Garland Nomination: Put Up or Shut Up

I'm going to put this out there - Judge Garland is perfectly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. He had a solid record in the Justice Department in the 90's where he was the go-to guy for domestic terrorism cases. He took a hard stand against the Guantanamo detainees in Rasul v. Bush, but was overruled by the Supreme Court. The NRA is pissy because he ruled in favor of the Government in NRA v. Reno... but the Government was only operating under the Brady Bill, which was the law of the land at the time. Did the NRA really expect a Federal judge to rule against the Government for following the law??

So, all in all, it seems to me Judge Garland has a pretty solid record. Can anyone cite me a ruling or a decision on the part of Judge Garland which makes him unworthy of serving on the Court? Anyone. Give me a reason why he doesn't deserve a chance to have a hearing and a vote to continue serving his nation on the highest court in the land. He has loyally served the country for almost 40 years and done so with distinction and bipartisan acclaim. At any time, he could have made many times over what he earned from his government salary in the private sector. And THIS is how he gets treated for it??!? Tell me why he doesn't deserve a hearing. Put up or shut up.

 

The Republicans have every right not to consider the nomination but they are playing a dangerous game since if Hillary becomes President the nominee will be undoubtedly more liberal and should Trump be President no one has any clue as to what he will do. So to put it simply the only chance the Republicans have of a more Conservative justice is a brokered convention that nominates a true Conservative who wins the presidency against all odds and then nominates a radical Conservative who might survive a filibuster.

 

Okay, can we just clear one thing up?

This is politics. It's not about fairness. It's not about logic or consistency. It's about power.

The purpose of the Supreme Court in this political universe is about maintaining power. Nobody gives a fig about a candidate's qualifications, except as a marketing tool. All they care about is whether this candidate will advance their party's agenda. Mitch McConnell has only one objective in mind: to extend his party's political power by any and every means possible. The Supreme Court is excellent for this purpose, because it allows you to maintain power even if you're voted out of office.

 

Regardless of how Scalia's seat gets filled, though, the odds are pretty good the next President will get at least one SCOTUS appointment.... so what's the harm in biting the bullet and giving Garland a vote? That's why I've started this thread - I think the man deserves a shot. I can't see what makes him so unacceptable to conservatives. I'm looking for that ***** in his armor. It seems to me that if you forced President Obama and Senator McConnell into a room with no food and they couldn't leave until they came up with a name they both could agree on that Judge Garland would have probably been that name. It's hard to think of who else it might be.

 

If, at some point closer to November, it starts looking like Clinton might win by a substantial margin, then McConnell will get religion and stage hearings and a quick vote,

 

*L* Sometimes I feel like Louis in Casablanca when I post in here... "I'm shocked, absolutely shocked that there's politics going on here!"

We all know what it's about.... but there's such a thing in politics as over-playing your hand, and I think that's what McConnell is doing. He's playing an inside straight draw and he keeps raising every time. What he should do is concede that Judge Garland at least deserves a vote and then let the cards fall where they may.

 

I don't think that'd happen - they'll let it play out and hope for the best. I could see him getting confirmed in the November lame duck session if Clinton is elected, though.

 

Sorry, it goes against the Vice-President's "Biden Rule".

[video=youtube;N1SUn0zTGUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1SUn0zTGUQ[/video]

If it's good enough for Joe and the Democrats..................... ..

 

I don't care about the "Biden Rule" - there's plenty of other threads where you can take 20+ year-old speeches and play them out of context. I want to know.... does anybody on the right have any problem with Judge Garland's legal credentials? If so, point them out and we can debate them. Put up or shut up.

 

How is it out of context? We are just following the Biden Rule as the Democrats expected us to follow when they brought it up. The Hypocrisy is breath taking.

 

That's all politics..... like I said, there are plenty of threads here where you can throw partisan spears back and forth. I just thought that since this is whole issue is about filling a Supreme Court seat that maybe we should have a place where we can debate the legal merits of Judge Garland. If he's so unacceptable as a Supreme Court Justice, I want to know why.

 

There's no need to play the left's "gotcha" game. All you need to know is he's unacceptable because of the Biden Rule....period. Not too hard to understand.

 

Apparently it is, because you don't seem to be grasping it.... I don't give a flying fig about that - what I care about is the merits of the nominee. I don't care about "he said this..." or "she said that...." or any of your memes or any of that. That's all trivial bullsh*t. I want someone who opposes this nominee to come forward and give me a sound legal reason why they oppose him. Let's debate it out with facts. Like adults. A good old-fashioned debate.

 

`
You are correct, the poster (and McConnell) are using the Biden rule, (which really isn't a rule per se) out of content - In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

 

As you've said over and over, his work in the Court of Appeals had nothing to do with the sorts of contentious issues which SCOTUS deals with. That doesn't make him a moderate or conservative, it makes his jurisprudence indeterminate - we simply don't know.

I would very much so be interested to hear about his approach to constitutional interpretation. Does he take a textualist approach? What's he thinking?

 

Yes, but the "Biden Rule" doesn't matter one way or the other..... it has nothing whatsoever to do with Judge Garland's legal qualifications. That's what I'm trying to get at here.... that's what this debate SHOULD be about. At the end of the day, that's all that really matters. Someday this is all going to get resolved and the political carnival is going to pack up and move to another issue. But somebody is going to fill Scalia's seat on the court. The question is.... is Judge Garland qualified to do so?

 

Are you grasping what "a waste of time is"? To debate you on his alleged legitimacy or not simply plays a game in a feeble attempt to make Garland credible. I do not care a flying Fig about the nominee, remember the "Biden Rule". Re-Nominate him after the November election and we'll talk.

 

Exactly! All of the things that come out of confirmation hearings. The man has put in almost 40 years of exceptional and dedicated public service.... surely to God he deserves the right to make a case for his confirmation.

 

You know who you are? You're the one who gets courtside seats at the Final Four and then spends the whole game texting on their cell phone or celebrity watching. The game is on the court - that's what it's supposed to be about. I am so freaking sick of all of this superficial TMZ politics.

 

The Senate is under no obligation to vote in the affirmative on cloture. The GOP are clearly hesitant to consent to a "mystery box" candidate from a President who has already nominated two extremely liberal justices and had shown every propensity for shady deals and pushing convention.

That they knew nothing about his relevant jurisprudence is exactly the issue they take with him.

 

Two months short of the Biden Rule.

 

He is perfectly acceptable to Conservatives. This is just politics not ideology. Obama could have nominated God and the Republicans would have refused a hearing.

 

Why because I won't play your silly debate game? Sorry, as I already said I side with Vice-President Biden and the Biden rule. I didn't make it up.....he and the Democrats did. The hypocrisy of the left is breathtaking.

[video=youtube;N1SUn0zTGUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1SUn0zTGUQ[/video]

Did Ole Joe debate on any SCOTUS nomination? No, he just enumerated the Democrat Party's position on Lame Duck appointments to the Supreme Court. I'm calling on them to practice what they preach.

 

The Democrats held up Ginsberg as a moderate and she turned out to be a left wing-nut. The Biden Rule must be invoked. If it was good enough for the Democrats as a party position, it's good enough for me.

- - - Updated - - -

So what?

 

Little weasel Garland can cry......and Obama can throw a tantrum.
And the Constitution allows for ignoring them.
See you in November.