Obama set to announce Merrick Garland as Supreme Court nominee

[jimnyc]

Thoughts?

-----

President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that he has chosen a Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacant seat left by the death of Antonin Scalia.

According to a White House official, that choice will be Merrick Garland, chief justice for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Garland, 63, was a clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and served in the Justice Department in several leadership roles, including Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General.

Garland reportedly edged out two other top candidates considered by the president: Sri Srinivasan, a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; and Paul Watford, a judge in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Obama will formally announce Garland as his nominee live from the White House Rose Garden at 11 a.m. ET.

“It is both my constitutional duty to nominate a justice and one of the most important decisions that I — or any president — will make,” President Obama said in a statement. “I’ve devoted a considerable amount of time and deliberation to this decision. I’ve consulted with legal experts and people across the political spectrum, both inside and outside government. And we’ve reached out to every member of the Senate, who each have a responsibility to do their job and take this nomination just as seriously.”

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-scotus-nominee-announcement-live-134637234.html

[NightTrain]

Weird that he's all about following the Constitution now.

Never heard of this guy before, I'm sure tomorrow there will be tons of stories about him on the interwebs.

[jimnyc]

Weird that he's all about following the Constitution now.

Never heard of this guy before, I'm sure tomorrow there will be tons of stories about him on the interwebs.

I'm sure DU and the likes will be talking about how he's the best in the history of the universe and how much better he will be than Scalia.

[Kathianne]

Weird that he's all about following the Constitution now.

Never heard of this guy before, I'm sure tomorrow there will be tons of stories about him on the interwebs.

Here's what AP is reporting about him:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_SUPREME_COURT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-16-10-05-51

He was unanimously approved by Senate when appointed. He's a consensus builder. He has surprised 'liberals' in a few decisions.

It'll be interesting to see if McConnell does bring this forward.

[fj1200]

Thoughts?

There could be worse.

[jimnyc]

There could be worse.

True dat!

Have you ever heard/seen him prior to this announcement? I know I haven't, but hell, I really don't follow the 'courts' nor judges, unless someone makes major news. All I know thus far is Wiki, and that's he's listed as a moderate.

[fj1200]

Here's what AP is reporting about him:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_SUPREME_COURT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-16-10-05-51

He was unanimously approved by Senate when appointed. He's a consensus builder. He has surprised 'liberals' in a few decisions.

It'll be interesting to see if McConnell does bring this forward.

Wikipedia says 76-23.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00034

There might be a lot of walking back coming though:


But Garland found his moment at time when Democrats are seeking to apply maximum pressure on Republicans. A key part of their strategy is casting Republicans as knee-jerk obstructionists ready to shoot down a nominee that many in their own ranks once considered a consensus candidate. In 2010, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch called Garland "terrific" and said he could be confirmed "virtually unanimously."
The White House planned to highlight Hatch's past support, as well as other glowing comments about Garland from conservative groups.

[Bilgerat]

Weird that he's all about following the Constitution now.

Never heard of this guy before, I'm sure tomorrow there will be tons of stories about him on the interwebs.


I wonder if his pen and phone helped in the decision? :thumb:

[fj1200]

True dat!

Have you ever heard/seen him prior to this announcement? I know I haven't, but hell, I really don't follow the 'courts' nor judges, unless someone makes major news. All I know thus far is Wiki, and that's he's listed as a moderate.

No, but only wonks follow that sort of stuff. I only bothered to read up on one of the other possibles; Sri Srinivasan. I don't think this pick is worth getting all obstructionist over.

[jimnyc]

No, but only wonks follow that sort of stuff. I only bothered to read up on one of the other possibles; Sri Srinivasan. I don't think this pick is worth getting all obstructionist over.

That was my next question, whether you believe they will still stand in the way, or change their tune.

They said no way jose, no matter what before this. I honestly don't know how everyone on the right feels, but I bet a lot would feel 'betrayed' again if they changed their minds again. And nope, before you say something, I'm not speaking necessarily for myself, just wondering out loud.

If "I" had my personal choice, it would be a far right cuckoo, pretty much guaranteeing a right vote in every case imaginable. And that's why I'm no judge, and not fit to even come close to picking one! :thumb:

[fj1200]

That was my next question, whether you believe they will still stand in the way, or change their tune.

They said no way jose, no matter what before this. I honestly don't know how everyone on the right feels, but I bet a lot would feel 'betrayed' again if they changed their minds again. And nope, before you say something, I'm not speaking necessarily for myself, just wondering out loud.

If "I" had my personal choice, it would be a far right cuckoo, pretty much guaranteeing a right vote in every case imaginable. And that's why I'm no judge, and not fit to even come close to picking one! :thumb:

Another example of why "red lines" are dumb.

[Bilgerat]

That was my next question, whether you believe they will still stand in the way, or change their tune.

They said no way jose, no matter what before this. I honestly don't know how everyone on the right feels, but I bet a lot would feel 'betrayed' again if they changed their minds again. And nope, before you say something, I'm not speaking necessarily for myself, just wondering out loud.

If "I" had my personal choice, it would be a far right cuckoo, pretty much guaranteeing a right vote in every case imaginable. And that's why I'm no judge, and not fit to even come close to picking one! :thumb:


This is why they have a credibility issue.

Hold fast, don't look back and KEEP YOUR DAMN WORD!

[fj1200]

This is why they have a credibility issue.

Hold fast, don't look back and KEEP YOUR DAMN WORD!

And if it in some way causes them to lose an election?

[jimnyc]

And if it in some way causes them to lose an election?

What's more important, taking a stance and being true to it, and perhaps doing what your constituents want - or taking a stance because it may get you re-elected and you make more money?

[Bilgerat]

And if it in some way causes them to lose an election?


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/39/97/be/3997bee4a7df27e83f0db0e6ed7ef8d0.jpg

[fj1200]

What's more important, taking a stance and being true to it, and perhaps doing what your constituents want - or taking a stance because it may get you re-elected and you make more money?

Not taking dumb stances in the first place is the most important.



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/39/97/be/3997bee4a7df27e83f0db0e6ed7ef8d0.jpg


Which is why they shouldn't make "red line" statements.

And to both, I was speaking of Republicans overall losing the Senate or losing POTUS. If we lose POTUS it doesn't matter anyway.

[NightTrain]

Another example of why "red lines" are dumb.

I'm pretty sure that was a strategy to tell Bambam not to even bother sending one of his moonbats.

At first glance this guy seems to be fairly middle of the road... but the vetting process is very early.

One of Obama's 3 candidates was a judge from the 9th Circuit - that's the one that Alaska cases end up in, and they rarely get it right.

And by right, I mean what NT thinks. :coffee:

[Kathianne]

Not taking dumb stances in the first place is the most important.



Which is why they shouldn't make "red line" statements.

And to both, I was speaking of Republicans overall losing the Senate or losing POTUS. If we lose POTUS it doesn't matter anyway.



<button type="button" class="user-dropdown dropdown-toggle js-dropdown-toggle js-link js-tooltip btn plain-btn" title="More user actions" aria-haspopup="true" style="color: rgb(102, 117, 127); font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: bold; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-family: inherit; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; cursor: pointer; border: 1px solid transparent; padding: 4px 0px 0px 5px; border-radius: 4px; position: relative; height: 35px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">User Actions</button>
<button class="user-actions-follow-button js-follow-btn follow-button btn" type="button" style="color: rgb(41, 47, 51); font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: bold; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-family: inherit; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; cursor: pointer; border: 1px solid rgb(225, 232, 237); padding: 4px 12px 9px; border-radius: 4px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; background: linear-gradient(rgb(255, 255, 255), rgb(245, 248, 250)) no-repeat rgb(245, 248, 250);"> Follow</button>

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/527996248280686592/bLuU41l3_bigger.jpegMatthew Miller‏@matthewamiller (https://twitter.com/matthewamiller)

Imagine December: a lame-duck GOP Sen rushing to confirm Garland & Dems filibustering so Clinton can choose someone younger, more liberal.

[fj1200]

I'm pretty sure that was a strategy to tell Bambam not to even bother sending one of his moonbats.

At first glance this guy seems to be fairly middle of the road... but the vetting process is very early.

One of Obama's 3 candidates was a judge from the 9th Circuit - that's the one that Alaska cases end up in, and they rarely get it right.

And by right, I mean what NT thinks. :coffee:

If so then the red line was dumb if it causes negative ripple effects down the road such as losing. As I laid out in another thread a while back this pick is of little consequence if we win and will end up being of little consequence if we lose but we have to make sure we win because it's the next two or three picks which will make or break the court.

[fj1200]

<button type="button" class="user-dropdown dropdown-toggle js-dropdown-toggle js-link js-tooltip btn plain-btn" title="More user actions" aria-haspopup="true" style="color: rgb(102, 117, 127); font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: bold; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-family: inherit; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; cursor: pointer; border: 1px solid transparent; padding: 4px 0px 0px 5px; border-radius: 4px; position: relative; height: 35px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">User Actions</button>
<button class="user-actions-follow-button js-follow-btn follow-button btn" type="button" style="color: rgb(41, 47, 51); font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: bold; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 14px; font-family: inherit; margin: 0px; overflow: visible; cursor: pointer; border: 1px solid rgb(225, 232, 237); padding: 4px 12px 9px; border-radius: 4px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; background: linear-gradient(rgb(255, 255, 255), rgb(245, 248, 250)) no-repeat rgb(245, 248, 250);"> Follow</button>

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/527996248280686592/bLuU41l3_bigger.jpegMatthew Miller‏@matthewamiller (https://twitter.com/matthewamiller)

Imagine December: a lame-duck GOP Sen rushing to confirm Garland & Dems filibustering so Clinton can choose someone younger, more liberal.


If Clinton wins it won't matter and I'm sure the pick would be withdrawn in that scenario.

[Little-Acorn]

The Senate has already announced they will not consider any Supreme Court nominee this year, including Merrick Garland.

Sounds like in this case they have saved us from another loony liberal on 2nd amendment cases.

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

The ‘Moderates’ Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

by Carrie Severino
March 11, 2016 8:21 PM

(snip)

Back in 2007, Judge Garland voted to undo a D.C. Circuit court decision striking down one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. The liberal District of Columbia government had passed a ban on individual handgun possession, which even prohibited guns kept in one’s own house for self-defense. A three-judge panel struck down the ban, but Judge Garland wanted to reconsider that ruling.

He voted with Judge David Tatel, one of the most liberal judges on that court. As Dave Kopel observed at the time, the “[t]he Tatel and Garland votes were no surprise, since they had earlier signaled their strong hostility to gun owner rights” in a previous case. Had Garland and Tatel won that vote, there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have had a chance to protect the individual right to bear arms for several more years.

Moreover, in the case mentioned earlier, Garland voted with Tatel to uphold an illegal Clinton-era regulation that created an improvised gun registration requirement. Congress prohibited federal gun registration mandates back in 1968, but as Kopel explained, the Clinton Administration had been “retaining for six months the records of lawful gun buyers from the National Instant Check System.” By storing these records, the federal government was creating an informal gun registry that violated the 1968 law. Worse still, the Clinton program even violated the 1994 law that had created the NICS system in the first place. Congress directly forbade the government from retaining background check records for law abiding citizens.

Garland thought all of these regulations were legal, which tells us two things. First, it tells us that he has a very liberal view of gun rights, since he apparently wanted to undo a key court victory protecting them. Second, it tells us that he’s willing to uphold executive actions that violate the rights of gun owners.

(snip)

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[jimnyc]

I was going to post an article a little while back but it was just lame pundit talk and was just hot air and nothing negative about him at all in reality. They also mentioned the 2nd but were unclear. Anyway, for me, this changes things dramatically. And I sure hope they DO refuse to nominate him. The last thing we need is someone that changes the balance, and then may be willing to fu%$ around with the 2nd or prior cases that supported it.

[NightTrain]

Two huge warning flags for me so far :

- He has served under both Republican and Democratic presidents – including the Carter, H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations. He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit under President Clinton.


- Garland clerked for Justice William J. Brennan Jr., the court’s liberal icon.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/16/who-is-merrick-garland-fast-facts-on-obamas-supreme-court-nominee.html?intcmp=hpbt1

[jimnyc]

Two huge warning flags for me so far :

- He has served under both Republican and Democratic presidents – including the Carter, H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations. He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit under President Clinton.


- Garland clerked for Justice William J. Brennan Jr., the court’s liberal icon.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/16/who-is-merrick-garland-fast-facts-on-obamas-supreme-court-nominee.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Did you read Little Acorn's post, and how he also tried to go against the 2nd in the Heller case, I think it was?

[NightTrain]

Did you read Little Acorn's post, and how he also tried to go against the 2nd in the Heller case, I think it was?

Nope, not yet. Will do that now.

[NightTrain]

Yikes.

No way do we want this guy. Knew there was a reason that Obama, Schumer and Dirty Harry are talking this guy up.

[red state]

Yet, we still have the scratching one's back as with the NRA supporting and achieving the re-election of Harry Reid. Same goes for Trump....I believe he'll scratch anyone's back (including the Chinese) if it supports his pocketbook. As for the vacancy of the USSC, I'll be shocked if the minority (the RHINOS) don't fall in line and allow B.O. a nominee that they are willing to accept. If they don't, I'll be a bit encouraged because these so-called Republicans have been so VERY disappointing on almost EVERY level.

[Kathianne]

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/16/here-we-go-seven-republican-senators-willing-to-meet-with-obamas-scotus-nominee/


Here we go: Seven Republican senators willing to meet with Obama’s SCOTUS nomineePOSTED AT 4:31 PM ON MARCH 16, 2016 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
...

[Black Diamond]

and why is Trump popular again??

[Little-Acorn]

We've had enough of judges and justices who don't think they have to abide by and rule according to what the Constitution says. Also of justices who announce their main duty is to do what Congress wants instead of what the Constitution says (COUGHrobertsCOUGH).

Any nominee who doesn't follow the Constitution to the best of his ability, is unqualified.

Some points of contention need a lot of fine discretion. But for some points, it's blatantly obvious what the Constitution says. Judges who don't at least follow the latter, should never be allowed on the bench.

[Bilgerat]

This is a shell game. The p(R)esident is trying to make the Republicans blink and has chosen a 63 year old to push the issue.

[Kathianne]

and Obama is given 3 pinocchio's:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/16/wapo-three-pinocchios-for-declaring-senates-constitutional-duty-to-vote-on-garland/


WaPo: Three Pinocchios for declaring Senate’s “constitutional duty” to vote on GarlandPOSTED AT 5:41 PM ON MARCH 16, 2016 BY ED MORRISSEY
...

Glenn Kessler must have been amused … or frustrated. Hours before the identity of Obama’s pick was made known, Kessler had expertly dissected and discarded (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/16/does-the-senate-have-a-constitutional-responsibility-to-consider-a-supreme-court-nomination/) the notion of a Senate “duty” to provide a floor vote for a Supreme Court nomination, especially in an election year. In fact, Kessler in his fact check discovered that the precedent runs opposite, and goes back 200 years:




In August 1828, Justice Robert Trimble died just as President John Quincy Adams was battling a tough reelection campaign against Democrat Andrew Jackson. Adams ended up losing to Jackson, but in December nominated Kentucky lawyer John Crittenden to replace Trimble. (Recall that before passage of the 20th Amendment in 1933, the presidential inauguration did not take place until March.)


Supporters of Jackson opposed this lame-duck nomination, leading to a debate of nine days on the floor of the Senate. Supporters of Adams’s maneuver argued that it was a duty of the president to fill vacant slots, even in the waning days of a presidency. They offered an amendment on the floor:




“That the duty of the Senate to confirm or reject the nominations of the President, is as imperative as his duty to nominate; that such has heretofore been the settled practice of the government; and that it is not now expedient or proper to alter it.”




But this amendment was rejected in a voice vote and then the Senate voted 23-17 to adopt an amendment saying “that it is not expedient to act upon the nomination of John I. Crittenden.” … According to the Congressional Research Service (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33247.pdf), “By this action, the early Senate declined to endorse the principle that proper practice required it to consider and proceed to a final vote on every nomination.”


In giving the claim of “constitutional duty” three Pinocchios, Kessler called claims to the contrary a “fairy tale”:



Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. … Democrats who suggest otherwise are simply telling supporters a politically convenient fairy tale.

The political environment might still influence that decision, of course, but it’s unlikely to change so much that Obama will get a hearing for Garland. (Allahpundit disagrees (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/16/prediction-garland-will-be-confirmed-eventually/).) Republicans have made this the sine qua non of Obama opposition, so they have effectively painted themselves into a corner on the issue. A few might give Garland a meeting (http://hotair.com/?p=3897737) in order to protect their individual electoral chances, but the chances of Garland getting a Judiciary hearing or a floor vote are nil.


Even if the nominee was a Scalia-style conservative, they would have difficulty budging — and Garland is far from that kind of jurist. Ed Whelan assessed Garland in 2010 (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/49128/garland-just-not-bad-others-ed-whelan), and revisits it today (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432870/merrick-garland):

...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So the obama chose a half-ass moderate which truly means a liberal-light or liberal in hiding!
Hell with that, they must keep their word and not confirm anybody that stinking maggot chooses!
I have no words nor do any exist in mankind's language to properly express my distaste, anger and hate for that maggot.
In a just world, he'd be tried for his treason and executed --all legally of course, but in the world we have he will never be punished an ounce.
As the Devil protects his own.--Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

I'm pretty sure that was a strategy to tell Bambam not to even bother sending one of his moonbats.

At first glance this guy seems to be fairly middle of the road... but the vetting process is very early.

One of Obama's 3 candidates was a judge from the 9th Circuit - that's the one that Alaska cases end up in, and they rarely get it right.

And by right, I mean what NT thinks. :coffee:

Third person reference? E tu Brute? ;)

I don't like to think this way, but we never know what secret deals are made in these situations. In which case, even the judge's record won't mean much in the end. Justice Roberts comes to mind.

[Kathianne]

Third person reference? E tu Brute? ;)

I don't like to think this way, but we never know what secret deals are made in these situations. In which case, even the judge's record won't mean much in the end. Justice Roberts comes to mind.

Maybe it's my own biases, but seems that a 'significant' number of 'conservative' judges turn out to be less than conservative when appointed. Never the reverse.

[Abbey Marie]

Maybe it's my own biases, but seems that a 'significant' number of 'conservative' judges turn out to be less than conservative when appointed. Never the reverse.

Maybe we're hyper-sensitive to it, but that's how I see it, too.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Maybe it's my own biases, but seems that a 'significant' number of 'conservative' judges turn out to be less than conservative when appointed. Never the reverse.

That is because the dems are primarily leftists/socialists/liberals--all have no honor (treachery being a virtue to them)--thus they infiltrate our Republican party by pretending to be conservative whereas no conservative would pretend to be a democrat/liberal to infiltrate and wreck havoc in their party.
Its about which party is the lowest , vilest and win at any costs (to the nation and we the people)....
And there is no doubt which party is the lowest= Dems!!
Now I truly understand why nations have had civil wars.
Very likely that we may have one--especially if the Hildabeast gets in...--Tyr

[NightTrain]

Little Acorn posted some really good background on this guy... I'll merge the threads.

[NightTrain]

Merged.

This guy is anti-2nd. That in itself makes him horrible in my book and shows he doesn't follow the COTUS but interprets what he thinks it should read.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://nypost.com/2016/03/16/on-supreme-court-republicans-are-playing-by-the-democrats-rules/


It’s “about a principle, and not a person,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said


Wednesday of his refusal to consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

McConnell’s clearly right. And Obama’s party set that principle — the Biden rule.

In 1992, then-Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden warned sitting President George H.W. Bush not to try filling any high-court vacancies.

“Once the political season is underway,” Biden said, “action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee . . . Otherwise . . . we will be in deep trouble as an institution,” stuck in “a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the president.”

He was no doubt feeling guilty about his own role in (successfully) demonizing Judge Robert Bork in 1986, and in the (failed) campaign of personal destruction against then-Judge Clarence Thomas in 1991. Biden might as well have said, We don’t want to smear another good man — so don’t send us one.

Late in the George W. Bush years, Sen. Chuck Schumer said much the same: “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation” lest the lame-duck president shift the court’s balance.

Here’s McConnell on Wed*nesday: “The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court . . . so of course the American people should have a say.”

Obama wants Garland to take Antonin Scalia’s seat — replacing a conservative with a liberal. It exactly mirrors the situation where Biden and Schumer drew their lines; why is he pretending the GOP might go along?

Again, McConnell has it right: “It seems clear President Obama made this nomination not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election.”

That is, to try to paint Republicans as obstructionists for playing by the rules the Democrats set when they ran the Senate.

If Democrats want to change those rules, they’ll have to do it when it doesn’t nakedly serve their own partisan interest.

Its is quite apparent that obama and the dem corrupted machine says, "the nation and its people be damned--all that matters is we hold onto power and push our liberal agenda"!
Folks , once upon a time that would have been called treason!
But now that word has no meaning , unless its a dem government using it (falsely) against one of its opposition.
When a nation has sank, morally, spiritually and intellectually this low- almost a certainty that a great calamity will befall it.
I'd say surely in less than 8 years, possibly in less than 5..
That is if somebody does not get in there fast and start destroying what the certified traitor obama has deliberately done.... --Tyr

[Russ]

This guy has problems, but he's definitely not the guy Obama would have nominated if McConnell hadn't drawn the red line about not considering anyone. If there were no red line, then Obama would have nominated someone like Elizabeth Warren, or Karl Marx Jr., or someone like that.

This guy is Obama's idea of a "reasonable" pick, that he's hoping is moderate enough that it will get some Republicans to actually take a look, and relax the idea of not considering anyone. He's hoping that happens, and then he can swap the guy out with Karl Marx Jr.

Now that the red line has been drawn, it has to be followed through with.

[jimnyc]

This guy has problems, but he's definitely not the guy Obama would have nominated if McConnell hadn't drawn the red line about not considering anyone. If there were no red line, then Obama would have nominated someone like Elizabeth Warren, or Karl Marx Jr., or someone like that.

This guy is Obama's idea of a "reasonable" pick, that he's hoping is moderate enough that it will get some Republicans to actually take a look, and relax the idea of not considering anyone. He's hoping that happens, and then he can swap the guy out with Karl Marx Jr.

Now that the red line has been drawn, it has to be followed through with.

I wouldn't even mind going moderate, and I was actually a 'little' thankful when I saw his choice and read about the guy. But then I read about him and the 2nd amendment. Even if not guaranteed, no way I would ever vote for this guy and take that chance. And sure, there's always that possibility that Hillary gets elected. But even then, I would only see a moderate having a chance, unless the Dems somehow miraculously take congress as well. It's not like Hillary wins and suddenly changes to a far left kook and it happens.