How would you vote on Merrick Garland's nomination?

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay and would vote against any Republican who votes Aye in the next primary and possibly general election as well.

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay and would vote against any Republican who votes Aye in the next primary and possibly general election as well.

are you just assuming he'd be really bad on abortion because he's a Democratic nominee or is there particular evidence you are looking at? 

I am assuming he would be no better than Kennedy, who I would also filibuster until the sky falls upon us. Does anyone seriously think Obama would appoint the man without knowing his views on abortion? While Garland has never ruled on an abortion case and has never publicly commented on one either, we have every circumstantial reason to think he supports it: demographics, past praise of Harry Blackmun, past support for due process arguments, general right to privacy arguments, etc. The stars would really have to align for him to be an unexpected pro life vote.

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay and would vote against any Republican who votes Aye in the next primary and possibly general election as well.

are you just assuming he'd be really bad on abortion because he's a Democratic nominee or is there particular evidence you are looking at? 

I am assuming he would be no better than Kennedy, who I would also filibuster until the sky falls upon us. Does anyone seriously think Obama would appoint the man without knowing his views on abortion? While Garland has never ruled on an abortion case and has never publicly commented on one either, we have every circumstantial reason to think he supports it: demographics, past praise of Harry Blackmun, past support for due process arguments, general right to privacy arguments, etc. The stars would really have to align for him to be an unexpected pro life vote.

If people are being filibustered for things they don't even have a public record on, that means no Court appointments ever unless the same party has both the White House and 60 Senators. Now 8 seats, then 7, then 6... Is that a good result?  Maybe, but I can see why someone would be reasonably wary of that long term in terms of the future of the third branch of government. I guess it all depends on if what order people die makes it worth it.

Is it a good outcome? No, of course not. But when the other side is willing to do whatever necessary to control the Court to pass its agenda, one has to fight back ruthlessly. It's unfortunate we've come to this point, but the other side stopped caring about the rules 50 years ago.

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay and would vote against any Republican who votes Aye in the next primary and possibly general election as well.

are you just assuming he'd be really bad on abortion because he's a Democratic nominee or is there particular evidence you are looking at?  

I am assuming he would be no better than Kennedy, who I would also filibuster until the sky falls upon us. Does anyone seriously think Obama would appoint the man without knowing his views on abortion? While Garland has never ruled on an abortion case and has never publicly commented on one either, we have every circumstantial reason to think he supports it: demographics, past praise of Harry Blackmun, past support for due process arguments, general right to privacy arguments, etc. The stars would really have to align for him to be an unexpected pro life vote.

If people are being filibustered for things they don't even have a public record on, that means no Court appointments ever unless the same party has both the White House and 60 Senators. Now 8 seats, then 7, then 6... Is that a good result?  Maybe, but I can see why someone would be reasonably wary of that long term in terms of the future of the third branch of government. I guess it all depends on if what order people die makes it worth it.

Is it a good outcome? No, of course not. But when the other side is willing to do whatever necessary to control the Court to pass its agenda, one has to fight back ruthlessly. It's unfortunate we've come to this point, but the other side stopped caring about the rules 50 years ago.

Without this appointment, in all likelihood, President Clinton gets to nominate someone with an extreme activist record on the issue before a Senate friendlier to that than we have now.  Trying to defeat a pro-life Senator because they measure the odds of a successful result in that situation differently just seems potentially reckless to me. 

I think, give him a hearing at least.

Voting to confirm an almost certainly pro-choice justice during a presidential election is out-strategizing yourself at best. I view the situation as a gut-check for all those in the government who call themselves pro-life. Yes, it's in that category.

Now I do not say this lightly. I'm hardly someone who is itching to throw out the RINOs at every turn. I'm not a strong Ted Cruz supporter But there are some circumstances where capitulation is simply not acceptable.