Obama nominates a balanced moderate that historically puts the law before politics. If the GOP plays hard ball here and waits for the next president they are making a big mistake. If Hilary wins, you end up with a much farther left justice. If Trump somehow wins, you end up with a moderate anyway. Trump isn't exactly conservative ya know. This is the best case for the GOP and conservatives IMO.
I don't necessarily think the need to approve him, but I think they do need to do their jobs and go through the confirmation process and give him as fair a chance as they would if it was a republican president giving the nomination. None of us regular folk really have any idea if we would want him or not at this point. I also wouldn't at this point count on him being a moderate just because that is what the press is saying.
There has never been a president that appointed a Supreme court justice in his last year of his term, I don't care who the candidate is the current president should check his first black president attitude and follow tradition.
No president has ever nominated a supreme court justice in the last year of his term, ever why start now?
They should give him a fair nomination hearing and vote. That's their job. With that said, I'm betting he's not so moderate when it comes to 2nd amendment. There is a reason Obama nominated him, and Garland's record isn't great on 2A. With this being Obama's largest frustration self admittedly, you can bet that they will go after 2A hard if he gets in there. If he can't make the laws via congress then he can have the laws that are there interpreted the way he sees fit.
Reagan was about a month and a half from being in his last year when he nominated Kennedy. And he was confirmed during Reagans last year There is no tradition in NOT nominating justice. Democrats could also do a lot of damage is we wait, Liberal lower court rulings would basically become law with split decisions.
This is my fear with him, plus he has now been nominated to position by 2 of the most Anti-gun presidents “Fidelity to the constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life and it is the hallmark of the kind of judge I have tried to be for the past 18 years,” Garland said Tuesday in the Rose Garden. “If the Senate sees fit to confirm me to the position for which I have been nominated today, I promise to continue on that course. Mr. president, it’s a great privilege to be nominated by a fellow Chicagoan.” In the D.C. vs. Heller gun case, which eventually made it to the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit struck down most of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban. However, Garland joined Judge David Tatel in voting to have the full court reconsider the decision. Garland and Tatel were on the losing side when the Supreme Court recognized the individual right to bear arms in the Heller case and struck down the district’s ban. “There is no freedom more fundamental than the right to defend one’s life and family,” said Erich Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America. “The Heller and McDonald decisions are hanging by a thread, as both were decided by 5-4 majorities. If Garland were confirmed, we can expect to see more gun registration, more gun bans, more limitations on ammunition, and all of it would be approved by the Supreme Court.” In a National Review piece, Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, also wrote about Garland voting to uphold an executive action by President Clinton to establish what some considered a de facto gun registration requirement.
That is all fine and dandy. But Hillary Clinton isn't going to nominate a pro gun justice either. This isn't preferred but that is what you get with a trump ticket. You get Hilary Clinton. I don't like it but its reality.
Best plan would be to go through the confirmation process, and end up NOT confirming him. By that time, we will be in July or maybe even August. Obama can try another nominee but the window will be much more closed. and they won't be able to claim obstruction.
This whole election is a toss up, it's all on the line anyway. Clinton appointee either way IMO, Bill already nominated him to the appellate court in DC.
I totally disagree. I think enough people are sick of these lifelong politicians that he has a real chance. he has a better chance than any one else he is going against.
Previous confirmations of Justices in last year of Presidency. Regan 1987 - Ford 1975 - Nixon (2) 1971. I would hold hearings and then reject him. Unfortunately for those of us that believe in the Constitution, neither Donald nor Hillary will make us happy and there could be 3 more seats to fill during this term.
While I agree there is a big group of people that are sick of lifelong politicians but those type of people generally are the same people you and I normally talk to and associate with. Trump has very little chance of actually getting elected with 270 elector votes.
Here is a good map of what Trump is up against. It isn't pretty if you are a trump fan. 2016 Election: Clinton vs. Trump
And despite the moveon protesters and endorsement of Bernie, I think a lot of these record numbers disappear when Bernie concedes, just like they go on the Republican side if Trump loses. Trump supporters won't go to Hillary, but anti Hillary Bernie supporters may go to Trump.
No way in hell would I approve Garland. If it were me, I would just wait until the next president. Garland will be a disaster so Trump is the only chance I believe. If they approve him now, he is not a moderate on the 2nd and it will all be lost, no going back. If Hillary wins were effed anyway. I have no idea what Trump will do but I'm supporting him now, I have to believe he's either worth supporting in full or not at all so I'll hope he wins and leads as the man he's portrayed himself to be. Cruz has no chance at all of beating Hitlery.
