Supreme Court Poll (1 Viewer)

If given the choice today, what would you like to see happen with the current Supreme Court vacancy?

  • Confirm Merrick Garland; at least you know what you're getting

    Votes: 10 90.9%
  • Let the next President nominate their choice(s)

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Total voters
    11

brockmeaux

I'm Batman
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
9,733
Reaction score
6,925
Age
37
Location
Abbeville, LA
Offline
I've been listening to the Radiolab "More Perfect" podcast for a few weeks, so I'm enthralled with the history of the Supreme Court right now. In all honestly, there are tabs with a Google search for "most important Supreme Court Justices" and "Home-Run Hitters of the Supreme Court" open on my browser right now. In all of that, I've noticed that in the ongoing campaign, Justice Scalia's vacancy has largely been pushed to the back burner.

This is mostly for our conservative-leaning members. Their thoughts are the ones I'm most interested in because they have, or at least are perceived to have, the most to lose or gain by who is named to the Court. That said, all votes and opinions are welcome.

If you were given a choice right now, which would you take and why? And what do you think the stakes are with this latest appointment? What could be the next "big ticket" issue to fall?

On the one hand, by confirming Merrick Garland, the Republicans would be begrudgingly giving Obama one last piece to add to his legacy. On the flip side, though, Garland is moderate. Prior to his nomination, he'd been praised by conservative lawmakers. He's not a Scalia conservative, but he's not a Ginsburg liberal, either. At least with him, you know what you're getting.

On the other hand is the unknown. I'd imagine as a conservative, the best case scenario would be Trump winning the presidency and nominating his own replacement. The worst case scenario, though, HAS to be Clinton winning and then nominating someone younger and more liberal that will serve on the court long after she's left office. Combined with other possible openings during the next president's term(s), that's a risky roll of the dice.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,805
Offline
Too late really. The second the GOP goes to confirm now Obama humiliates them by pulling the ball out as they kick and they do a Charlie Brown. They had a real chance to lock him in this Spring. I think even around June or so they could have done it. Now it's just Damocles' sword hanging over their heads. If they do nothing they get blamed for missing the chance. If they act they show they think they deserve to and will lose in November and still don't get to lock him in and that sword splits them. No way at this point they risk it.
 

V Chip

Truth Addict (aww ^&%$ I got a head rush)
VIP Subscribing Member
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 14, 2001
Messages
12,922
Reaction score
17,127
Age
52
Location
Close enough to ATL to smell the stink of Falcons
Offline
My choice in reality would be confirm Garland. However, now I want them to wait and Hillary nominate someone far FAR more liberal. I want this nomination to be the liberal version of Clarence Thomas (except with a competent jurist) -- replacing a legend from one end of the political spectrum with their almost polar opposite on the political spectrum.
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,805
Offline
If Hillary is elected I expect this and any other nominees to be cautionary tales that will last for a century or more. Do not **** with the process or the price of backfire will be legendary. As young as possible to drive the lesson home.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom