Pres. Obama Won't Withdraw His SCOTUS Nominee For A President-Elect Sanders

[bigtree]

...or a President-Elect Clinton.

Tommy Christopher ?@tommyxtopher 22h22 hours ago
WH Chief of Staff: Obama Will Not Withdraw Garland Nomination Even if Hillary Wins http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3yyt4d_wh-chief-of-staff-obama-will-not-withdraw-garland-nomination-even-if-hillary-wons_news …

ABC News @ABC
Sanders says he would ask Pres. Obama to withdraw SCOTUS nomination if elected president. http://abcn.ws/1PhrQNZ

[onenote]

1. Nor should he.

Doing so would just validate the repub position that as a "lame duck" President, Obama shouldn't have nominated anyone.

[MBS]

20. Exactly.

Bernie is off-base here.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Wow, shitty goverment for twenty four years, same years Bernie has

Been in Congress.

[NWCorona]

17. A lot longer than twenty four years

[Thinkingabout]

23. Yes, it must not have improved.

[NWCorona]

24. By many indicators

It hasn't. Some very much so

[sufrommich]

3. Did someone suggest he should?

If so,I must have missed it.

[JaneyVee]

4. Yes, Bernie said he would ask Obama to withdraw nominee.

[sufrommich]

8. I should have known.

[RANGERMAN89]

35. And he should

Garland supports unlimited money in politics why would any democrat want him on the supreme court.....oh wait I forgot unlimited corporate control helps the Queen and the rest of the DLC

[bigtree]

5. sorry

...should have included that in the op.

ABC News @ABC
Sanders says he would ask Pres. Obama to withdraw SCOTUS nomination if elected president. http://abcn.ws/1PhrQNZ

[Renew Deal]

6. Why does Bernie hate Obama so much?

One insult after another of a popular Democratic president.

[NWCorona]

19. Policy differences aren't insults

Hillary disobeying direct order's from Obama, that's an insult.

[RANGERMAN89]

34. Really? An insult?

Garland is a useless centrist who supports unlimited money in politics look up "speech now" why would bernie want him on the court? I certainly don't.

[Lucky Luciano]

7. I support Bernie, but disagree with him here. nt

[Human101948]

10. Except that the nominee is far from liberal...

and we need a staunch liberal who can sit on that court for the next three decades to make up for all the harm that Scalia and this bunch of right wing jerks had done.

Bush v. Gore for instance? Based on no precedent, setting no precedent, one time only, just for Bush decision.

[Lucky Luciano]

12. It's obama's call. This sort of thing lends credibility to the cuckoo bananas in congress. nt

[Human101948]

13. It doesn't make one bit of difference what Bernie says...

And perhaps he is actually helping the nominee. Can you imagine who Bernie would appoint?

They would lose their minds.

[dsc]

9. He should

The GOP should be offered this as a deal. Vote him in before the start of the new Court term (Oct) or he gets withdrawn and Clinton or Sanders get to name the replacement. The GOP won the Senate and by virtue of that get some say (that is why this nominee is a 61 year old moderate and not a 45 year old liberal) but if they refuse to use that say when they have it legitimately, they shouldn't get that say as a lame duck. Sanders is right on this and if Obama won't withdraw that nominee then the Dems in the Senate should filibuster it.

[Empowerer]

16. The nomination will be automatically go away if it's not acted on by the end of the session

Much of this talk about the President withdrawing the nomination so that Hillary or Bernie can pick their own person fails to take into account how the process actually works.

The nomination remains active only through the end of the Senate session. The 114th Congress is scheduled to end on January 3, 2017. Any nomination that has not been confirmed by the Senate by that date will lapse, the slate will be wiped clean and the new president will nominate a person to fill the vacancy.

The process allows for the following scenarios:

1. The Senate votes to confirm Garland before January 3, 2017. Result: Garland becomes the newest Supreme Court Justice.

2. The Senate votes down Garland's confirmation before January 3, 2017. Result: President Clinton or President Sanders nominates a justice after January 20, 2017.

3. The Senate announces it will hold a vote prior to January 3, 2017 and President Obama withdraws the nomination prevent confirmation of his own nominee in order to allow the next president to select someone else. Result: President Clinton or President Sanders nominates a justice after January 20, 2017.

4. The Senate doesn't hold a vote before it adjourns on January 3, 2017 and the nomination is vacated. Result: President Clinton or President Sanders nominates a justice after January 20, 2017.

Scenario #3 is the only instance in which President Obama withdraws the nomination. But the president says he will not do this, so this is not a likely occurrence. And if the Senate leadership announces it will hold a vote, the Senate Democrats are not going to filibuster President Obama's nominee over his objection in order to allow his successor to select their own person. If Sanders thinks that this is going to happen, he's delusional.

Anyone with an understanding of how Senate confirmations work knows that a President-elect asking the sitting President to withdraw a nomination is a ridiculous proposition. Sanders should certainly know better than to make such a foolish comment, much less expect his fantasy to play out.

[onenote]

22. Exactly right. Thanks. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. He shouldn't feel obligated to.

I support Bernie but I don't agree with him on this. A president has the power under the constitution to appoint the Supreme Court justices he/she wants. Sanders can ask, but Obama is entirely within his rights to refuse.

[thesquanderer]

29. re: "Sanders can ask, but Obama is entirely within his rights to refuse."

Exactly right, and I'm quite sure Bernie would agree with you.

[PeteSelman]

14. Why would he?

The President is a self-described "80's Republican", of course he's going to want to continue the Reaganism that is the core of this party now. This pick assures it will.

[MineralMan]

15. Why would he withdraw the nominee for anyone?

It's his responsibility to nominate replacements for SCOTUS justices. He is the President, after all. I remember voting for him twice. The Senate should take up this nomination forthwith.

[Thinkingabout]

25. Right now Obama has them over a barrel,

He nominated one who had great approval before, the GOP primary is in disarray, congressional members does not want Trump to make the nomination so I am thinking Garret just might be confirmed. There is a great possibility Hillary will be elected and they can't hold out for nearly five years. Also, some senators running for reelection are going to feel the heat and move.

[MineralMan]

26. Yes, exactly.

[krawhitham]

33. Because he only picked Garland to give the GOP fits

[imagine2015]

18. Obama would rather have a conservative back by Republicans on the court.

Sanders would appoint a liberal and end conservative control of the court.

"Moderate" appears to be the new code word for conservative.

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

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said if elected president in November he would ask President Obama to withdraw his Supreme Court justice nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.

“I think I’m 100 percent prepared to support Judge Garland. I think he’s clearly very knowledgeable and can serve ably on the Supreme Court,” the Vermont senator told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow Thursday night. “But between you and me, I think there are some more progressive judges out there.”

Sanders went on to say he has a test for Supreme Court justice nominations -- a test in line with one of his main campaign messages.

“That justice must be loud and clear in telling us that he or she will vote to overturn this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision. I am very worried about the future of American democracy and about the ability of billionaires to buy elections,” Sanders said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-obama-withdraw-scotus-nomination-elected-president/story?id=37748303

[Bluenorthwest]

21. A too conservative nominee, but the Senate should have already confirmed him by then, no matter what

anyone else thinks. This is March, it should be done before the primaries are complete.

[Jim Lane]

27. I agree with Bernie. It's a way of pressuring McConnell.

If Scalia had died back when there was a Democratic majority in the Senate, I'm sure Obama would have named someone younger and more liberal. The Garland nomination was an implicit offer of compromise with the GOP.

But if you turn down a compromise and roll the dice, you don't get to go back to the compromise if the crapshoot goes against you. Suppose Obama were to say that if Garland isn't confirmed by the start of the Supreme Court term in October, he'll withdraw the nomination. Then McConnell has the choice: Confirm Garland by then, or be faced with a newly elected Democratic President (quite possibly with a Democratic-majority Senate ready to repeal the filibuster rule) and a younger and more liberal nominee, who gets the seat.

Appealing to McConnell to "Do your job" or reading him the Constitution will have zero effect. Nothing will move him except threats: Your obstructionism may make you Minority Leader, and you'll end up with a Justice you like even less.

[Empowerer]

30. Bernie's comment doesn't put one iota of pressure on McConnell

Your argument is inconsistent with the way Senate confirmations actually work. See my post #16

[Jim Lane]

36. I saw your post #16 and I didn't agree with it.

Your Scenario #4 was:

4. The Senate doesn't hold a vote before it adjourns on January 3, 2017 and the nomination is vacated. Result: President Clinton or President Sanders nominates a justice after January 20, 2017.

I'm looking at Scenario #5, which you omitted:

5. The Senate doesn't hold a vote or even a hearing. When the Supreme Court concludes its term in June, still at eight members, an exasperated Obama announces that he'll withdraw the nomination if it hasn't been voted on by October.

That's what pressures McConnell. He gets to choose among three continuations:
5A. The Senate votes on Garland and confirms him.
5B. The Senate votes on Garland and rejects him, opening the Republicans up to charges of partisanship because he has none of the problems (marijuana use, dimwittedness, extremist ideology) that have derailed previous Supreme Court nominees. On top of that, President Clinton or President Sanders nominates someone younger and more liberal.
5C. The Senate continues to do nothing, opening the Republicans up to charges of obstructionism. On top of that, Obama withdraws the nomination, and President Clinton or President Sanders nominates someone younger and more liberal.

Faced with those options, McConnell might decide that Scenario #5A is the least bad. (He'd be hoping for Scenario #5D, in which a Republican wins the White House and makes the appointment, but he has to ask himself how likely that is. That's where the roll of the dice comes in. He can take Garland for sure now, or he can take either a better or worse nominee later, depending on the election outcome.)

I know that Obama has said he won't withdraw the nomination. He also said he wouldn't sign the ACA without a robust public option. I could mention similar examples by every President in my lifetime. In political maneuvering, as in any negotiation, it sometimes makes sense to stake out a position for tactical purposes, while knowing that you might later choose to back off it.

[Empowerer]

39. I listed realistic scenarios, not fantasies. There are countless other scenarios the President COULD

do, but are not the least bit likely.

In the real world, there is no reason for the President to withdraw this nomination or to even threaten to do it since the Senators already know full well that, if they don't confirm Garland by January 3, the nomination goes away anyway and the new President would be free to nominate someone of their own choosing. If a new Justice has not been confirmed by January 3, regardless whether it's because President Obama withdraws the nomination or the Senate has failed to act on it , the new President will have a vacant seat to fill.

Moreover, President Obama threatening to withdraw the nomination if it's not voted on by October has absolutely nothing to do with anything Sanders is threatening to do. His claim that he will ask the President to withdraw the nomination if he's elected in November so that he can appoint someone is totally unrelated to and would have absolutely no impact on the scenario you are proposing.

The talk about "withdrawing" the nomination only sounds viable if you don't know that the nomination lapses on its own if not acted upon by the end of the 114th Congress.

[Jim Lane]

43. I'm talking about a possible confirmation in a lame-duck session.

If the nomination is still live as of Election Day, then both Obama and McConnell have choices to make. Obama might withdraw the nomination to allow the new President to appoint someone better. McConnell, fearing that possibility, might confirm Garland in a lame-duck session. Obama, fearing that possibility, might withdraw the nomination before the election.

We don't want a situation where McConnell doesn't have to roll the dice. If you accept my view that the Garland nomination was something of a compromise by Obama, then McConnell's ideal would be to wait and see how the election turns out, keeping the compromise in his pocket. If the Republican wins, McConnell continues to obstruct Garland. If Clinton or Sanders wins, McConnell then accepts the compromise with a post-election confirmation. That would be bad tactics on the part of the Democrats.

[UglyGreed]

28. Merrick Garland Was Accused of Protecting a Judge Charged With Ethics Violations

The judge had suggested that blacks and Hispanics were "predisposed to crime.

President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, DC Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Merrick Garland, is widely respected by members of both parties. His judicial background is largely devoid of controversy over hot-button issues such as abortion or gay marriage. But two years ago, he angered civil rights groups, death penalty lawyers, and other legal observers, who accused him and his colleagues on the DC Circuit of protecting a fellow judge accused of serious ethical lapses.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/time-merrick-garland-was-accused-protecting-fellow-judge-charged-ethics-violations

Right center, right center and BOOM we are a far right nation.............

[krawhitham]

31. He should withdraw Garland if Hillary or Bernie is elected president

Garland was picked to cause the GOP they most trouble, cost them the senate and maybe the House.

If Bernie or Hillary is elected president Garland should be pulled and a YOUNGER more liberal candidate should be nominated

[Empowerer]

40. He won't need to . . .

If the Senate doesn't act on the nomination before it goes out of session on January 3 (and likely earlier because of the holiday recess), the nomination lapses and the new President can nominate whomever they wish.

[mia]

32. For Sanders, Citizens United is the litmus test. I agree with him.

“I think I’m 100 percent prepared to support Judge Garland. I think he’s clearly very knowledgeable and can serve ably on the Supreme Court,” the Vermont senator told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow Thursday night. “But between you and me, I think there are some more progressive judges out there.”

Sanders went on to say he has a test for Supreme Court justice nominations -- a test in line with one of his main campaign messages.

“That justice must be loud and clear in telling us that he or she will vote to overturn this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision. I am very worried about the future of American democracy and about the ability of billionaires to buy elections,” Sanders said.

The senator's opposition to the Citizens United decision has been a hallmark of his campaign. “That is my litmus test and that’s what I would insist on,” he argued.

[Empowerer]

42. No sitting judge is going to agree to overturn precedent in order to get a lifetime appointment n/t

[bigtree]

37. »

[Motown_Johnny]

38. Of course they say that now. To say that he might is to signal weakness.

Lets just go through the process and see where we are November 9th.

These crazy hypothetical situations don't deserve a real answer right now, that is why they don't get one.

[DefenseLawyer]

41. Those on the left are used to how the game is played.

Republicans ram through far right ideologues to the Supreme Court, while Democrats compromise with "less far right" conservatives for the Supreme Court. And so, real power is never in much danger.