Time for Obama to withdraw Merrick Garland's nomination

Garland's nomination is going nowhere, and will go nowhere. While at the same time, the Democrats' prospects for retaining control of the White House and regaining control of the Senate, have never looked better.

The prerogative of the President to make appointments only continues to be eroded by the Republican Senate's Unconstitutional obstruction; it is better for the sake of Presidential power that he not continue to hold out Garland, while the Senate refuses to act.

Garland was a compromise-pick for Obama, a clear olive-branch to the Republicans. It was summarily rejected, but of course if Hillary wins the presidential election, it will be in the Republicans' interest to immediately rush to confirm him... This cannot be allowed, the Republicans cannot be allowed to abuse their authority, abuse our institutions and the Constitution itself - and get away with it, in this way.

No. The time has come to withdraw Garland's nomination, and prepare a new slate of possible nominees, all of whom are potential 'Liberal Lions' who Hillary and the new Democrat Senate could appoint in January.

 

Newsflash...Republican operatives are saying that we should confirm Garland NOW...because they don't see a Clinton nominee as being anywhere near as conservative.

Get it?

 

What an OP full of nonsense talking points. While one can object to the Senate holding up the nomination, such action is by no means unconstitutional. Making such a claim simply erodes your credibility and evidences your lack of understanding of the bigger picture here.

Frankly I support the Senate's position. Not for any objections over the nomination, but rather as a response to the President's failure to respect the limitations of his office. A stand to stop this dangerous trend has to be made somewhere. I would have preferred the stand to be made earlier, but hopefully late is better than never. The Republicans clearly understand that the end result could be a more liberal justice nominated by Hillary, but the republic is lost either way (i.e. not taking a stand or another liberal justice).

 

Agreed. The Senate is acting well within its power.

Totally agree that the Executive has gotten too powerful, but protest is not what I send my reps to do. I send them to DC to work. Obama or any other president would not sign executive orders had Congress successfully found solutions. Fix immigration. Fix ISIS. Fix healthcare. Do something.

 

No Republicans are saying this.

Every day less and less people think Hillary has any chance of winning.

She can't even beat Sanders.

- - - Updated - - -

What planet are you on?

Trump is rising in the polls and corrupt old Hillary is sinking.

Face reality.

 

Yep, he's closed the gap to 4 points, down from 11, two months ago.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Trump has the momentum.

 

I doubt Trump is that conservative. The republicans should confirm Garland. The risk of Hillary winning is too great, even if it is low. Better to hedge bets.

 

Senate obstruction is illegal, as I have argued extensively in a previous thread I started. It is clear that you're the one who doesn't grasp the big picture: http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...senate-refuse-vote-presidents-sc-nominee.html

Now that is a rationale that is nonsense. Even if it was correct that Obama has abused his authority (which I do not grant), your best defense of the Senate's Unconstitutional obstruction is "two wrongs make a right" - ? Arrant nonsense. Of course you support the Senate's position. Conservatives today have no principles - certainly no respect for the rule of law - only an interest in getting and keeping power by any means necessary.

 

MMmh-HMM. Then you should have no problem whatsoever with Obama withdrawing Garland's nomination, which is the point which I am urging.

 

Democratic chances of retaining the White House and regaining the Senate "have never looked better"? They did look better a few months ago, when Clinton wasn't ahead of Trump by just 3.something points. But at no point have I seen Senate projections that are in favor of the Democrats getting even 50.

Oh, and Garland was a compromise-pick? What are you talking about? Yeah, I know the idea that he's a moderate has been said over and over again by Democrats, but it just simply is not true. He's what they called "conservative on crime", meaning what? Tough on crime? No, we don't want that. Oh, and it's already well known he doesn't believe that the right to bear arms is an individual right at all. Suuuuuper moderate? Right? Come on. He's no moderate. He is no conciliatory pick.

The Senate not acting on the President's nomination super fast is unconstitutional? What part of the Constitution says they have to act on it in a specific fimeframe?

 

they really should. We dont really need another centrist i would prefer a person from the far right or left.

 

Not gonna happen. The idiots running the Republican and the establishment Dems had better be ready for a butt kicking of epic proportions They have yet to be right about much of anything this time around. And Lesh, the dudes on your side He wants Garland gone so he can get someone even more liberal when the Dems retake the senate and Hillary wins. Trouble is neither is likely to happen.

 

Your preference for the role of your representative should be respected of course, but "doing something" isn't necessarily a better course of action than the status quo. I doubt anyone, especially the Left, would have accepted such logic if Bush, Jr. has acted sans Congressional authority in Iraq (for instance). When neither side can offer a better solution (acceptable to the respective opposition), "doing nothing" represents the existing compromise. In that situation, any resulting executive fiat represents one side overriding the existing compromise, which leads to even more digging in.

 

Unbelievable. Wow, just...wow. Why even have a Senate if they have no real say in matters? Again, making such an obviously confused and incorrect claim just...(decides to bite tongue).

Obama has refused to respect the limitations of his office and his oath of office in many ways, including but not limited to: a) ignored the War Powers Act with his actions in Libya; b) refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court; c) refused to enforce duly enacted laws based on policy objections; and d) made recess appointments while the Senate was not in recess.

While one can reasonably argue that the current Senate position on Garland is wrong policy, this would not equate to the concept of "two wrongs making a right" as normally understood, as those "wrongs" must be objective, generally accepted "wrongs". Here, your claimed "wrong" is highly subjective and not generally accepted as such. (The rest of your claims is just partisan gibberish, so I won't bother with any other retort.)

 

The problem with Garland is that he tends to rule pro-government, not that he is liberal or moderate.

 

I hope she picks Obama as the next SC judge

 

Certain people need t read the constitution as to what the duties and responsibilities of the president and the congress truly are.

Hint: the president nominates for a position, does not (at least in this case) appoint the individual. Outside of his power.

Congress is to determine if an individual is qualified for the position that they are nominated for. Not to just blindly accept them because a president says so. No requirement to pass them through.

This is in spite of what Obama and his democratic denizens say or think.

Knowledge makes you sound more intelligent as opposed to regurgitating what you are told by those who consider themselves your betters.

 

News flash: Hillary is going to get run over by the Trump train, so it doesn't matter.
Her campaign is failing miserably.

 

And a newsflash for you: In the latest polls Trump is defeating Clinton, meaning she would not be president and making your entire post irrelevant.

 

If you are going to continue to insist on this nonsense you post, please cite where in the constitution is the requirement that the senate confirm any candidate that is presented to them. They have the duty to consider a candidate, not to blindly confirm any candidate. Even Obama realizes this or he would have just appointed instead of nominating for the position.

The lack of respect for the rule of law seems to be invested in the democratic leadership and your king.

 

Only problem with that is the 15- 17% who show up on those same polls as supporting another candidate besides Hillary or Trump. If
10% of those are Bernie supporters who switch to Clinton ...?

I don't think polls will be very accurate until Bernie makes some sort of announcement.

 

You appear that those same 10% could switch to Trump. As real of a possibility as the one you propose.

 

A possibility - but not as likely given the demographics of Bernie supporters.

 

The problem sir is that the sides do not agree as to a solution except around the edges in the case of ISIS.

 

Don't worry... Clinton/Trump will probably do that FOR him.

As for who the far Right may appoint 'through' Trump, their shortsightedness and extremism... will very likely affect the way that the majority of future (younger) voters view the GOP in general. Truly, there is more than ONE way the Right manages to hobble itself politically.

Go ahead, place a Right Wing Extremist on the Court; the consequences won't be 'isolated' and affect only the people on the Left.