Author Topic: Merrick Garland  (Read 3688 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16140
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Merrick Garland
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2016, 06:58:16 PM »
I think Obama gave the GOP a gift with Garland. The choice could have been so much worse. And the fact remains that the GOP really doesn't have a leg to stand on with their refusal to even hold hearings on the nomination. There is no election bye year in either the appointment powers or the advise and consent powers. I am stoically looking at Garland as not Scalia's replacement though that is who he is replacing but a premature replacement of the perennial swingvoter Kennedy.

I understand that the GOP wants to show the base they are ever vigilant in protecting the highest court in the land by limiting the number of activist judges to the bench but they can't just ignore the constitution simply because Scalia died when he did.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Merrick Garland
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2016, 09:46:01 PM »
The Republican'ts have no one to blame but themselves. They have been ......
That is bullshit and you know it is bullshit. 

Busing, the War on Drugs, the failure to attempt to arrest the murderers of the Mississippi Burning case for Reagan's two terms were all dogwhistle racism.

  Could you tell me how Busing is an exploitation of racism?
What was the result of busing? 

Students attended schools in their own segregated communities. Busing meant that White kids would (gasp!) be forced to attend schools with Blacks. Black students would be bused from their homes in "colored town" to schools near the country club, or even worse, White students would be bused from their posh neighborhoods to the ghetto. Of course, it also meant that money would be spend on buses, drivers, fuel and such, rather than school supplies.

And the opposition to busing was exclusively Republican when?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Merrick Garland
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2016, 09:54:04 PM »
I think Obama gave the GOP a gift with Garland. The choice could have been so much worse. And the fact remains that the GOP really doesn't have a leg to stand on with their refusal to even hold hearings on the nomination. There is no election bye year in either the appointment powers or the advise and consent powers. I am stoically looking at Garland as not Scalia's replacement though that is who he is replacing but a premature replacement of the perennial swingvoter Kennedy.

I understand that the GOP wants to show the base they are ever vigilant in protecting the highest court in the land by limiting the number of activist judges to the bench but they can't just ignore the constitution simply because Scalia died when he did.

Yes , but the power of consent more than just implies that  approval may be withheld.

I think the Senate is within its rights , but they are playing the odds wrong.

Of Cruz, Clinton , Trump or Sanders , which is liable to nominate anyone that is better?

I think you are right and Garland can be considered a good bird in the hand.

Unfortunately we are loosing our second amendment right in the process, and the rest of the rights soon after that.

Just what is "moderation " in this context?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16140
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Merrick Garland
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2016, 10:12:57 PM »
Yes they may disapprove nominees until the clock runs out. I think it a costly card to play.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Merrick Garland
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2016, 10:23:51 PM »
  I agree.

   There is a lot of potential for embarrassment when President Trump nominates Judge Roy Bean, or President Clinton nominates Judge Che Guevara. At that point Judge Garland will no longer be available , and neither will anyone else remotely, reasonably good....

    The basic problem seems to be that we rely on the SCOTUS too much. These appointments are very political because the supreme court has too much power and might use it too much, causing the party and individual agendas of the rest of the government to be frustrated, or accelerated.

      This promises to become a major issue of the Presidential race, so it is a political question.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16140
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Merrick Garland
« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2016, 10:51:04 PM »
Yes it will become a major issue in the Presidential Campaign and it doesn't need to be. And more importantly it shifts the focus away from Hillary and on to the GOP Senate which could change hands if enough safe seats become unsafe.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Merrick Garland
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2016, 11:11:50 PM »
Why should there be such a thing as a "safe seat"?

Who owns those chairs?

There is a lot of dissatisfaction with both parties right now and none of the leading candidates are looking like great statesmen.

When some politicians have enough leverage on the system to make their job secure do they have the privilege of  frustrating the will of the voters?

Which party does not deserve a spanking this year?

How can we find more independent thinking , different from the establishment, politicians ?

Enough to administer a spanking ?