HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If Hillary Clinton had wo...

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:38 PM

If Hillary Clinton had won and took office, do you think she would have renominated Merrick Garland?

Or do you think she would have nominated her own pick to the Supreme Court? Also, since the Senate Republicans retained their majority, do you think Mitch would have help up the vote for four years? That might have been a lot to do, there would be huge backlash.

12 replies, 783 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply If Hillary Clinton had won and took office, do you think she would have renominated Merrick Garland? (Original post)
Polybius Oct 2019 OP
bigbrother05 Oct 2019 #1
BeyondGeography Oct 2019 #6
LonePirate Oct 2019 #2
NewJeffCT Oct 2019 #3
Caliman73 Oct 2019 #4
Buckeyeblue Oct 2019 #8
Polybius Oct 2019 #10
Buckeyeblue Oct 2019 #11
Polybius Oct 2019 #12
Tommy_Carcetti Oct 2019 #5
Polybius Oct 2019 #7
TheRealNorth Oct 2019 #9

Response to Polybius (Original post)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:41 PM

1. Think Mitch would have fast tracked the appointment before she took office

He knew Garland was a moderate candidate and HRC would likely have withdrawn him for a more liberal Justice.

No way he could justify waiting 4 years and would have likely lost the Senate in 2018 if he tried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigbrother05 (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:45 PM

6. Plus he was 64 years old at the time

Obama did everything he could to meet the Republicans half-way and they still treated him and Garlands like human fire hydrants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:42 PM

2. She should have nominated someone much younger (20 or so years) than Garland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:42 PM

3. While Garland seems like an all around fine guy

and judge, I have a feeling that she would have nominated somebody younger and a little to the left of the center/left Garland to get the activist base fired up for her or him.

and, she likely would have tried to get around #MoscowMitch in advance - maybe putting a time limit on the nomination or similar (i.e., if hearings and a vote are not scheduled within 60 days, we consider Advise and Consent to have been waived)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:44 PM

4. She would have done what she thought best.

If she had not been cheated out of her legitimate election, she would have chosen a nominee of her own, not someone else's and not a compromise nominee. McConnell would definitely try to hold it up. He actually said as much. It would likely have cost him his job and the Senate for Republicans. Holding up a nominee for years is beyond the pale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caliman73 (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:48 PM

8. Agreed.

Not only would there have been no SC or federal judges confirmed, she would have been under multiple investigations for anything and everything. And she would have had Trump calling her crooked Hillary everyday.

But you know what? Things would be a million times better than they are right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeyeblue (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:10 PM

10. I wonder how 2020 would be looking at this point

Would she win? Would Trump run again? Probably, but the Party would blame him for the loss. Probably Cruz gets the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:31 PM

11. Or Rick Scott

With the economy the way it is (which has nothing to do with Trump) I think she would be more popular than people think. I think the country would have got to know her and people that were on the fence would like her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeyeblue (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 09:42 PM

12. The only thing going against her would be 16 years of one Party rule

Hasn't happened since FDR and into Truman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:45 PM

5. Possibly, as she probably knew there would be more appointments down the road.

In the alternate universe where Hillary is president, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is almost certainly retired at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:47 PM

7. To answer my own OP:

I think she would have stuck with Garland as the safe choice. I think if Mitch allowed him to go through, at least 10 Republicans would have supported him.

However, if she nominated a 45 year old clone of Ginsburg, there is no way that nominee gets confirmed with 52 Republicans sitting in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Original post)

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:01 PM

9. Irrrelevant

Moscow Mitch signaled his intent to hold the seat open indefinitely had a Democrat won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread