So, it's Merrick Garland for SCOTUS

[Sue U]

Under the circumstances, not such a bad choice, and highlights the foolishness of the Senate Republicans' nomination hissy fit. If, as they promised, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley refuse to engage in the process, the GOP will not only lose the presidential race, but may very well lose the Senate as well.

Way to go, Republicans! Temper tantrums always work!

[Burning Petard]

I hope, I hope, I hope The GOP Senate locks themselves into actually supporting the peoples choice on this issue. Calling this 'the Biden Rule' has some power. It could become the McConnell/Biden rule.

Then the next president, a Dem, can appoint someone who is not from Harvard/Yale and a lifetime career as a lawyer/judge for the federal government.

snailgate

[rubato]

They can salve their little egos by claiming that Obama only appointed him because of their obstructions.

"...

Nomination To D.C. Circuit

In 1995, President Clinton nominated Garland for an opening on the D.C. Circuit, and he received a hearing in December of that year. During that confirmation hearing, Garland was asked about "judicial activism." He answered that "[f]ederal judges do not have roving commissions to solve societal problems. The role of the court is to apply law to the facts of the case before it "“ not to legislate, not to arrogate to itself the executive power, not to hand down advisory opinion on the issues of the day."

Garland's nomination was stalled by Senate Republicans, not because of opposition to him but because of a dispute over whether to fill the twelfth seat on that court at all. Clinton re-nominated Garland in January 1997, and he was confirmed approximately three months later by a vote of 76-23. But once again, opposition did not relate to Garland's own qualifications. To the contrary, Senator Orrin Hatch called him "not only a fine nominee, but as good as Republicans can expect from [the Clinton] administration" (a sentiment Hatch repeated in 2003). Garland also had the support of senior administration officials from the Reagan Justice Department, as well as that of Judge Laurence Silberman, who was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by Ronald Reagan.

Overview Regarding Confirmation And Impact Of Garland's Appointment

Judge Garland's record demonstrates that he is essentially the model, neutral judge. He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements.

Judge Garland is also the "short list" candidate to replace Justice Stevens who is least likely to prompt a polarizing confirmation fight. He has broad support on both sides of the aisle, and he has few ideologically controversial rulings. Conservative commentators (see here, here, and here) have expressed support for a potential Garland nomination.

Of the three principal candidates "“ the other two being Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Judge Diane Wood "“ Judge Garland would also likely have the most immediate influence on the Court. He is well known to the Justices and is likely the most respected by them collectively, particularly the more conservative Justices. The fact that Judge Garland is not only extremely intelligent and respectful but exceptionally careful and quite centrist would mean that his views would have particular salience with, among others, Justices Kennedy and Alito.

To the extent that ideology plays a role in the nomination "“ and it obviously plays a material role "“ the other side of the coin of the factors that would in part drive Judge Garland's likely influence is the fact that, on questions on which the three principal candidates would disagree, he would generally be the least liberal. Strictly in terms of the change in the votes of the liberal Justices Stevens and his successor, Judge Garland would be the most different. Certainly, to the extent that the President's goal is to select a nominee who will articulate a broad progressive vision for the law, Judge Garland would be a very unlikely candidate to take up that role.

The point is not that Judge Garland is conservative. None of the candidates under serious consideration is. Rather, there are gradations between the views of the three, and there are questions on which they would disagree. On a number of issues, particularly those related to criminal law, Judge Garland is the least likely to adopt a liberal position. There are, however, some potential counter-examples involving the First Amendment and environmental law.

... "

What senate seats are up for election this year?

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

It's Wikipedia, but it appears to answer your question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ions,_2016

[Long Run]

Best thing about this, and thank you President Obama, is that it knocked the wind out the sails of the All Trump All The Time Media on a day that he actually should be getting a lot of press.

[BoSoxGal]

the GOP will not only lose the presidential race, but may very well lose the Senate as well.

From your lips to God's ears, I pray, pray, pray!

He's a great nominee and deserves confirmation - seems like a very humble and decent human being, too. (I only wish he were a she.)

[BoSoxGal]

Then the next president, a Dem, can appoint someone who is not from Harvard/Yale and a lifetime career as a lawyer/judge for the federal government.

snailgate

Why is that a bad thing? Far as I know both schools have excellent academic programs. Given the complexity of the law and the body of existing SCOTUS caselaw, lawyers are best suited for the job and lawyers who have had prior experience in the judiciary even more so.

What kind of nominee would you propose in the alternative? How do you suspect a non-lawyer would fare in confirmation hearings, and why do you think a non-lawyer/non-judge would be a better choice to interpret the Constitution and SCOTUS precedent?

You know lawyers and judges are just people.

[RayThom]

And shame on the Repubs that he is being viewed as a sacrificial lamb. Garland seems ultimately qualified for the seat. Hopefully, he will still be viable after January 20th.

[Burning Petard]

BoSox, for me it is a diversity thing. Too much similarity in the background for all the Supremes in the Roberts Court. It has been going that way for quite a while. Earl Warren had lots of other experience. He gets knocked for his activism in civil rights but many good legal scholars think his business/commercial law majority opinions are solid. and even more influential. How about somebody from the equity court of Delaware? How about Michael Posner? Even better, if I had a time machine, Richard Posner--now it is probably too late. He is as old as I am. Most tend to forget that 90 years ago we had an ex-President as Chief Justice.

snailgate

[Long Run]

FTFY

And shame on Obama for making him a sacrificial lamb. Garland seems ultimately qualified for the seat. Hopefully, he will still be viable after January 20th.

[Bicycle Bill]

the GOP will not only lose the presidential race, but may very well lose the Senate as well.

From your lips to God's ears, I pray, pray, pray!

He's a great nominee and deserves confirmation - seems like a very humble and decent human being, too. (I only wish he were a she.)

Why?  If you are truly serious about getting the best person for the job (and when it comes to a Supreme Court Justice you most certainly should be!) it shouldn't matter if they are male or female, black or white, Catholic or Jewish, or any other of the uncountable ways we try to segregate ourselves into "us" and "them".

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

I think you folks who are salivating at the prospect that the GOP will lose the Senate majority over not having hearings for Garland are over-focusing on a single news cycle...

That is pretty much a wash politically; it motivates the hardcore base on both sides, but it wont be dispositive for the election...(and it certainly wont bring down Charles Grassley)

If the Republican Party loses its Senate majority, it will be because they nominated a character for President who will lose 40 states and whose defeat will have a "yooge" drag on the down-ballot races....

(Hell, in that situation, we may even lose The House... )

The most logical (and Machiavellian) thing to do from a political perspective, is for the Senate GOP to hang tough about not considering the nomination....

Until after the election....

And then if the fellow at the top of the ticket has caused the party to lose the majority in the Senate and we're facing an incoming Democratic President with an incoming Democratic Senate majority...

Then take up the nomination in the Lame Duck Session and confirm him...

[Lord Jim]

Oh, and yes...

Best thing about this, and thank you President Obama, is that it knocked the wind out the sails of the All Trump All The Time Media on a day that he actually should be getting a lot of press.

This...

[BoSoxGal]

Most tend to forget that 90 years ago we had an ex-President as Chief Justice.

snailgate

A former President on the SCOTUS would be just the thing; perhaps if Merrick is refused a vote that will give Clinton or Sanders the opportunity to appoint President Obama.

As for my comment desiring a woman appointee - there are women every bit as qualified as Merrick and I think when we are 51% of the population it's long past time we have equal representation in all branches of government.

[Econoline]

As hard as Republicans may find this to believe, the American people DID make their voice heard by electing a new President in 2008 and by reelecting him in 2012, and what we said is that we want Obama to have the power to appoint members of the Supreme Court during his tenure in office.

Most tend to forget that 90 years ago we had an ex-President as Chief Justice.

snailgate

A former President on the SCOTUS would be just the thing; perhaps if Merrick is refused a vote that will give Clinton or Sanders the opportunity to appoint President Obama.

[Gob]

WTF are you all rabbiting on about?!?!?

[Lord Jim]

WTF are you all rabbiting on about?!?!?

Wait till I start explaining all the various possibilities involved in an open convention...

[Sue U]

I think you folks who are salivating at the prospect that the GOP will lose the Senate majority over not having hearings for Garland are over-focusing on a single news cycle...

That is pretty much a wash politically; it motivates the hardcore base on both sides, but it wont be dispositive for the election...(and it certainly wont bring down Charles Grassley)

If the Republican Party loses its Senate majority, it will be because they nominated a character for President who will lose 40 states and whose defeat will have a "yooge" drag on the down-ballot races....

The nomination of Merrick Garland is not going to motivate any hardcore base on the GOP side; you're not going to whip up a lot of lather to oppose a flaming moderate centrist who is universally admired for his neutrality, decisional economy and judicial temperament. You'd have better luck motivating the Democrats -- not because of any passion for the nominee, but simply because the Senate Republicans are clearly being dicks for the sole purpose of being dickish to Obama. (Even Sandra Day O'Connor says they should stop stamping their little feet and get on with the confirmation.)

And to the extent the general electorate perceives the GOP as engaging in political fuckery over an entirely uncontroversial Supreme Court nom, nobody's going to be running to the polls to reelect their Republican Senator -- especially not if Trump is at the top of the ticket. Could be the lowest GOP turnout since Lyndon Johnson or Franklin Roosevelt were elected.

I used to think the Democrats were the expert marksmen when it came to shooting themselves in the foot, but the GOP is winning that competition by far this year.

[Crackpot]

She simple fact is this is just the type of blind "party before country" nonsense that is the
Impetus behind Trump.