Top News Today –
Merrick Garland Nominated
To Supreme Court
On Wednesday, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Â Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a chance in hell of being confirmed.
Top News Today
Republican senate leaders have long since drawn a line in the sand.  They hate Barack Obama so much, they’ve chosen to neuter the remainder of his presidency and not confirm ANY candidate he selected.  In fact, they vowed not to even meet with any perspective nominee — all before an actual nominee ever existed.
“At a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they’re disposable — this is precisely the time when we should play it straight,” President Obama said during a Rose Garden presentation of the 63-year-old moderate Merrick Garland.
“Because our Supreme Court really is unique. It’s supposed to be above politics. It has to be. And it should stay that way. To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court,” Mr. Obama said, “that would be unprecedented.”
However, all is not lost. President Obama’s selection of Merrick Garland was not made because he foolishly believed the GOP-led senate would magically cave and confirm him.  No!  The nomination was actually a savvy political move that has snared Republicans in a strategic trap.
Mr. Obama will send Garland to Capitol Hill today to meet with senators. When Republicans slam the door on the extremely qualified judge and refuse to even say hello, it will be noted.  Democrats will then create a bevy of political ads showing the American public how Republican senators are outright refusing to do their job.  The entire process will be played out in the court of public opinion over and over again — and the end result should not only benefit the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, but trickle down to congressional races as well.
Top News Today
“At what point does the 4-year term of the President of the United States end?” Mr. Obama and the Democrats will repeatedly ask in ads.  “Is it 3 years and 2 months?  Is it 3 years and 1 month?  Or is a president still THE PRESIDENT for his full 4 year term?” They will also press the issue that if Republicans are so hell-bent on not allowing Mr. Obama to make any decisions during his final 10 months in office, that same restriction should apply to members of congress as well.  So, any senator or congressman up for reelection in November should recuse him or herself from all votes and wait for “the American people to speak” and elect their replacement.
Republicans could have followed through with the entire process, received a nominee and simply voted against him or her in a confirmation hearing.  Instead, they just couldn’t help themselves.  Their strong resentment toward Mr. Obama combined with their Inauguration Day promise to “Just Say No” to everything he presents, is the game plan they’ve been following and are apparently eager to continue.
Interestingly, the president could pull an executive action and appoint Garland to the bench while the senate is on recess.  However, since Republicans have so perfectly backed themselves into a corner on this one, it’s much more effective for Mr. Obama to simply step back and allow the GOP to hang themselves.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is somewhere thinking about all the much younger and much more liberal judges she can appoint on January 21, 2017 — which could actually turn out to be the GOP’s worst nightmare.
President Obama’s selection of Merrick Garland was not made because he foolishly believed the GOP-led senate would magically cave and confirm him. No! The nomination was actually a savvy political move that has snared Republicans in a strategic trap. […]
Hear! Hear!..DJ.
In fact, it was such a politically savvy move that the GOP's supposed "United" front against Pres. Obama on this matter is already beginning to weaken for the reasons noted in DJ's post. Not only is Garland well qualified for the job but by all accounts he's also highly respected by leaders on both parties, as well as by the Justices already on the High court, in particular, Chief Justice Roberts. But I digress.
Here are the names, thus far, of the GOP senators who have said they WILL indeed meet with Garland:
– Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
– Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL)
– Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
– Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
– Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
– Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
– Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
H/T: TalkingPointsMemo
The problems for the Repubs are obvious.
First: If the polls are accurate, nearly 70% of all Americans believe that the Repubs should at least grant Garland a full hearing.
Second: The Repubs have just spent the last 7.5 yrs opposing anything and everything Pres. Obama has proposed. Now..given the extremely hostile mood of their *base* Repubs can't work with the President even if they want to. Hence they're hoisted, if you will, on their own petard. Once again, they come off looking like incompetent, juvenile and nutty-azz obstructionists.
Which brings me to the 3rd (and biggest problem) for the Repubs as articulated in DJ's post:
The entire process will be played out in the court of public opinion over and over again — and the end result should not only benefit the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, but trickle down to congressional races as well. […]
"Black lawmakers irked by Obama's Supreme Court choice"
Some African-American lawmakers are urging their Congressional Black Caucus colleagues to skip a meeting with Valerie Jarrett because of discontent with President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
The members are irked by Obama's selection of a moderate judge instead of a progressive who could rally the base, according to three lawmakers and senior aides familiar with the meeting. They also don't think that their input was adequately sought by the administration before Merrick Garland was nominated.
A source said members are asking themselves, "What is the point" of attending the meeting, now that Garland has been nominated.
And some of the lawmakers questioned why Garland, who is white, was selected over a minority in an effort to make the court more diverse.
Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama, was on the Hill Thursday to meet with the CBC about Garland's nomination and other topics, according to a source.
Progressives have expressed tepid support for Garland. National progressive groups said they wished the selection was more liberal, but they still planned to back Obama in his fight with congressional Republicans. […]
H/T: Poltico
Pres. Obama is not an ideologue. And to the degree he actually subscribes to any political philosophy at all – he's a Moderate; a Centrist. And this supreme court pick certainly reflects that.