Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: BREAKING: President Obama going with Merrick Garland for SCOTUS [View all]CincyDem
(7,304 posts)42. Garland - a good choice who should get hazard pay for the next 8 months.
Like most, I would have liked a more progressive appointment but in today's climate that's not realistic.
So here we have a guy who by all accounts is a brilliant lawyer who doesn't get caught up in ideologies. That last part makes him 1000% better the Scalia. That first part is a benefit since facts usually have a liberal bias.
Worst case - by some f'ing miracle from on high, he gets appointed. That ain't bad.
Best case - we have a nightly report on the "daily flogging" that will make the benghazi committee look like a bunch of rational bipartisans.
When the day is done, the real job is to win the WH and flip the Senate. By this time next year, Garland will be a footnote in history - a brilliant lawyer willing to make his last stand for the possibility of a better country. This election will not be won by democrats or republican entrenched in their party lines. Like most elections, it's going to be the independents who move to the left of the right on a variety of issues. My hope is that civility will win the middle and for all the republican judiciary committee holds in power, it severely lacks in civility. Please let the cold hard light of public scrutiny shine on them.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
135 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I trust him to do what he wants, which in this case is to appoint a corporatist judge, which
GoneFishin
Mar 2016
#127
Wow. You totally convinced me with your condescending tone. Oh, wait, no you didn't.
GoneFishin
Mar 2016
#129
Unless it cites all of the times that Obama's elevendy dimensional chess moves required him to move
GoneFishin
Mar 2016
#133
Boring would have been the Senate judiciary committee not even having hearings let alone a vote...
stevenleser
Mar 2016
#30
I'm a bit surprised at that. I thought he'd nominate the person that was confirmed 97-0.
PoliticAverse
Mar 2016
#2
We can do it if we all focus on downticket races and not stay home because our preferred Prez....
Hekate
Mar 2016
#83
Ugh. Disgusting. I hope Republicans block him, and we can actually get a liberal instead. eom
Meldread
Mar 2016
#6
When people don't trust their govt don't you think their support of the 2nd amendment increases?
Skwmom
Mar 2016
#9
Harvard and Yale grads have assigned themselves the titles of "The Most Qualified"
AngryAmish
Mar 2016
#106
If Obama's going to nominate moderates in their mid-60s, I'd call that bluff
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
Mar 2016
#29
What would be worse is if, in the event of a Democratic victory in November,
truebluegreen
Mar 2016
#119
If the President has nominated Mitch McConnell do you think the senate would have voted him down? nt
PoliticAverse
Mar 2016
#89
Wow, are you saying Obama consulted the Senate? He has to submit his nominee for that part.
L. Coyote
Mar 2016
#112
We all know how important supreme court picks are. An older moderate is just the ticket.
Autumn
Mar 2016
#65
Obama is going to make those bastards squirm, isn't he? This is a good jurist...
Hekate
Mar 2016
#84
A lawyer forty years, a judge twenty years, experience in government, with some teaching
struggle4progress
Mar 2016
#92