Obama Nominates Merrick Garland for Supreme Court, Republicans Plan to Block

[Neil Peart]

I will summarize, but here's a link to the story if you want to know the full story.

President Obama selected a pretty politically moderate judge, Merrick Garland, as the nominee for the Supreme Court. Garland is well-respected by both parties, his credentials are sterling, and he's not too liberal or conservative.

The Pew Research Center says a majority of Americans want there to be a vote for a new nominee. Despite this, Republicans vow they are going to block the nomination, no matter who it is. Some, like Lindsey Graham, have even said if they were the nominee, they'd delay themselves until a new president is elected.

In my opinion, this is just another example of Republican obstructionism in order to make Obama look bad. I think it's craven of the GOP to block the President from doing his Constitutional job, especially when we all know if this was a conservative president, the GOP would be trying to fast-track this nomination as soon as humanly possible. The people want the process to move along, and it's time for them to listen to the people - just look at the aforementioned link. What do you think? Should the country have to wait for a new president for a vote on a new nominee? What do you think about Republican reasoning for blocking the nominee?

 

[Jetfire]

I saw the nomination this morning. I thought that President Obama picked a fine candidate. Mentioning that Garland has been "brought up numerous of times by both parties".

However, Senator McConnell shortly came on to say that they're going with the "Biden Rule".

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/sen-mcconnell-biden-rule-155200923.html

I agree that the American people should have a say in the nomination and that, whoever that may be, elected President should have a say in the next nomination.

 

[Neil Peart]

McConnell is a raging hypocrite. He said as recently as 2005 that it's the president's job to choose a nominee and let the process play out. As far as I know, he has yet to answer for that.

I think choosing a moderate is the right way to go in practice, but when you have a party blocking the nomination anyway, does it matter?

 

[Kanzler]

Well, it looks like Garland is no longer well-respected by the Republican party.

 

[Her]

the grand obstructionist party strikes again

Question: let's say Clinton wins, how long could they theoretically obstruct Garland's nomination (or any nomination) if they want to continue the same actions they're currently doing?

 

[Neil Peart]

the grand obstructionist party strikes again

Question: let's say Clinton wins, how long could they theoretically obstruct Garland's nomination (or any nomination) if they want to continue the same actions they're currently doing?

I have no idea. They're already being derided by the American people for doing what they're doing now. There's no way in hell they can keep this fight going well into 2017. Or maybe they can? I'm clueless as to historical precedents for this kind of thing.

 

[Livewire]

Garland is a great pick, from an experience & temperament as well as a strategic standpoint. IIRC 24, or 26 Senate Republicans are up for re-election this cycle and playing the obstructionist card is risky enough that they either bite the bullet and confirm Garland or risk losing the Senate in November. Either way, the GOP brand suffers.

 

[Ivysaur]

The "Biden rule", a thing that never happened in reality (because the candidate brought up that time got a vote and was confirmed anyway), is a hilarious way to prtend that there is any sort of historical precedent to something that would happen for the first time in history.

But hey, senator Pat Toomey put it nicely: "If any other president brought Garland, I'd consider him". The problem is not the judge, it's Obama. If literally anybody else were President, nobody would be arguing. But the Republicans never accepted that Obama won two elections and are trying to still pretend he isn't really a legitimate President- and therefore he isn't allowed to govern. This is anarchy-level irresponsibility and the real "precedent" for endless obstruction from now on. Because, you know, the Democrats can do the same next time there is a Republican president.

 

[Kanzler]

What's with all the hate against Obama?

 

[Esper]

What's with all the hate against Obama?

Racism, I suspect, was the instigating element. Not necessarily anything overt, but when you had a guy whose platform when running for president was "hope" and "I want to reach across the aisle and work with the other side" and stuff like that, I can't think of another reason why when he first won the presidency the Republicans got together and agreed that they'd never accept anything he did. If Obama said the sky was blue Republicans would band together and say the sky was green. They let this kind of attitude out into public, the kind that said it was okay to question everything about Obama: his citizenship, his religion, his legitimacy. That resonated with people (I wonder why). It also opened the door to the tea party types like Ted Cruz and others to gain office because the right-leaning parts of America saw that it was okay to act borderline racist in politics since they could mask it as anti-government sentiment which encouraged the libertarian anti-government types by saying, in so many words, that it was okay to do anything to slow down and stop government anywhere and anytime because it was Obama's government and he wasn't legitimate. The Republican elites let this genie out of the bottle and then they couldn't put it back in. That's why John Boehner lost control of the House of Representatives, why our government was shut down several times over ideological spats, why someone like Trump is likely to win the Republican nomination.

tl;dr racism and anti-government types found love together in their hatred of Obama and their lovechild has grown like a cancer among Republicans who can't find a way to stay in office without giving in to the ideological extremists among their base

 

[Kanzler]

Racism, I suspect, was the instigating element. Not necessarily anything overt, but when you had a guy whose platform when running for president was "hope" and "I want to reach across the aisle and work with the other side" and stuff like that, I can't think of another reason why when he first won the presidency the Republicans got together and agreed that they'd never accept anything he did. If Obama said the sky was blue Republicans would band together and say the sky was green. They let this kind of attitude out into public, the kind that said it was okay to question everything about Obama: his citizenship, his religion, his legitimacy. That resonated with people (I wonder why). It also opened the door to the tea party types like Ted Cruz and others to gain office because the right-leaning parts of America saw that it was okay to act borderline racist in politics since they could mask it as anti-government sentiment which encouraged the libertarian anti-government types by saying, in so many words, that it was okay to do anything to slow down and stop government anywhere and anytime because it was Obama's government and he wasn't legitimate. The Republican elites let this genie out of the bottle and then they couldn't put it back in. That's why John Boehner lost control of the House of Representatives, why our government was shut down several times over ideological spats, why someone like Trump is likely to win the Republican nomination.

tl;dr racism and anti-government types found love together in their hatred of Obama and their lovechild has grown like a cancer among Republicans who can't find a way to stay in office without giving in to the ideological extremists among their base

Personally, I don't really buy the racism argument. I think it's a severe accusation and I'd demand a pretty high bar of evidence to convince me of it. I think it has more to do with Tea Party, anti-tax, and anti-government activism. But just because he's black? I don't know.

 

[Esper]

Personally, I don't really buy the racism argument. I think it's a severe accusation and I'd demand a pretty high bar of evidence to convince me of it. I think it has more to do with Tea Party, anti-tax, and anti-government activism. But just because he's black? I don't know.

It's my own theory. I don't expect it will convince many people. But I do think a race element was the spark. Why else has there been such a strong reaction to Obama (demanding birth records and then still not believing them?) and not to any other politician? It could be a coincidence, that it would have happened regardless of who the Democrats put in the White House in 2008, but that argument doesn't really convince me.

 

[Kanzler]

It's my own theory. I don't expect it will convince many people. But I do think a race element was the spark. Why else has there been such a strong reaction to Obama (demanding birth records and then still not believing them?) and not to any other politician? It could be a coincidence, that it would have happened regardless of who the Democrats put in the White House in 2008, but that argument doesn't really convince me.

I'd agree that there was definitely a race element. Obama wasn't given the same benefit of the doubt as a white politician would have gotten, no doubt about that. But that's as far as racism goes in delegitimizing the president, imo.

 

[Esper]

Back on topic, I've heard from the news that Republicans have backpeddled a tiny bit and said that if a Democrat wins the presidency they'll let Obama's nomination through in the last two months he has left in office.

 

[Mewtwolover]

Republicans should change their seal to this, it describes them pretty well now:

 

[Somewhere_]

Racism, I suspect, was the instigating element. Not necessarily anything overt, but when you had a guy whose platform when running for president was "hope" and "I want to reach across the aisle and work with the other side" and stuff like that, I can't think of another reason why when he first won the presidency the Republicans got together and agreed that they'd never accept anything he did. If Obama said the sky was blue Republicans would band together and say the sky was green. They let this kind of attitude out into public, the kind that said it was okay to question everything about Obama: his citizenship, his religion, his legitimacy. That resonated with people (I wonder why). It also opened the door to the tea party types like Ted Cruz and others to gain office because the right-leaning parts of America saw that it was okay to act borderline racist in politics since they could mask it as anti-government sentiment which encouraged the libertarian anti-government types by saying, in so many words, that it was okay to do anything to slow down and stop government anywhere and anytime because it was Obama's government and he wasn't legitimate. The Republican elites let this genie out of the bottle and then they couldn't put it back in. That's why John Boehner lost control of the House of Representatives, why our government was shut down several times over ideological spats, why someone like Trump is likely to win the Republican nomination.

tl;dr racism and anti-government types found love together in their hatred of Obama and their lovechild has grown like a cancer among Republicans who can't find a way to stay in office without giving in to the ideological extremists among their base

I think its his policies more than racism. Fox News will attack anything though haha, but I doubt they attacked him on race. Just because people oppose someone does not mean they are racist.

I think you are confusing libertarians with republicans. Republicans claim to be small government, but are really large government (tea party is not libertarian either and mostly large government). Libertarians actually support small government lol. libertarians are pretty angry at republicans for now voting in Ron Paul, so they had no one to truly represent their beliefs against Obama. So rather than personal things, they would more than likely dislike him for Obama's policies.

 

[Kanzler]

I think its his policies more than racism. Fox News will attack anything though haha, but I doubt they attacked him on race. Just because people oppose someone does not mean they are racist.

I think you are confusing libertarians with republicans. Republicans claim to be small government, but are really large government (tea party is not libertarian either and mostly large government). Libertarians actually support small government lol. libertarians are pretty angry at republicans for now voting in Ron Paul, so they had no one to truly represent their beliefs against Obama. So rather than personal things, they would more than likely dislike him for Obama's policies.

I imagine that there is a significant portion of the Republican party that is both anti-tax, anti-government, but not libertarian.

 

[Somewhere_]

I imagine that there is a significant portion of the Republican party that is both anti-tax, anti-government, but not libertarian.

I am not denying that there can be, but these individuals still vote for the large government candidates. They do not try to change anything, and enforce their "false" will on others by voting for these candidates. And they generally want lower tax and smaller government, but even tea-party members (republicans wanting the smallest government) still want a large military. Maybe you can count "Reagan" conservatives, but they are very hypocritical- they claim to be anti-tax and small government, but want to ban gay marriage, all drugs, expand NSA, and police the world. Go on a "Reagan Conservative" social media page and look for an image that says, "Have a little freedom" (or something similar) with a picture of a fighter jet firing missiles and you will know what I'm talking about lol.

So basically, these anti-government republicans are very few in number, but it appears they are much larger in number.

 

[Kanzler]

I am not denying that there can be, but these individuals still vote for the large government candidates. They do not try to change anything, and enforce their "false" will on others by voting for these candidates. And they generally want lower tax and smaller government, but even tea-party members (republicans wanting the smallest government) still want a large military. Maybe you can count "Reagan" conservatives, but they are very hypocritical- they claim to be anti-tax and small government, but want to ban gay marriage, all drugs, expand NSA, and police the world. Go on a "Reagan Conservative" social media page and look for an image that says, "Have a little freedom" (or something similar) with a picture of a fighter jet firing missiles and you will know what I'm talking about lol.

So basically, these anti-government republicans are very few in number, but it appears they are much larger in number.

I thought neo-cons were the ones who wanted the large military, but yeah I agree, the tea-party MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN crowd is in there as well. They specifically want government to cut the welfare state because of COMMUNISM and WELFARE QUEENS and (THE) BLACKS and CHRISTIAN VALUES but aren't advocates of smaller government in other respects.

 

[Somewhere_]

I thought neo-cons were the ones who wanted the large military, but yeah I agree, the tea-party MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN crowd is in there as well. They specifically want government to cut the welfare state because of COMMUNISM and WELFARE QUEENS and (THE) BLACKS and CHRISTIAN VALUES but aren't advocates of smaller government in other respects.

i think they are all neocons lol, just some admit it and some dont. They ruin the name of true libertarians, and now since Rand Paul, some are trying to represent "libertarian values." neo-cons want "trickle down economics" (not even an economic theory) or crony capitalism. Now liberals (not to attack liberals) think libertarians want "trickle down economics" and corporatism.

"muh CRONY CAPITALISM is better than that COMMIE SOCIALIST bernie dude and STEP ON MUH FLAG AND MUH CROSS I STOMP ON YOUR SORRY ASS!!!!!"

Republicans dont want a free market lol, and they can't even define socialism. They claim to hate socialism, but they LOVE socialized military and MUH POLICE!!! MUH POLICEEEEEEE!!! #BLUELIVESMATTER I dont see a single republican try to attack the welfare state using something other than welfare queens and saying 20 year olds want free crap. At least libertarians apply real facts and philosophy so it, and even some liberals do to (the more informed ones).

its so much fun making fun of neo-cons. i need to do this more often.

*I do not mean to offend any actual neo-cons reading this. This does not represent everyone, and Ill take down the post if you want.