Biden Might Renominate Merrick Garland

[brooklynite]

Political Wire

Joe Biden told Iowa Starting Line that he might renominate 66-year old Merrick Garland, the federal judge who never made it to a Senate hearing when President Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court.

Said Biden: “Sure, I would. By the way, he’s a first-rate person.”

He also said he doesn’t favor expanding the Supreme Court: “I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day

[Skya Rhen]

1. Of course he should. I strongly feel this way...

[Celerity]

9. Garland will be too old by then, the oldest initially sat SCOTUS justice in US history, and he is

also too conservative, especially if he is replacing RBG. Would much rather have someone in their late 40's or early/mid 50's and far more liberal.

[pnwmom]

25. Why? He was the centrist Obama mainly picked because he thought the R's would agree.

[TheRealNorth]

29. I agree

If we have the opportunity, go young and go left.

[silentEcho]

2. I would want to revisit Garland. The Supreme Crt is in such bad shape

that if we get a chance to put someone in, or when, that person is very important in rulings. I seem to remember Garland as being a safe choice. I think it would have to be a woman, also.

[pnwmom]

26. Garland was the centrist Obama hoped the R's would go along with. n/t

[silentEcho]

39. That is what I was remembering. Thank you.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Fuck no. Replacing Ginsburg with Garland would make the court more conservatie than it is now.

Nostalgia is not good policy.

[SHRED]

4. BULLSHIT

I refuse to support that notion.

Garland was Orin Hatch's choice.

[beachbum bob]

5. many more liberal judges than Garland

[Meadowoak]

8. We need 2 or 3 flaming liberals just to balance scotus.

[Celerity]

6. I so hope not, Garland will be close to or over 70 by then. In US history only 1 SCOTUS

nominee who got confirmed has been older. Garland would be the oldest ever to actually be confirmed and then serve.

William Smith was 74 years old when Andrew Jackson nominated him. Smith was confirmed on March 3, 1837, BUT he declined to serve due to his age and died around 3 years later, on June 26, 1840.

[SouthernProgressive]

7. No thanks. I agree that Garland is a "first-rate person."

I also dream about a fire breathing leftist that is about sixteen years younger. I'm talking about the SC, of course.

[aeromanKC]

10. Great idea for 1 term. He deserves to be on Court.

Give him the opportunity he deserves. And then after 1 term he can retire.

[onetexan]

11. +1 -K&R

[enough]

19. What "term" ? NT

[pnwmom]

27. It's a lifetime appointment, so no. n/t

[aeromanKC]

37. They can choose to retire

serve one term (one year) get on the books as a Justice and then retitre.

[pnwmom]

38. Who has ever done that?

Besides, that would leave our President having to get someone else confirmed the next year. That wouldn't be helpful.

[aeromanKC]

43. No one has never needed to!!

Agreed, but it help set things right and put the universe just that little bit lback on course. Karmatic cleansing.
But back in reality, Biden will most likely pick a minority and most likely a woman. (same as his VP) Too bad Anita Hill is too old. Now talk about karmatic cleansing!!

[pnwmom]

46. I think Karma would be if Biden put someone on the court

who balanced Clarence Thomas, who was put on SCOTUS after the Judiciary Committee (under Biden's leadership but without his vote) decided to approve him.

[aeromanKC]

47. Balanced or

Replaced!!

[pnwmom]

48. Yes, that would be better. Unfortunately, he's only 71, so he's probably not in a hurry. n/t

[TeamPooka]

12. McConnell will block him and every other judge again unless we win the Senate.

[shanny]

13. Other than symbolism, why?

He's 66 years old now. When we have the chance why not nominate someone who will be there for 3 or 4 decades? Especially since he is not in favor of any other SC remedy.

Back to the Future is not a viable political strategy imo but it is the one that Biden seems to be set on.

[bluewater]

14. more looking backwards...

It's a pattern.

[shanny]

22. It certainly is

[Otto Lidenbrock]

32. He was literally asked about considering renominating Garland

Did you expect him to say no?

It's just courtesy to say sure I'd consider it. There's no other way to answer it without being disrespectful to a man who has been remarkably silent about having his SCOTUS seat robbed.

[bluewater]

40. this OP seems to have mangled the actual question to Biden

OK... I see the problem, the OP presented here mangled the question:

Joe Biden told Iowa Starting Line that he might renominate 66-year old Merrick Garland, the federal judge who never made it to a Senate hearing when President Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court.

Said Biden: “Sure, I would. By the way, he’s a first-rate person.”

See how that reads? "Biden told Iowa Starting Line that he might renominate…"

THAT is what I replied to.

The actual Iowa Starting Line article the OP refers to says something quite different:

And he didn’t rule out a return of the Obama nominee who never made it to a Senate hearing.
“Sure, I would,” Biden said when asked if he’d be open to nominating Garland again. “By the way, he’s a first-rate person.”


This reads quite differently. The ORIGINAL source, that was badly paraphrased in the OP, did put Biden on the spot.

I still think Biden could have answered this much better, but he wasn't the one that broached the subject of a Garland appointment.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

[RHMerriman]

54. Good point...

Amazing what one can learn by looking at the original reporting and/or complete statement.

[NYC Liberal]

15. Can we not? How about nominating someone younger?

I want someone who has the potential to be on the court for 20+ years.

[IronLionZion]

16. Garland was the right choice to replace Scalia, not Ginsburg

we need young liberals to balance things out for some time.

[Skya Rhen]

20. When Kamala becomes President, I am sure that she will select a young, liberal nominee. No worries..

[Autumn]

17. That's ridiculous. To begin with Garland will be close to 70. Why add another person who is

slightly conservative and older? We need another liberal woman to balance out the RW nuts.

Doesn't want to pack the court because we will rue the day? Why does this guy think Republicans will do the right thing? It's like he's unaware of what they are and what they have done. He's nostalgic for a time that will never come back.

[Voltaire2]

24. Once again he demonstrates his truly

excellent skills at tone deaf gaffery.

[Autumn]

28. His gaffes were cute when Obama was in charge. I don't want a president who

is gaffe-prone. I also don't want a president who is middle of the road and who is so out if touch he thinks he can work with Republicans and they will work with him. We need that like we need faster climate change.

[JudyM]

50. My thoughts exactly.

If he can actually work with McConnell, 1) why couldn’t he help get Garland even just hearings? 2) Why couldn’t he get McConnell on board with standing with Obama in revealing the election scandal instead of threatening him and shutting him up?!

Until he can answer for those 2 seriously important losses to our democracy, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on when claiming his experience/relationships with Congress will make him effective.

[onetexan]

56. A bit presumptuous dont u think?

[JudyM]

60. Nope. Where the rubber meets the road is what matters. I'm not ruling Joe out, but he raised

his effectiveness with congress as a material element of his candidacy. As it should be. I’d like to hear him respond to how he helped move the needle on important matters where there was actual resistance. Sorry if you don’t think that matters...

[enough]

18. I seem to remember that Garland was chosen as a

straight down the middle candidate that Republicans could theoretically embrace, giving them nothing much to complain about.

If a Democrat has a chance to nominate a Justice, that’s not what we want at this point. Plus the age is disqualifying in itself. We need someone who could be on the court for several decades.

[Salviati]

21. Agreed.

He was a good choice at the time, but now is no longer that time.

[Voltaire2]

23. We can do better.

[hibbing]

30. Please, no n/t

[BeyondGeography]

31. Terrible idea

An old centrist to counteract hard right Trump nominees 20 years younger?

Ffs.

[Gore1FL]

33. Lovely. Will he walk this one back?

FFS, if we wanted the court to move to the right, we could just keep Trump.

[tritsofme]

36. Walk what back? That Garland is someone he would consider?

He hasn't committed to doing anything.

[Gore1FL]

42. He shouldn't consider him.

Garland was an olive branch to the GOP to replace Scalia. Even in that event, the choice did nothing useful.

I would really like to see us do something that isn't milquetoast for a change. Our values are nothing to be ashamed of and we need to start fighting for them.

[tritsofme]

45. You're reading far too much into what is essentially a nice gesture by Biden

Toward someone who was massively wronged by McConnell.

I don’t think anyone would seriously put Garland on Biden’s SCOTUS shortlist.

[Gore1FL]

49. I'm 53. I've seen enough nice gestures bare fruit to be wary.

Have a good night!

[Demsrule86]

58. That is your opinion...have you seen our chances in the Senate...Collins is at about 50 %...we lost

three in 18 to the glee of some here...who were tired of those 'DINO'S' (wish we had them, might have a better shot)...where are the Senators for a majority going to come from? We will probably lose Alabama and maybe Arizona with the gun issues as well. Have you looked at a map?

[Gore1FL]

59. Courts are different matter than elections. nt

[NewJeffCT]

34. Garland was an okay nominee at the time

but, he was already on the older side in terms of SCOTUS justices. In 2021, he'll just be 5 years older

[tritsofme]

35. It's fine enough as a talking point, but in reality no Democratic president would ever renominate

Garland.

If for no other reason than his age.

[highplainsdem]

41. 3 points. 1) Biden didn't bring up Garland's name. He was asked if he'd "be open" to

renominating him.

2) Biden's saying he'd "be open" to renominating him is NOT in any way a commitment to doing so.

3) If Biden had said he would NOT even be "open" to considering renominating Garland, he'd be under attack for that, with some people spinning that as Biden criticizing Prsident Obama for HIS decision to nominate Garland.

[mcar]

44. Sure, if he adds 2 more justices

"Live to the that day?" While McConnell does nothing but pack the courts?

[Blue_true]

51. No. nt

[Mike Nelson]

52. Wrong answer...

… especially before the General Election begins…

[comradebillyboy]

53. How about a youngish liberal who could serve on the

court for the next 30 years.

[Demsrule86]

57. That would be my choice...but consider unless we take the Senate...McConnell will

confirm no one. No president will ever get a judge unless they also hold the Senate...a perversion of our constitution ...and has damaged our ability to govern. McConnell is a despicable traitor and has not upheld his oath of office...probably uses it to wipe his turtle like butt.

[JudyM]

61. Yes!

It would be a nice side benefit to make McConnell regret not seating moderate Garland.

[5starlib]

55. He just said he was OPEN to re-nominating him. I don't think he would

cause of Garland's age. I think he was just being deferential and respectful of Garland.