Posted on 03/16/2016 7:34:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
Editor's note: A previous version of this story stated President Obama will appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. That is incorrect. President Obama will nominate Garland for the position.
According to a report in POLITICO, President Obama will nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court as a replacement for late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last month. Obama will make the announcement from the Rose Garden at 11 a.m. eastern.
Merrick Garland was on short list for SCOTUS twice before. Highly-regarded judge and prosecutor, who's won bipartisan plaudits.— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) March 16, 2016
In an email announcement sent by the White House earlier today, Obama said without naming Garland that his nominee possesses "an independent mind, unimpeachable credentials and an unquestionable mastery of law."
Before landing on Garland, at least six potentially nominees for the position asked President Obama to take their names out of consideration as Senate Republicans firmly stand their ground against holding confirmation hearings.
"We intend to exercise the constitutional power granted the Senate under Article II, Section 2 to ensure the American people are not deprived of the opportunity to engage in a full and robust debate over the type of jurist they wish to decide some of the most critical issues of our time. Not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed in a presidential election year a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy arising in that year. And it is necessary to go even further back — to 1888 — in order to find an election year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now," Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans wrote in a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in February. "Accordingly, given the particular circumstances under which this vacancy arises, we wish to inform you of our intention to exercise our constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this President to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy. Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this Committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017."
More to come...
Ooops - at least the editors knew what the hell they were talking about, even if I went off on the headline alone.
From 1994 until his appointment as U.S. Circuit Judge, Judge Garland served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, where his responsibilities included the supervision of the Oklahoma City bombing and UNABOM prosecutions.
Hmmm....
Can Republicans run the clock to Nov and send him thru if a Dem wins POTUS? (Assuming he’d be better than the next nominee)
This guy must be a glutton for punishment accepting the nomination knowing he is going down in a ball of flames. That alone puts his judgement in question and thus I vote “no”.
Hold that line! Hold that line!
DOA!
She quotes the Politico:
President Obama will nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court
He can nominate anybody he wants. The senate can just ignore it as they have indicated they will.
And the future of the GOP rests on whether or not that nominee gets approval.
Garland clerked for Democrat lefty Supreme Court Justice Brennan. That is all I need to know. Now where is that waste basket?
How bad is this guy.
Close; this is a nominee designed to have a confirmation process. One who was selected to be rejected. Do the process for this one, the next one will be presented which is whom the White House really wants, and very little leg to stand on in refusing to hold hearings at that point, and pretty much exactly what I predicted.
Here's your bait, Republicans - do you let the nominee sit there and wait for the president to withdraw it after throwing repeated fits, or will you cave? I'd put money on the caving, but I think I'll more prudently tuck it away in a more exchangeable form.
IF the do hold until January, it will be at a pretty high cost. You can quote the Constitution all day, but the Senate not acting will come across as lazy slackers not doing their job, not as a tactical move.
It would have been much smarter to let the President appoint, and let the Senate vote, but voting down the appointment.
Delay and obstruction is ALWAYS bad optics to the middle ground. Partisans see the usefulness, and of course the Democrats did the same thing (and arguably paid a political price for doing so), the Independents, however, call BS, I think the vast majority of them think EVER appointment should ALWAYS get an up or down vote and to hell with committees.
How ironic. An old White male from Harvard. I guess he’s the sacrificial lamb.
Sen. Mike Lee (member, Senate Judiciary Committee) on Fox just now said there will be no hearing for Garland.
And he’s Jewish. Am I the only one asking “are there NO PROTESTANTS capable of being a SCOTUS judge?!” Protestants are the majority in America and yet all but two of the SCOTUS judges are either liberal Catholics or Jews.
It’s he anti 2nd amendment? If so, that in my opinion is the game plan...........ban guns or at least more of them
I’d be careful if I were the zGOP. This could be a bait as switch by Obambi. Republic set hearings because this guy isn’t as bad as they feared, then Odumbo has the guy pull out, and then he nominates a more liberal, more far left, judge. It would be impossible for the ZGOP to claim precedent of not allowing a president in his last year to nominate, after they were all set to hold hearings on this guy.
According to a reader he is. That is probably why that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave wants him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.