October 21, 2016

Should the GOP Senators get started confirming Merrick Garland before the election?

I'm reading "Flake says it might be Garland time" (at Politico). Arizona Senator Jeff Flake is saying that even before election day, perhaps the GOP-controlled Senate should move on confirming Garland. Why not wait until after the election (and avoid the in-your-face lack of confidence in Trump)?
Flake's comments come as the Senate GOP weighs how to deal with a Clinton nomination to the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has ruled out taking up Garland in the lame duck. But that raises the prospect that Clinton could pick someone other than Garland, whom Republicans once praised as a consensus nominee before rolling out a blockade intended to allow voters to weigh in before the vacancy is filled.
What I read between the lines there is: If they wait until after Clinton wins, to move on Garland is to deprive the President-elect of her choice. And that would be after they said that they needed to hold off on Garland because the American people should have the choice of what sort of Supreme Court we want. If the people decide for Clinton, shouldn't Clinton be the one to make the choice? The GOP Senators have held off, in the hope that the GOP candidate might win and get to make the appointment, but if they think Trump is going to lose, their best option might be to move on Garland while they still have a shred of a chance to act as though they're just doing the normal thing of confirming the President's nominee.

Should the GOP Senate move now to confirm Garland?
 
pollcode.com free polls

74 comments:

David Begley said...

Now why would Flake spout off in light of the fact that Grassley and McConnell have said there will be no vote on Garland?

Once written, twice... said...

How can Republicans ever again complain with a straight face about their nominees not getting a fair hearing?

Once written, twice... said...

Clinton should stick With Garland and say this is another example of "when they go low, we go high."

rhhardin said...

Take the policy of rejecting all nominees. Just let the supreme court shrink. That way a conservative majority is as likely as a liberal majority.

Nonapod said...

the American people should have the choice of what sort of Supreme Court we want

That sounds nice, but it's not exactly reality. It's the nature of our system that the American people don't precisely get a say. Who gets to be on the Supreme Court might be distantly influenced by some far removed decision made at a voting booth. But such a decision is ultimately packed in with all sorts of other compromises that exist in an ugly creature called a presidential candidate.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Where is the poll option for "I expect Clinton to win, don't confirm Garland, and don't confirm any Clinton appointees that are to the left of center. ( Center being defined as Scalia. )

Terry said...

Those GOP leaders are so good at triangulation! That's why Obama's agenda never got off the ground!

AReasonableMan said...

The red team made a mistake here. Now, their only principled option is to confirm Clinton's nominee. What they actually do is anyone's guess.

machine said...

The people decided on President Obama and he should have had the choice...

Once written, twice... said...

Clinton is going to trounce Trump. Democrats are going to take a majority in the senate. If Republicans try to block her appointment to the court they will be further hung out to dry.

Republicans screwed themselves royally here.

Mick said...

POLITICO is FULL of "Jornolists" who bow to the corrupt political elites.
F#*K POLITICO. Weasels all.

Prof. Pangloss said...

Where is the option that allows me to opine that I trust Trump on the Supreme Court no more than Clinton?

The lawyers he hires make Harriet Myers look like a legal Titan by comparison.

Bob Boyd said...

As I understand it there is a worst case scenario: Republicans lose the Senate, Obama withdraws Garland, puts forth extreme nominee, the new Senate will have a small window of time in which they could confirm that nominee before next President is sworn in.

I could be wrong that this is how it works.

rhhardin said...

Put Epsteins on the court, his friends say, and there will be a lot of 5-4 decisions.

rhhardin said...

Obstare decisis.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

machine said...

The people decided on President Obama and he should have had the choice...

You are correct. President Obama should have had the choice ( of whom to nominate. ) He exercised that choice.
The people decided on a Republican Senate. They should have the choice ( to confirm or not. )

dbp said...

Clinton has criticized the Republicans not confirming Garland. If she wins, they could say that they are conceding to her victory and holding out an olive branch by taking up the Garland nomination.

If Obama withdraws the nomination, then they would presumably not take up this (much more liberal) nomination until the new Senate comes in. Or they could just vote the person down--to get into practice for Clinton, should the GOP hold the Senate.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Your poll is uncharacteristically vague in the phrase "move now". They can't vote Garland in before the election without looking incredibly stupid. It would be an interesting ploy to hold a confirmation hearing in the 3 weeks before the election. Can Grassley fit that in while running for reelection?

They could move now to have a hearing and vote after the election. I'm intrigued by the possibility of a recess appointment by President Obama if the seat is unfilled at the end of the session. Is it better to vote Garland down or leave him hanging if you face the prospect of a recess appointment? That may depend more on whether you think you can hold the Senate as much as whether you can win the Presidency.

damikesc said...

They should use their advise and consent powers harshly and shoot down bad judges. Stop giving Progressive jurists ridiculous approval votes.

Now, their only principled option is to confirm Clinton's nominee.

No. It is to give him a vote. They are hardly obligated to vote for the clown.

Birches said...

whom Republicans once praised as a consensus nominee before rolling out a blockade intended to allow voters to weigh in before the vacancy is filled.

Can someone please fact check this? I seem to remember most saying he was terrible on guns and completely deferential to big government.

Dude1394 said...

Not no but hell no. And Flake needs to be primaried. As our inexperienced community organizer said, "We won". Well the republican party won congress and they get to do whatever the heck they want to do.

And their constituents do not want obama's pick nominated. So not no, but hell no.

Mac McConnell said...

Three jews on the SCOTUS is enough, surely Hillary would want to pay off the Muslim Brotherhood with a muslim justice, a Palestinian would be better. Diversity! Fuck Ya!

gerry said...

We should wait until after the first nuclear weapons exchange between Norkies and Chinese, Norkies and US - Chinese; Russkies-US or some other combination, post election.

Mac McConnell said...

Trannies are under represented on SCOTUS. How about a Muslim tranny? Hillary is all for diversity and wants a compassionate life experienced trial lawyer, maybe she could find a tranny ambulance chaser that advertises on TV.

Real American said...

What if the GOP loses the Senate? Then there would be even more need to confirm Garland. Arguably, Obama nominated a more "moderate" jurist because that's what could pass the Senate. On the other hand, he knew the nominee would never get a vote, so he nominated Garland to make himself look more moderate and the GOP senate more radical. That's not true, but when the press has your back regardless of reality you can do those things. Either way, Garland is probably preferable to anyone Hillary would nominate and certainly preferable to anyone Hillary would nominate IF there was Democrat majority in the Senate.

Garland was nominated by Obama. Are the Democrats going to vote against him because they want Hillary to make the pick? What would that say about them?

The alternative is to filibuster for 4 years. I'd prefer that, but there's no way the GOP squishes in the Senate would ever do that. They're not Democrats.

James Pawlak said...

Judge Merrick Garland is not a "Moderate Jurist"---Unless you would use the same term for Mr. Justice Hugo Black [Once a member of the KKK who ignored the intent of the authors of the First Amendment in assigning a false meaning to "the free exercise of religion"] or to the tyrannical Judges George Jefferys and Ronald Freisler.

It appears that Judge Garland supports a false interpretation of the Second Amendment (With its "shall not be infringed" clause)---In violation of the Founders' intentions and in favor of the judges "making law from the bench" and, thereby, taking from the People the authority to amend the Constitution by its internal-and-prescribed, democratic, means.

Not having the time or skills to do so, that anti-liberty position directly leads me to wonder if his other judicial positions are likewise in violation of what theConstitution's true place as our most basic law must be.

However, I do support: The Senate holding hearings on Barrack Hussein Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick; AND, its use of theDemocrat developed methods as inflicted upon Judge Bork.

Chuck said...

My answer is, "Do whatever is necessary to maintain the Republican majority in the Senate. Trump is a lost cause. Confirm Garland, or not. Support Trump, or condemn Trump, or anything else that the electoral politics require. Just win every possible Republican seat in the Senate."

Balfegor said...

I suppose even if Trump wins, Republicans might want to confirm Garland. After all, Trump is just the sort of man to pull a Kennedy and nominate his sister, who is a liberal Republican, last I checked.

Bruce Hayden said...

Sen. Flake is living up to his name here. Thank goodness my partner is no longer registered to vote in AZ. This is embarrassing for Arizona Republicans (and, yes, so is Sen. McCain any more).

cubanbob said...

Flake is a flake. Other than Mook the mook it's hard to conceive of anyone with a more apt surname in politics today.

eric said...

It might not be a lack of faith in Trump. More likely, it's an attempt to undermine his campaign.

Because they believe, when he loses, we will come crawling back to them, begging for scraps from their table.

They just don't understand how pissed off we are.

I saw a tweet the other day showing Hispanic support for the GOP dropping over the past few years.

It was something like 35% when Romney ran and now it's around 10 or 15%. This was seen as Trump's fault.

My follow up question is/was, don't all the numbers look like that? If you asked every demographic group abkut their support for the GOP (not Trump, but the GOP) hasn't it fallen with everyone since 2012?

But they think they can blame trump and the media will play along and we will just believe it.

Fools.

Balfegor said...

Also, shouldn't the "The lack of faith" in Trump be "disturbing" not wrong?

machine said...

right. but the Senate refused to confirm or not....took their ball and went home.

Chuck said...

Dude 1394;
You Rush/Trump/Drudge jagoffs tried to primary John McCain this year. And you lost. You tried to primary Paul Ryan. And you lost. Marco Rubio won his primary too. When you got your way with Christine O'Donnell, Todd Akin and Sharron Angle in primaries, they all lost. And now you've got Trump; the biggest embarrassment in modern American electoral history, headed for the worst schlonging most if us have ever seen, by the worst candidate the Dems have put up since Al Smith.

How many bitch-slappings does it take, before you figure out that your record of choosing candidates is so shitty that you ought not attempt it anymore?

Bruce said...

"Yes. It was Obama's nomination to make and they should have given him a hearing and voted up or down already. " is the option I was looking for.

In my opinion, he should be voted down, in part because he is highly biased against second amendment rights. But simply stalling and refusing to even have a hearing seems bogus to me.

Mac McConnell said...

What happens when Trump wins and both houses remain Republican? It's not over till it's over, occasionally the media doesn't get to pick the President.

damikesc said...

How many bitch-slappings does it take, before you figure out that your record of choosing candidates is so shitty that you ought not attempt it anymore?

John McCain did great.
Mitt Romney did great.
I bet Jeb Bush would be winning.

Your side has killed the old Faustian bargain of "Support this guy, no matter how bad, because he is better than the alternative". Why should people who don't like YOUR choice ever support them? If Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio is nominated in 2020, why shouldn't I rip them to shreds constantly?

Loyalty?

That ship has sailed.

joucas said...

I'm guessing that Hillary will renew the Garland appointment as her own. She will want to ride the Obama coattails as far and as long as possible.

Mac McConnell said...

SUNY Prof With Reliable Election Model Predicts 87% Chance of Trump Win.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/10/suny-prof-with-reliable-election-model-predicts-87-chance-of-trump-win/

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Mac McConnell said...

What happens when Trump wins and both houses remain Republican?

I suspect that, after Hades finishes hosting the winter Olympics, and the monkeys stop flying out of my butt, Trump will turn around and nominate a big-government liberal to the court, and the Republican senate will confirm zir.

Mac McConnell said...

"Loyalty?

That ship has sailed."

The GOPe will be wasting their breath, if Trump is defeated. I've been an activist for fifty years, they can suck my dick.

Chuck said...

damikesc;

Don't tell me about Obama in 2008 and 2012 . He won with what might statistically be regarded as about 112%. In 2008, black voter turnout basically equalled the percentage turnout of whites. And in 2012, for the first time in American history, black turnout was a better percentage than white turnout.

I don't expect the Obama/race phenomenon to be repeated this year, which is why it is such a crime to have pissed away this election with Trump as the nominee.

Mac McConnell said...

It all depends on who gets out of bed on election day.

Chuck said...

Sorry; should have been "...about 112% of the black voter turnout."

Virgil Hilts said...

I live in AZ and like Flake (though disagree with him here). If he had run for POTUS, I believe he could have won - he's an interesting guy and a great speaker (listen to the episode of Wait, Wait Don't tell Me when he was a guest).
The problem is that family-oriented/halfway sane people such as Flake and Sasse no longer want to run for Pres. Well OK then, but don't go condemning the people who are insane enough to run and expose themselves and their families to the Democratic total war machine. We need guys like Flake or Sasse (each of whom IMHO would have completely whipped the other primary contestants) to step up and make a sacrifice to help stop the accelerating decline of this country. I am disappointed that neither of them thinks the project is worth the sacrifice of their families.

Mac McConnell said...

Virgil
People who have never ran for office don't realize the sacrifice and pressure on a family, both emotional and financial, even if one is running for dog catcher. The destruction machine works at all levels.

eric said...

John McCain did great.
Mitt Romney did great.
I bet Jeb Bush would be winning.

Your side has killed the old Faustian bargain of "Support this guy, no matter how bad, because he is better than the alternative". Why should people who don't like YOUR choice ever support them? If Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio is nominated in 2020, why shouldn't I rip them to shreds constantly?

Loyalty?

That ship has sailed.


This is exactly right.

The old paradigm is dead. It used to be, after the primary, everyone got on board and focused their lasers on the Dem candidate. This election cycle? It's like theyve all forgotten what they've said in the past.

And the funny, not funny, part is, they keep insisting that they aren't going to be responsible for a Trump loss. As if.

They don't realize their is going to be a reckoning.

As Nolte says on twitter, buy guns.

I'd only add to that, and ammo.

Mac McConnell said...

eric
True, but if we're going to go social democrat, why not go full Europe, why not perfect it. There won't be a violent revolution, no one will give up their rice bowl.

buwaya puti said...

It doesnt matter who a Democrat nominates, for any practical purpose. They are all the same, they may as well be robots.

These arent individuals, just votes. They only pretend to think.

The whole business of parsing decisions and details of the process is just amusement for fans of that sort of stuff, of no value to the "consumers" of these decisions.

Mac McConnell said...

But then think Brexit.

Dude1394 said...

Chuck

Lots more to come brotha'. You Hillary supporters can just continue to think there will be no consequences for not supporting the republican nominee by republicans.

buwaya puti said...

Europe, most of it, actually does better. The bureaucratic machine is far more professional and much less of the modern US combo of ideological gaga and corruption.

You would have an industrial renaissance if the Germans were running things here, according to their rules.

cubanbob said...

Why the assumption it's all over but the crying? As Hillary said "why am I not 50 points ahead"? While conventional wisdom states she will win there just doesn't seem to be a vibe to justify such a certainty. If she wins the real question is will she win within the margin of vote fraud and election rigging or not?

I Callahan said...

right. but the Senate refused to confirm or not....took their ball and went home.

It's "advise and consent". They did their duty. They didn't need to confirm.

Constitution 101

Big Mike said...

How about "no, because Garland is a worthless piece of shit on the best day of his life?"

Jack Wayne said...

You never give the choice I want:

No, and they shouldn't approve any lefty judge ever.

machine said...

and they did neither...I don't think that word means what you think it means.

dreams said...

That would really be a stupid thing to do so its something the stupid party might do, they do like to preemptively surrender.

The Godfather said...

The Republican Party is where it is today because of the kind of "reasonable" "let's compromise" "let's make a deal" approach Flake is advocating. The Republicans "in control" of the House and Senate refused to confront Obama and force him to use his veto pen on legislation a lot of Americans would have like enacted. So Republican primary voters decided that the Establishment was feckless, and they nominated the candidate who looked as un-Establishment as possible. Of course he's a disaster. As a result, we're going to lose the Presidency, we're almost certain to lose control of the Senate, and we could even lose control of the House. If the Republican Party is to survive as a viable political organization, it's going to have to oppose, oppose, oppose whatever the Democratic President proposes, and give people a reason to elect Republicans in the future.

Might as well start now with Garland.

exiledonmainstreet said...


The GOPe will be wasting their breath, if Trump is defeated. I've been an activist for fifty years, they can suck my dick.

10/21/16, 11:39 AM

Hey, Chuck and the GOPe don't need us! They'll do terrifically well in 2020 without us and with all those millions of new Hispanic voters who will vote Republican because they're really "natural conservatives."

I Callahan said...

and they did neither...I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Advise. They advised Obama NOT to nominate that judge.

I know exactly what it means.

Theodore James said...

How about the Senate doesn't vote on Garland and if Hillary wins she can pick who she wants. If the Senate remains majority Republican they don't have to confirm any of her choices.

That is playing by the rules and an eight member court has less of a chance to politicize their decisions than a nine member court controlled by the left.

Darrell said...

I dream of living in a country where we beat Lefties with ball pein hammmers rather than look at them, so that the Lefties only come out at night and we clone nocturnal dinosaur predators.

machine said...

no they didn't...you need a new dictionary.

AReasonableMan said...

Darrell said...
I dream of living in a country where we beat Lefties with ball pein hammmers rather than look at them, so that the Lefties only come out at night and we clone nocturnal dinosaur predators.


As a moderate, I love all God's children, both those on the red team and those on the blue. Go in peace my fellow man.

Fabi said...

Chuck is the poster boy for everything wrong with the GOP(e). Has he ever said a single thing that would make anyone here be associated with "his" party? I don't think so. He spends most of his time tearing down his party's rightful nominee -- who received the most primary votes ever -- and calls Trump's supporters "mouth breathers". It's one of the most curious things I've ever witnessed.

mikesixes said...

The aptly-named senator Flake illustrates why the GOP establishment is hated. They vowed that they would not confirm Obama's appointee, leaving the position open for the next president to fill. They now want to weasel out of this commitment, apparently on the grounds that it never occurred to them until now that Hillary might win and that her appointee might be worse than Obama's. Here's another suggestion: do what you said you'd do, and leave it to the next president to appoint a justice, and refuse to confirm anyone who isn't acceptable.

Douglas said...

It depends on whether the GOP is going to keep the Senate or not. If it's keeping control of the Senate, then it should do nothing on Garland's nomination now or after Hillary is sworn in - instead it should wait for a second opening to occur on the Court, and then trade action on the first seat for her nominating the GOP's choice to the second seat.

If the GOP loses control of the Senate, then the day after the election, the Senate should approve Garland's nomination, without a hearing.

EDH said...

If and only after Clinton wins should the congressional Republicans inquire whether President (or President-elect?) Clinton wished to renew the Garland nomination. After all her talk about Garland, wouldn't Hillary have a difficult time substituting any other nominee at this point?

Glory said...

Hello, I'm here to introduce someone to you all, his name is Dr.Ekpen Temple a spell caster that help me restored my broken relationship, I saw an article on the Internet someone talking about him how he help her in her relationship, today I'm a beneficial of that article, so that is why I'm also talking about how he has helped me so that someone out there that is facing the same challenge can also contact him for help. Here is DR EKPEN TEMPLE contact info: (ekpentemple@gmail.com) or on Whatsapp number 2347050270218.

john marzan said...

this could backfire badly against GOp senators running in this year's election, especially if trump calls them out on it.

Fen said...

"Hello, I'm here to introduce someone to you all - "

This is why I have to put up with 3 levels of Captcha?

Fen said...

ARM: "As a moderate, I love all God's children, both those on the red team and those on the blue. Go in peace my fellow man."

But you are NOT a moderate. Those of us who have debated with you over the last decade know this.

We also know that the ONLY reason you posted "I love all God's children blah blah blah" is so that you could insert "I'm a moderate, no really..." in there.

bbkingfish said...

I would imagine that if HC wins and the Dems have 50 in the Senate, the President will withdraw Garland on Nov. 9 and leave the appointment to the President-elect.