Obama does enjoy poking his finger in the eye of his opponents.
1†
Obama knows what he's doing. He had the chance to nominate this guy before and chose not to.
4
Let's dispel this fiction...beep boop!
7
Garland knows it's a long shot too, he's happy to be nominated and to play his part
4
[deleted]
0
Title is inaccurate. Did you read the story?
It says McConnell rules out the confirmation hearing in the lame duck session, meaning not until Clinton is inaugurated.
-9
THE TITLE IS FROM THE ARTICLE...DID YOU READ IT?
8
I did read it. It's a shitty title, I don't care who wrote it. Look at the comments in this thread, people are making it sound like Garland is black-balled for life which is not the case.
-7
I did read it. It's a shitty title, I don't care who wrote it.
Why blame ME for that? Shoot the messenger...real intelligent. I was trying not to editorialize a news article...my mistake...moron.
7
Turtle face lame ass obstructionist bastard. Do your fucking job or don't take a paycheck.
Politician, the only job that lets you flagrantly refuse to do your job...and still draw an overly generous paycheck!
Not only that. You get paid to run for reelection while your opponents need to take time away from their jobs to try and unseat you.
You also get to decide when you get a raise; which is incidentally one thing that republicans and democrats can agree on: fucking always.
Mitch is straight up racist.
Sticks and stones but you still dont get a floor vote ;)
Yet. McConnell sanctimonious attempts at just about anything has failed. Obama did become a 2 term president, the ACA did become law and the Iran deal was signed. My guess is he'll cave and fail. Again.
Don't forget Cuba relations normalized and the economy being dramatically better then it was in 2008 (though I do worry about China destabilization hurting this)
Perhaps, but perhaps not.
Blame Kentucky.
[deleted]
They are doing their job. People elected GOP Senators to stop Obama.
Not even close. The Constitution says how Senators are to do their jobs, and how Supreme Court justices are appointed and confirmed, and nowhere does it say "stall when you don't get your way."
And that's a great way to ruin a political party : to make the platform "obstruct the other party" instead of actually showing leadership. Which is why the GOP is in tatters.
Show me which part of the Constitution says judicial review, or a right to privacy? You have your opinion, and Mitch McConnell has power.
I mean, the requirement is right there in Article 2.
But why can't they do that by winning a vote?
Because they don't have to. Those are the breaks of being in the majority in the Senate. Sucks, eh?
Can't wait for Hillary to win, the senate to swing, and Hillary to nominate the most liberal judge in the country.
I'm not saying that they have to I'm just saying that if they want to stop being viewed as obstructionist then maybe they should. If the whole party is behind rejecting this nominee then it'll be rejected anyway.
Bingo. Problem isn't the GOP senators. It's a fundamental problem in the way our system is designed.
But the US political system was designed by god (or so some Conservatives, particularly Mormons, would argue). Is god wrong?
Who needs separation of powers? We should just make Obama dictator for life!