Something I almost wish would happen

[Joe Fan]

If he nominates Jane Kelly, like it is widely being reported today, will you admit that you were 100% wrong about this? Or just move on to the next attack?

You think I am 100% wrong that Obama cares about his legacy and place in history?
Bless your heart.
I am willing to admit that I had been working under the assumption we were at least living on the same planet. Not so sure anymore.

 

[Joe Fan]

Jane Kelly is apparently a personal friend of Obama's? She graduated with him. Which raises issues all on its own. She was appointed by him.

She was a federal PD. And appears to have gone straight from the PD Office to the Circuit Court, which is somewhat unusual (even smacks of desperation). I used to have to sit in court and wait on the federal PDs to make their pleas (crim always has priority over civil). Never saw a single one who would fall under the category of "moderate." Never. Not once.

Since she is so new, she has little appellate record (and, of course, zero record as a trail court judge). Which I guess is part of the game here (and which raises the question of why you think she is moderate?). But since Obama knows her personally, he already knows where she sits on his key issues. That would be a big jump, PD Office, roughly two years as an appellate judge, straight to the SCOTUS.

Anyway, as stated, no one from a PD Office is a "moderate." In fact, you could probably say that about any friend of Obama. I think she has zero chance.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Jane Kelly is apparently a personal friend of Obama's? She graduated with him. Which raises issues all on its own. She was appointed by him.

She was a federal PD. And appears to have gone straight from the PD Office to the Circuit Court, which is somewhat unusual (even smacks of desperation). I used to have to sit in court and wait on the federal PDs to make their pleas (crim always has priority over civil). Never saw a single one who would fall under the category of "moderate." Never. Not once.

Since she is so new, she has little appellate record (and, of course, zero record as a trail court judge). Which I guess is part of the game here (and which raises the question of why you think she is moderate?). But since Obama knows her personally, he already knows where she sits on his key issues. That would be a big jump, PD Office, roughly two years as an appellate judge, straight to the SCOTUS.

Anyway, as stated, no one from a PD Office is a "moderate." In fact, you could probably say that about any friend of Obama. I think she has zero chance.

Is it a surprise that any nominee will be painted as liberal? It could be Scalia himself as nominee and he would be cast as a socialist liberal.

I know nothing of Jane Kelly but do know that the name doesn't matter but merely that a D POTUS nominated them. Partisanship at its very worst.

 

[Joe Fan]

Is it a surprise that any nominee will be painted as liberal? It could be Scalia himself as nominee and he would be cast as a socialist liberal.

No, Scalia would never be cast in that light. And I already gave you two names above of modern Scalia's if you are looking for one.

I know nothing of Jane Kelly but do know that the name doesn't matter but merely that a D POTUS nominated them. Partisanship at its very worst.

As i said above, Obama is playing a game (or thinking about it at least) of nominating for top judge a judge with no written record trail. It's a little cynical but whatever.

It has happened before but most come from the federal Circuit Courts (with good reason). The exceptions are historical -- Hugo Black was great on the Court but was never a judge. Brandeis was a bright judge who never served as a judge. In modern times, the Dems made a mistake along these lines with Whizzer White. But they learned their lesson (to their credit) have not made this type of mistake since (unlike the Rs).

Lastly, I gave you what I know above. PD Offices are only manned by liberals. And not part-timers. To take that job, you must be committed -- a real kool-aid drinker. If the bio i read is correct, she even started that PD office, which means she is not just a registered Democrat but also an activist. Does "liberal legal activist from Harvard Law" ring a bell? It should. Nominating someone like that to replace Scalia is insulting.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I know nothing of Jane Kelly but do know that the name doesn't matter but merely that a D POTUS nominated them. Partisanship at its very worst.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in this statement?

 

[nashhorn]

Uh, I have to take issue JF.......my daughter is very committed as a PD and yet is NOT a liberal. I would move her to moderate conservative actually. I will admit the entire family was shocked when she went that route (PD) but she still maintains basic conservative political values, just feels everyone deserves a chance....not just the privileged, and yes, I do see the potential irony.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Accordingly, Obama cares so much about his legacy and where his name will go down in history that he would never risk nominating a "moderate" Justice. . . . It is a principle of modern politics that Dems only nominate committed ideologues for the Court.

As i said above, Obama is playing a game (or thinking about it at least) of nominating for top judge a judge with no written record trail. It's a little cynical but whatever.

If the rumors of an eminent Merrick Garland nomination are true, Joe Fan will be 0-for-2 on the above predictions. Garland is a known quantity with a rich paper trail, and is quite firmly a centrist on most issues. He is far from a "committed ideologue" as one can be.

Count me as a huge supporter of this nomination. Certainly better than my OP suggestion of Justice Obama.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If the rumors of an eminent Merrick Garland nomination are true, Joe Fan will be 0-for-2 on the above predictions. Garland is a known quantity with a rich paper trail, and is quite firmly a centrist on most issues. He is far from a "committed ideologue" as one can be.

Count me as a huge supporter of this nomination. Certainly better than my OP suggestion of Justice Obama.

The White House has confirmed. If Garland doesn't get a hearing he'll be the only nominee to ever not get a hearing.

 

[Joe Fan]

Uh, I have to take issue JF.......my daughter is very committed as a PD and yet is NOT a liberal.......

Good for her, it's not an easy job -- she sees human tragedy on a daily basis. One of the worst examples I saw, way too many times, where the family and friends who were on the hook for forfeited bail. These were people who used their assets, usually their homes, as collateral to make bail for someone (usually a family member who then skipped out on it - and you will hate this too but it's the truth, usually escaping across the border). These folks were not the actual defendants or even involved in the underlying cases at all. But they were losing everything. It was hard to watch.

Nonetheless, I still take issue with your remark. Look, I am speaking from personal experience, not repeating what someone else said or relying on something I read somewhere. I literally sat through countless appearances by federal PDs in District Court. All (as in 100%) were committed.
Maybe it's different in a state or county system? I never sat through those.

In any event, none of this matters anyway as it seems that the original poster misled us. Obama did not even go with the judge we were told. (lesson learned, dont listen to that guy again). Obama is instead going with a white heterosexual male. Seems like more of the ever increasing BHO cynicism ..... but whatever. I would be OK if he just wasted the rest of the term golfing in Hawaii

 

[nashhorn]

I would be OK if he just wasted the rest of the term golfing in Hawaii

Amen

 

[NJlonghorn]

In any event, none of this matters anyway as it seems that the original poster misled us.

The OP (me, btw) speculated on this ironic scenario:

(1) Obama nominates a moderate to SCOTUS. Has now happened.
(2) Senate refuses to hold hearings. Seems likely.
(3) Clinton wins the presidency, and Probably a coin flip at this point.
(4) nominates Obama to SCOTUS. Seems unlikely, but who knows.​

How were you "misled"?

Obama did not even go with the judge we were told. (lesson learned, dont listen to that guy again).

The only thing Obama said, or anyone said on his behalf, was that Merrick Garland is his nominee. He vetted other people and word got out about that, but he never hinted at any person actually getting the nomination. There are plenty of things to dislike or distrust Obama about. This isn't one of them.

Obama is instead going with a white heterosexual male. Seems like more of the ever increasing BHO cynicism

Further evidence that the fringe right (that's you, Joe Fan) will criticize Obama no matter what he says or does.

 

[chango]

Obama is instead going with a white heterosexual male. Seems like more of the ever increasing BHO cynicism ..... but whatever. I would be OK if he just wasted the rest of the term golfing in Hawaii

Further evidence that the fringe right (that's you, Joe Fan) will criticize Obama no matter what he says or does.

NJ, you gotta read between the lines. This (and the deafening silence from the rest) is West Mall for "we got nothin' "

 

[nashhorn]

Hillary wins, no indictment and appoints Obama SCOTUS. The Dems are just better at it than the GOP, hands down. With Trump as candidate and/or dis functional GOP, Dems may win back both houses.

 

[Mr. Deez]

According to this NYT analyst, his confirmation would give us the most liberal Court in 50 years and puts him n sightly to the Left of Elena Kagan. (Of course the Times hails that as a good thing, but that's beside the point.) I'm struggling to see how that would make Garland a moderate. He seems like a moderate the way Harry Blackmun was a moderate next to William Brennan.

Trump is ruining the 2016 election, and they can't drag this out past the election, so I see little point in fighting him too hard at this point. However, if you're a conservative, this is not good news. You're going to end up with a staunch liberal by any measure that a conservative would care about.

 

[Joe Fan]

According to this NYT analyst, his confirmation would give us the most liberal Court in 50 years and puts him n sightly to the Left of Elena Kagan......

I dont think the guy who keeps calling these judges "moderates" has any idea what he is talking about. Better for you not to engage at all.

What people tell me is that judges were telling the OEOB phone callers to not even bother. In other words, it never even got to the point of them thanking Obama before they turned him down. No one wanted to fall on their swords for him. Apparently, it was a long list. Maybe some day, one of these good folks will write a tell-all - only then will we will learn just how many people he had to go through first.

 

[UTChE96]

Slightly to the left of Kagan, yikes. If Trump is the Republican candidate then President Clinton will nominate a liberal anyways so no reason not to roll the dice with the election. Obama made this one pretty easy. He would have been more wise to nominate a moderate. If that were the case then it may have been the best play to confirm him instead of letting Hillary pick a candidate.

 

[Crockett]

The Times explained how it arrived at its rating left to right. "Judge Garland’s score is based on the score of his appointing president, Bill Clinton. This methodology is considered to be a “reasonably good predictor of voting on the Supreme Court,” says Prof. Lee Epstein of Washington University.

Certainly, it would be hard, even for Republicans, to come up with a justice more conservative than Scalia.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Slightly to the left of Kagan, yikes. If Trump is the Republican candidate then President Clinton will nominate a liberal anyways so no reason not to roll the dice with the election. Obama made this one pretty easy. He would have been more wise to nominate a moderate. If that were the case then it may have been the best play to confirm him instead of letting Hillary pick a candidate.

The narrative is going to be that he's a moderate and a compromise pick. Obama will claim that, and the media will mostly run with that. Furthermore, there will be some evidence of moderation. For example, I've heard that he tends to be more prosecution friendly than your average liberal judge. He might also be a bit more business friendly. However, the real fights in the Court are on social issues. That's where the big differences lie. How many times has he voted to uphold an abortion restriction of any kind? Has he ever struck down an affirmative action program if any kind? Has he ever sided with a litigant making a religious claim that wasn't a minority religion? (Yes, it matters even if it shouldn't.)

 

[Phil Elliott]

Mr. Deez's questions are probably closer to what we need to know than anything that will actually be asked of him.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I don't get the "he's a moderate" whining. This has nothing to do with Garland.

The election is around the corner. This sort of holding off on big strategic decisions or adjustments to reporting for fiscal year-ends happen all the time in the business world...the world where the vast majority of people live.

Why permantly hire the interim HC at the end of the season before the new AD or President takes over?

 

[NJlonghorn]

puts him n sightly to the Left of Elena Kagan

Interesting. This is the only source I've seen saying he isn't moderate. If he truly is near Kagan on the liberal-ness scale, that's pretty far from "moderate". I'll keep my eyes out for a more detailed analysis.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Interesting. This is the only source I've seen saying he isn't moderate. If he truly is near Kagan on the liberal-ness scale, that's pretty far from "moderate". I'll keep my eyes out for a more detailed analysis.

For a Democratic appointee, Kagan is a moderate.

 

[chango]

What people tell me is that judges were telling the OEOB phone callers to not even bother

There isn't a big enough eye rolling emoticon in the world for this one....

 

[Joe Fan]

Garland is --
Pro abortion (he is an abortion activist along the lines of Kagan/Sotomayor)
Anti 2nd Amendment (would likely vote to reverse Heller)
Pro Big Government (is not bothered by Exec branch encroaching on Legis Branch)
Pro Big Labor

And, in any event, it makes no difference as whoever Obama nominates will not make it out of committee. The Rs are invoking "the Biden Rule"

Here is Senator Biden in 1992 (its only ~2minutes)

 

[Crockett]

Look. Biden is not a Czar. If we made a rule out of every utterance out of his mouth, the whole country would be as wacky as Texas A&M.

 

[Joe Fan]

Look. Biden is not a Czar. ....

Do you think he knows that?

 

[Joe Fan]

there is something 'not right' with this guy generally

 

[NJlonghorn]

Garland is --
Pro abortion (he is an abortion activist along the lines of Kagan/Sotomayor)
Anti 2nd Amendment (would likely vote to reverse Heller)
Pro Big Government (is not bothered by Exec branch encroaching on Legis Branch)
Pro Big Labor

And, in any event, it makes no difference as whoever Obama nominates will not make it out of committee. The Rs are invoking "the Biden Rule"

Here is Senator Biden in 1992 (its only ~2minutes)

I can't play the video here, so I don't know which portion of that speech you've chosen. If you didn't chose the following excerpt, you should have:

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," Biden also said at the time. "If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter. But if he does not, as is the President's right, then I will oppose his future nominees as is my right."

Translating "Biden c.92" to the current situation, the Republicans would be justified in rejecting liberal candidates, but compromise candidates should be confirmed.

 

[Joe Fan]

Garland nomination is a 'slap in the face'
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-16-17-20-00

 

[NJlonghorn]

Garland is --
Pro abortion (he is an abortion activist along the lines of Kagan/Sotomayor)

Source? From what I've heard so far, Garland is not on record as having ever said anything about abortion. We can guess that he must be pro-choice to some degree if Obama chose him, but to call him an abortion activist is crazy unless you know something I (and the media) don't.

Garland is --
Anti 2nd Amendment (would likely vote to reverse Heller)

This is more supportable that your abortion claim. The Heller case came up through the DC Circuit, with a panel of that court voting to strike down the DC gun ban. Garland voted to have the entire court rehear the case. This doesn't necessarily show how he would have voted but it is a solid hint that he would have voted to change something about the court's ruling. This could mean reinstating the ban, or some part of it, or sending the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or throwing the case out on procedural grounds or some other technicality. Rehearing was denied, so we don't actually know how he would have voted. This isn't enough to say that Garland is "anti 2nd Amendment", but I see why someone who cares deeply about this issue would be worried.

Garland is --
Pro Big Government (is not bothered by Exec branch encroaching on Legis Branch)
Pro Big Labor

This is way off base. Garland's record in business and regulatory matters is deep because the DC Circuit's docket is full of this type of case. Before he became a judge, he wrote a couple of articles condemning judicial activism and supporting deference to executive authority. His judicial record is consistent with this philosophy. In other words, Garland pretty much supports whatever the president does. When Bush was president, Garland deferred to Bush's conservative actions. With Obama as president, Garland has deferred to Obama's liberal actions.

This doesn't mean Garland is politically conservative or liberal. It means he is willing and able to put his politics aside in support of a neutral judicial philosophy. Conservatives would normally praise Garland for this aspect of his judicial record.