Hillary under pressure to renominate Garland if she wins

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-merrick-garland-nomination-226967

Also mentions that if Trump wins, but Dems still get at least 50 Senate seats, they may fast-track Garland in the two weeks between the new senate being sworn in and Trump's inauguration.

[IceSpear]

Dumb. Even if Hillary and the Senate Dems want Garland they should be using a potential withdrawal as leverage to confirm him before the election.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Dumb. Even if Hillary and the Senate Dems want Garland they should be using a potential withdrawal as leverage to confirm him before the election.

Republicans will stall until the election, pretty much no matter what. They might let up in the lame duck, but not before that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-merrick-garland-nomination-226967

Also mentions that if Trump wins, but Dems still get at least 50 Senate seats, they may fast-track Garland in the two weeks between the new senate being sworn in and Trump's inauguration.

If circumstances somehow lead to Trump winning, there's no way the Democrats take back the Senate at the same time.

[Lyin' Steve]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-merrick-garland-nomination-226967

Also mentions that if Trump wins, but Dems still get at least 50 Senate seats, they may fast-track Garland in the two weeks between the new senate being sworn in and Trump's inauguration.

If circumstances somehow lead to Trump winning, there's no way the Democrats take back the Senate at the same time.

WI/IL/IN/NH is 50. Biden would give them a working majority until the 20th.

[IceSpear]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

Ugh, what a terrible false equivalency. After how the Republicans treated Garland, you'd blame Democrats as partisan hacks for withdrawing him?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

Ugh, what a terrible false equivalency. After how the Republicans treated Garland, you'd blame Democrats as partisan hacks for withdrawing him?

The idea is that by replacing Garland with someone more liberal, you'd be prioritizing ideological goals over actual judicial theory.

[IceSpear]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

Ugh, what a terrible false equivalency. After how the Republicans treated Garland, you'd blame Democrats as partisan hacks for withdrawing him?

The idea is that by replacing Garland with someone more liberal, you'd be prioritizing ideological goals over actual judicial theory.

And the GOP would've brought it on themselves. Let's not forget who started playing politics here with unprecedented obstruction of a qualified judge.

How come so many "independents" look the other way whenever the GOP does anything, but whenever the Democrats punch back, they are dismissed as partisan hacks or are "just as bad"?

And if it's because "the Democrats should be better than the Republicans", then why identify as an independent at all? You clearly hold the Democrats to a higher standard and have a higher opinion of them, presumably.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-merrick-garland-nomination-226967

Also mentions that if Trump wins, but Dems still get at least 50 Senate seats, they may fast-track Garland in the two weeks between the new senate being sworn in and Trump's inauguration.

If circumstances somehow lead to Trump winning, there's no way the Democrats take back the Senate at the same time.

WI/IL/IN/NH is 50. Biden would give them a working majority until the 20th.

If Trump and the GOP are able to bounce back enuf for him to win then at a minimum, Heck takes Nevada, and Toomey may well hold on in Pennsylvania, leaving the Dems with only 48 or 49 Senators.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-merrick-garland-nomination-226967

Also mentions that if Trump wins, but Dems still get at least 50 Senate seats, they may fast-track Garland in the two weeks between the new senate being sworn in and Trump's inauguration.

If circumstances somehow lead to Trump winning, there's no way the Democrats take back the Senate at the same time.

WI/IL/IN/NH is 50. Biden would give them a working majority until the 20th.

If Trump and the GOP are able to bounce back enuf for him to win then at a minimum, Heck takes Nevada, and Toomey may well hold on in Pennsylvania, leaving the Dems with only 48 or 49 Senators.

In the scenario I mentioned, Toomey survives. There is really no path for Trump without PA, which is obviously not voting Trump/McGinty. I consider NV a pure toss-up, and was assuming Heck lost there.

[Lyin' Steve]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

Ugh, what a terrible false equivalency. After how the Republicans treated Garland, you'd blame Democrats as partisan hacks for withdrawing him?

The idea is that by replacing Garland with someone more liberal, you'd be prioritizing ideological goals over actual judicial theory.

And the GOP would've brought it on themselves. Let's not forget who started playing politics here with unprecedented obstruction of a qualified judge.

How come so many "independents" look the other way whenever the GOP does anything, but whenever the Democrats punch back, they are dismissed as partisan hacks or are "just as bad"?

And if it's because "the Democrats should be better than the Republicans", then why identify as an independent at all? You clearly hold the Democrats to a higher standard and have a higher opinion of them, presumably.

Because what the Republicans are doing is wrong but that doesn't mean I think the Democrats should do something wrong as well.  I'd prefer if the Democrats set the example by doing it the right way and then hope the Republicans follow suit.

Ultimately I'd like to pull our politics back towards sanity, and given the choice between scoring a small policy victory by sinking deeper into the mud or taking a step towards pulling us out of the mud, I'd take the latter.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If Hillary wins, she should be able to nominate a justice of her own choice, not her predecessors. She can't be obliged like this.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-merrick-garland-nomination-226967

Also mentions that if Trump wins, but Dems still get at least 50 Senate seats, they may fast-track Garland in the two weeks between the new senate being sworn in and Trump's inauguration.

If circumstances somehow lead to Trump winning, there's no way the Democrats take back the Senate at the same time.

WI/IL/IN/NH is 50. Biden would give them a working majority until the 20th.

Try to overcome GOP judicial filibuster with just 50 seats + VP in 17 days.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, please no.

[Speed of Sound]

If Hillary wins, she should be able to nominate a justice of her own choice, not her predecessors. She can't be obliged like this.

Yeah, this would actually start a really bad precedent. It's the president's job to nominate judges they themselves see fit during their time in power. That's the beginning and end on that one.

[IceSpear]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

Ugh, what a terrible false equivalency. After how the Republicans treated Garland, you'd blame Democrats as partisan hacks for withdrawing him?

The idea is that by replacing Garland with someone more liberal, you'd be prioritizing ideological goals over actual judicial theory.

And the GOP would've brought it on themselves. Let's not forget who started playing politics here with unprecedented obstruction of a qualified judge.

How come so many "independents" look the other way whenever the GOP does anything, but whenever the Democrats punch back, they are dismissed as partisan hacks or are "just as bad"?

And if it's because "the Democrats should be better than the Republicans", then why identify as an independent at all? You clearly hold the Democrats to a higher standard and have a higher opinion of them, presumably.

Because what the Republicans are doing is wrong but that doesn't mean I think the Democrats should do something wrong as well.  I'd prefer if the Democrats set the example by doing it the right way and then hope the Republicans follow suit.

Ultimately I'd like to pull our politics back towards sanity, and given the choice between scoring a small policy victory by sinking deeper into the mud or taking a step towards pulling us out of the mud, I'd take the latter.

I'm pretty sure the Democrats already tried that strategy for years. The Republicans won't change or learn a thing until they're punished at the ballot box, not only in presidential years, but in midterms as well. I mean, why would they? It did pay major dividends for them in 2010/2014, and likely will in 2018 as well.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

Ugh, what a terrible false equivalency. After how the Republicans treated Garland, you'd blame Democrats as partisan hacks for withdrawing him?

The idea is that by replacing Garland with someone more liberal, you'd be prioritizing ideological goals over actual judicial theory.

And the GOP would've brought it on themselves. Let's not forget who started playing politics here with unprecedented obstruction of a qualified judge.

How come so many "independents" look the other way whenever the GOP does anything, but whenever the Democrats punch back, they are dismissed as partisan hacks or are "just as bad"?

And if it's because "the Democrats should be better than the Republicans", then why identify as an independent at all? You clearly hold the Democrats to a higher standard and have a higher opinion of them, presumably.

Because what the Republicans are doing is wrong but that doesn't mean I think the Democrats should do something wrong as well.  I'd prefer if the Democrats set the example by doing it the right way and then hope the Republicans follow suit.

Ultimately I'd like to pull our politics back towards sanity, and given the choice between scoring a small policy victory by sinking deeper into the mud or taking a step towards pulling us out of the mud, I'd take the latter.

I'm pretty sure the Democrats already tried that strategy for years. The Republicans won't change or learn a thing until they're punished at the ballot box, not only in presidential years, but in midterms as well. I mean, why would they? It did pay major dividends for them in 2010/2014, and likely will in 2018 as well.

Until we have a popular democratic (like approvals at 55%+ popular) or an unpopular republican president, the dems will continue to fail in midterms. We've seen how bad they are under an unpopular democrat, and under a popular republican, I honestly think it'd be just as bad.

[The Ex-Factor]

What do you guys think is more likely to occur in the lame duck period: Garland gets appointed, or TPP gets passed?

[Lyin' Steve]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.  Hillary shouldn't be imposing litmus tests or demanding that otherwise perfectly qualified supreme court justices conform to her ideology, and she certainly shouldn't go around picking the most liberal justices she can get away with.  What's the point of having the damn court if it's just nine seats for lucky presidents to stamp their ideology onto?

Hell, if she picked a John Roberts or Sarah Day O'Connor I'd be through the roof.  Maybe we can get back to just picking whoever the best judge in the country is at any particular time rather than whoever the most left- or right-leaning passable judge is.

Ugh, what a terrible false equivalency. After how the Republicans treated Garland, you'd blame Democrats as partisan hacks for withdrawing him?

The idea is that by replacing Garland with someone more liberal, you'd be prioritizing ideological goals over actual judicial theory.

And the GOP would've brought it on themselves. Let's not forget who started playing politics here with unprecedented obstruction of a qualified judge.

How come so many "independents" look the other way whenever the GOP does anything, but whenever the Democrats punch back, they are dismissed as partisan hacks or are "just as bad"?

And if it's because "the Democrats should be better than the Republicans", then why identify as an independent at all? You clearly hold the Democrats to a higher standard and have a higher opinion of them, presumably.

Because what the Republicans are doing is wrong but that doesn't mean I think the Democrats should do something wrong as well.  I'd prefer if the Democrats set the example by doing it the right way and then hope the Republicans follow suit.

Ultimately I'd like to pull our politics back towards sanity, and given the choice between scoring a small policy victory by sinking deeper into the mud or taking a step towards pulling us out of the mud, I'd take the latter.

I'm pretty sure the Democrats already tried that strategy for years. The Republicans won't change or learn a thing until they're punished at the ballot box, not only in presidential years, but in midterms as well. I mean, why would they? It did pay major dividends for them in 2010/2014, and likely will in 2018 as well.

Then the Democrats need to have a massive shift in focus towards activating their voting blocs during the midterms, and in the meantime maintain their integrity so they're actually worth voting for rather than sinking to the Congressional GOP's level.

[Daniel Defense]

I think republicans should come to agreement on this.

[Virginiá]

Good.  Garland is eminently qualified to be a supreme court justice and there's no good reason other than pure partisan hackery to withdraw his nomination.

He is qualified, but he's too old. Democrats would shortchange themselves by picking him instead of a younger, 50~ year old justice who would likely be on the bench almost twice as long. Why should Republicans get a gift like Garland after what they have done? A GOP president sure as hell wouldn't pick Garland in this situation, not if they knew they could nominate a younger conservative just by waiting.

It's one thing to pick by ideology, but age should be a major factor here. We have other candidates for this spot that would be better suited. In addition, Clinton should get to pick whoever she wants. Garland was a compromise pick, after all.

[Bismarck]

Well Garland is preferable to many other options she may have.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Personally when the court is so stacked towards young conservative justices I don't think we can afford to waste this opportunity to do a little course correction. It's very sad that the court has to be viewed in those terms but if one side takes the high ground while the other continues to use the court for political gains; well, there won't be much ground to stand on before long.

American Democracy 2016.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Senate Democrats are such a bunch of bed-wetting pussies.

[Reluctant Republican]

Well if I'm correct he'll be 64 in 2017, so I don't really think Clinton should pick him. He might have 20 years on the court, but 30 is unlikely. Better from the dems perspective to find someone younger who can last a few more decades.

As for the fear of this using up most of her capital that some senate dems seem to have, eh. Assuming Republicans keep the House her options are limited anyway, and I'd argue changing the balance of the Supreme Court is a better use of said capital than any of her other options.