Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Polybius

(15,373 posts)
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:38 PM Oct 2019

If Hillary Clinton had won and took office, do you think she would have renominated Merrick Garland?

Or do you think she would have nominated her own pick to the Supreme Court? Also, since the Senate Republicans retained their majority, do you think Mitch would have help up the vote for four years? That might have been a lot to do, there would be huge backlash.

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If Hillary Clinton had won and took office, do you think she would have renominated Merrick Garland? (Original Post) Polybius Oct 2019 OP
Think Mitch would have fast tracked the appointment before she took office bigbrother05 Oct 2019 #1
Plus he was 64 years old at the time BeyondGeography Oct 2019 #6
She should have nominated someone much younger (20 or so years) than Garland. LonePirate Oct 2019 #2
While Garland seems like an all around fine guy NewJeffCT Oct 2019 #3
She would have done what she thought best. Caliman73 Oct 2019 #4
Agreed. Buckeyeblue Oct 2019 #8
I wonder how 2020 would be looking at this point Polybius Oct 2019 #10
Or Rick Scott Buckeyeblue Oct 2019 #11
The only thing going against her would be 16 years of one Party rule Polybius Oct 2019 #12
Possibly, as she probably knew there would be more appointments down the road. Tommy_Carcetti Oct 2019 #5
To answer my own OP: Polybius Oct 2019 #7
Irrrelevant TheRealNorth Oct 2019 #9

bigbrother05

(5,995 posts)
1. Think Mitch would have fast tracked the appointment before she took office
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:41 PM
Oct 2019

He knew Garland was a moderate candidate and HRC would likely have withdrawn him for a more liberal Justice.

No way he could justify waiting 4 years and would have likely lost the Senate in 2018 if he tried.

BeyondGeography

(39,367 posts)
6. Plus he was 64 years old at the time
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:45 PM
Oct 2019

Obama did everything he could to meet the Republicans half-way and they still treated him and Garlands like human fire hydrants.

NewJeffCT

(56,828 posts)
3. While Garland seems like an all around fine guy
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:42 PM
Oct 2019

and judge, I have a feeling that she would have nominated somebody younger and a little to the left of the center/left Garland to get the activist base fired up for her or him.

and, she likely would have tried to get around #MoscowMitch in advance - maybe putting a time limit on the nomination or similar (i.e., if hearings and a vote are not scheduled within 60 days, we consider Advise and Consent to have been waived)

Caliman73

(11,728 posts)
4. She would have done what she thought best.
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:44 PM
Oct 2019

If she had not been cheated out of her legitimate election, she would have chosen a nominee of her own, not someone else's and not a compromise nominee. McConnell would definitely try to hold it up. He actually said as much. It would likely have cost him his job and the Senate for Republicans. Holding up a nominee for years is beyond the pale.

Buckeyeblue

(5,499 posts)
8. Agreed.
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:48 PM
Oct 2019

Not only would there have been no SC or federal judges confirmed, she would have been under multiple investigations for anything and everything. And she would have had Trump calling her crooked Hillary everyday.

But you know what? Things would be a million times better than they are right now.

Polybius

(15,373 posts)
10. I wonder how 2020 would be looking at this point
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 03:10 PM
Oct 2019

Would she win? Would Trump run again? Probably, but the Party would blame him for the loss. Probably Cruz gets the nomination.

Buckeyeblue

(5,499 posts)
11. Or Rick Scott
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 03:31 PM
Oct 2019

With the economy the way it is (which has nothing to do with Trump) I think she would be more popular than people think. I think the country would have got to know her and people that were on the fence would like her.

Polybius

(15,373 posts)
12. The only thing going against her would be 16 years of one Party rule
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 10:42 PM
Oct 2019

Hasn't happened since FDR and into Truman.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,166 posts)
5. Possibly, as she probably knew there would be more appointments down the road.
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:45 PM
Oct 2019

In the alternate universe where Hillary is president, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is almost certainly retired at this point.

Polybius

(15,373 posts)
7. To answer my own OP:
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:47 PM
Oct 2019

I think she would have stuck with Garland as the safe choice. I think if Mitch allowed him to go through, at least 10 Republicans would have supported him.

However, if she nominated a 45 year old clone of Ginsburg, there is no way that nominee gets confirmed with 52 Republicans sitting in the Senate.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If Hillary Clinton had wo...