How would you vote on Merrick Garland's nomination?

[windjammer]

The republicans are so funny to believe they would be able to stabb the democrats behind their back during lame duck:

1) they would never have the votes to confirm Garland. Cruz and the other crazies will never vote for him.

2) Obama would withdraw the nomination and if he doesnt it would mean Garland would be much less moderate than expected.

[politicallefty]

Aye (D). I'm optimistic about this nomination. Judge Garland wouldn't have been my first choice, but I do trust President Obama's judgement with respect to judicial nominations. At minimum, he will be the median Justice on the Court. At best, the median becomes Justice Breyer (with future-Justice Garland possibly voting along the lines of Justice Sotomayor), as opposed to the former Court with Justice Kennedy as the median. Either way, the centre of the Supreme Court moves to a point it hasn't been since the 1960s under Chief Justice Earl Warren.

[Incipimus iterum]

Aye

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A judge can't work to remove Citizens United, the Supreme Court doesn't work like this. As much as I hate Citizens people still need to understand how it works

Pssh, facts! Who needs 'em? I've got enough of bluster and an army of talk radio hosts to fend off you corporate shills with your "evidence" and your "informed opinions" indefinitely!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Probably how my advisers/donors told me to vote.

[Kingpoleon]

A judge can't work to remove Citizens United, the Supreme Court doesn't work like this. As much as I hate Citizens people still need to understand how it works

Pssh, facts! Who needs 'em? I've got enough of bluster and an army of talk radio hosts to fend off you corporate shills with your "evidence" and your "informed opinions" indefinitely!

Precisely why Garland should not be confirmed. This is a move by both the White House and Congress to rally their bases. If anyone had any respect for the unity of America, Ben Chandler or Tom Campbell or another Blue Dog/Main Streeter would be sailing to the SCOTUS.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If it weren't for politics, he'd be a slam dunk for unanimous approval.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A judge can't work to remove Citizens United, the Supreme Court doesn't work like this. As much as I hate Citizens people still need to understand how it works

Pssh, facts! Who needs 'em? I've got enough of bluster and an army of talk radio hosts to fend off you corporate shills with your "evidence" and your "informed opinions" indefinitely!

Precisely why Garland should not be confirmed. This is a move by both the White House and Congress to rally their bases. If anyone had any respect for the unity of America, Ben Chandler or Tom Campbell or another Blue Dog/Main Streeter would be sailing to the SCOTUS.

Are you suggesting that Garland is some sort of divisive liberal or Democratic hack? Really? Because that is not one of the problems with him. Is this the narrative that's going to be pushed? Really?

[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.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

A judge can't work to remove Citizens United, the Supreme Court doesn't work like this. As much as I hate Citizens people still need to understand how it works

Pssh, facts! Who needs 'em? I've got enough of bluster and an army of talk radio hosts to fend off you corporate shills with your "evidence" and your "informed opinions" indefinitely!

Precisely why Garland should not be confirmed. This is a move by both the White House and Congress to rally their bases. If anyone had any respect for the unity of America, Ben Chandler or Tom Campbell or another Blue Dog/Main Streeter would be sailing to the SCOTUS.

My god...Yes Obama should get a more right wing justice. You do realize he has the power to nominate anyone he pleases because of you know, you guys voting for him as president twice.

[Higgs]

Aye (R), since there's not going to be a Republican president anyway, and the next Democratic president would nominate someone far more liberal.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Nay, mainly because I want to see what happens if nobody is appointed to replace the Justices as they die off. It would be funny enough seeing a one member Court (Kagan) make sweeping proclamations at whim; funnier still if nobody is appointed.

[P123]

Nay (pro-life)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Aye (I/other)

[NeverAgain]

It's not that I dislike the man, he is an EXTREMELY qualified nominee and deserves to be on the court, just not right now. We just had a conservative hero die as the longest serving Supreme Court Justice serving, and we need to honor him by not nominating "moderates", we need to nominate someone that would embody Scalia. Like a strong uberliberal minority woman who sticks up for civil and human rights, someone just like Scalia.

All kidding aside, Aye of course. If the Republicans refuse it, then the next Democratic President is going to nominate a progressive and with our hopeful Majority in the Senate, we'll pass them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

'We must honor Scalia and his love of intellectual combat and zest for blood in the ideological water by replacing him with someone other than Garland, who embodies the worst of jurisprudential moderate heroism' is a decent argument, actually.

[Kingpoleon]

A judge can't work to remove Citizens United, the Supreme Court doesn't work like this. As much as I hate Citizens people still need to understand how it works

Pssh, facts! Who needs 'em? I've got enough of bluster and an army of talk radio hosts to fend off you corporate shills with your "evidence" and your "informed opinions" indefinitely!

Precisely why Garland should not be confirmed. This is a move by both the White House and Congress to rally their bases. If anyone had any respect for the unity of America, Ben Chandler or Tom Campbell or another Blue Dog/Main Streeter would be sailing to the SCOTUS.

Are you suggesting that Garland is some sort of divisive liberal or Democratic hack? Really? Because that is not one of the problems with him. Is this the narrative that's going to be pushed? Really?

Uh, no. He is to the left of Breyer a bit, and so I would prefer a different nominee. I would probably abstain in the end.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Being pro-life is an absolute litmus test for a judge in my book, so nay!!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I don't know.  Although I would prefer a pro-life justice, I would have to see where he stands on other issues.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

No, would be liberal.

[PJ]

Yes, I'm not going to squander the chance to have the most liberal court in decades out of ideological purity.

Aye. Really proud of Obama for not playing politics and picking a sound choice that isn't a rubber stamp for Chuck Schumer's or Harry Reid's far-left, out of touch agenda.

Schumer, far left? Really?