Cheering on a moderate SCOTUS choice

[SHRED]

It's happening here on the DU.

I am thoroughly disgusted with how many here base their "good choice" comments on how it will affect the GOP.
As if we need more convincing that they are obstructionist.

Why couldn't Obama have picked a true Progressive minded judge?
Why do we in this party settle for anything less?
The DU and the Democratic Party sadly appears to be overrun with people who focus on the GOP rather than focusing on returning the Democratic Party back from the edge of it's corporate right wing cliff.


...

[democrattotheend]

1. Because he believes it is the best chance to get someone confirmed

And knows that a moderate is still way better than Scalia, so it would still shift the court to the left.

Orrin Hatch said that if Obama were serious about nominating someone, he would pick Garland, a "fine man". Obama called his bluff. Republicans may actually decide to confirm him if it looks like they are going to lose the presidential election, rather than risk a more liberal nominee.

Garland isn't my first pick, mainly because of his age and his dubious record on campaign finance, but I am sure he is a lot better than Scalia.

[SHRED]

4. I'm sick of the half-a-loaf (if that) way Obama treats Progressives

But maybe that's just me.

[Le Taz Hot]

33. It's not just you.

[Contrary1]

35. It's not just you. n/t

[earthshine]

49. Ring of Fire agrees with you on this SCOTUS choice

This SCOTUS nominee is really pissing off Farron Cousins (and me too).

[SamKnause]

78. Tell it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

President Obama loves corporate and Wall Street tools.

[Skittles]

50. no guts

[grasswire]

53. yep nt

[SamKnause]

77. Exactly.

[2pooped2pop]

52. Not just you

I'm so glad dems had the presidency so we could put a dem or liberal on the court. If republicans had been POTUS we could have been stuck with another republican on the court. Whew


I'm glad my fears that he would put in a republican or someone center right were unfounded. People here on DU told me I was wrong. I am so glad that I was wrong.

[SamKnause]

76. It's not just you !!!

[pnwmom]

83. Replacing the most far right person with a moderate moves the court to the left.

Not getting anyone confirmed accomplishes nothing.

And there still is a horrible possibility that we lose the general election and they retain Congress -- in which case we would be very glad there is not an immediate opening for them to fill.

[Hortensis]

87. With a hard-core right winger like Scalia who

would meet in secret with conspirators in strategies for reinterpreting the Constitution to suit them. You bet we would be enormously better off.

[Hortensis]

86. I'm irritated at childish fussing from people who

have never learned to accept that they don't get everything they want and don't get to push aside everyone who disagrees with them. I don't want to think what they'd replace democracy with if they could, but it would be all about power to them and it would be dreadful.

Here's reality: Half the people in our republic are conservative. Nothing new about that. They always were. They have the exact same vote each of us does and will always have some say whether others like it or not.

The President of the United Stated doesn't get by far most of what he wants, and my guess is he works far longer, far harder, and enormously smarter and better at the business of citizenship than everyone on this site put together.

[CincyDem]

7. Because Garland is so f'ing far to the left of Scalia they're not in the same universe.

Garland moves the court left. That he's confirmable is an added benefit.

There's some saying that goes "The best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time". Garland is one bite, he's not the whole elephant. Take the bite, chew it down and head on to the next.

[PragmaticLiberal]

13. "Because Garland is so f'ing far to the left of Scalia they're not in the same universe."

Exactly.


I read an article a few weeks ago and this seems to be the WH's thinking as well.

[2pooped2pop]

54. Half a loaf for the peons again.

Take it and be happy.

Not happy

[pnwmom]

84. It's better than starving to death. n/t

[2pooped2pop]

88. Not while the rich have it all

Its time to start eating those who want us to share half a loaf.

[pnwmom]

89. The bottom line is we're going to have a much more progressive court with Scalia --

the so-called "originalist" -- replaced by a moderate.

The Rethugs know this and that's why they're fighting so hard. They think Scalia should only be replaced by a clone.

[revbones]

57. That's ~20-30 years of chewing. nt

[Matrosov]

70. But easier to digest

Imagine Obama nominates a proven progressive, Republicans obstruct him/her with the excuse that Obama is just playing politics, and then Republicans both win the presidency and keep the Senate. They'd nominate and confirm someone who is as close to Scalia as possible.

It would still be 20 to 30 years of chewing, but Garland would be much, MUCH easier to digest than Scalia II.

[revbones]

71. Guess that's why we have a Democratic president

To only not nominate "Scalia II" then huh?

Republicans vs Republican-lite.

[Matrosov]

72. I blame the system

In the eyes of hardcore conservatives, it's actually Democrat vs Democrat-lite.

The two-party system fosters competition rather than cooperation, so sometimes it's necessary to go in the middle to get anything done.

I'd much prefer a multi-party system where the power of the GOP was diluted and Democrats could work together with greens, socialists, etc.

[revbones]

73. Meh, I blame the person making the nomination

for a poor nomination.

But I agree with the desire for a multi-party system.

[tularetom]

9. So Orrin Hatch is now dictating Obama's SCOTUS choices?

Does that man ever fight for what he believes in?

Or does he just not believe in anything?

Looks to me like Hatch won that hand of umpteen dimensional poker.

[SHRED]

14. My thoughts also

[earthshine]

48. In eight years, I've seen Obama fight for exactly four things:

- his election
- his reelection
- the ACA, which is warmed-over, republican-policy health-insurance, with guaranteed insurance company profits
- the TPP, which is the ultimate betrayal of the working class, world wide

He is neither a fighter, a believer, nor a progressive.

Watch how smarmy he is when selling the TPP to people who don't buy it.

[2pooped2pop]

56. Wow good point

How sad. Remember when we thought he was different and elected him?

[COLGATE4]

58. K&R. Obama's legacy stated clearly. nt

[thesquanderer]

67. I can think of a few more things

There are some other important things he got through despite some strong opposition, i.e.

Iran nuclear deal
economic stimulus
ending DADT
arguably some important movement on climate change

but your point is well taken, he has not really fought for much, he seems to have picked his battles carefully and sparingly.

With the Congress he has, I'm not sure what more could have been done (and he never tried Sanders' emphasis on trying to mobilize voters).

Certainly what influence he had is now ebbing away, so getting back to the court...

From one report I read, the theory is that he put forth a nominee who would at least be confirmed after the election (if a Dem were to win in November), so he is nearly assured of adding one more SC appointment to his legacy. Assuming the next president is Hillary, how sure are we that we'd get anyone better anyway?

All that being the case, what would he really have accomplished by putting forth a more progressive name?

[earthshine]

75. I distinguish between things he accomplished and things he fought for.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. He has many more accomplishments than you even list. He might even be the greatest president, since, say LBJ. That having been said ...

>> emphasis on trying to mobilize voters).

In 2008 after he was elected, we were all behind him. We were ready to be led. Instead he immediately went to Wall Street leaving us in the dirt. He completely blew the political capital that the majority of voters bestowed upon him.

Imagine if he had actually used the bully pulpit and pushed for a public healthcare option while he had majorities in Congress. He easily gave this up. Why? Because it was all campaign rhetoric.

>> what would he really have accomplished by putting forth a more progressive name

Historically he always began his negotiations in the enemy camp.

There's an old saying, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

Take a minute now to see who Obama really is. Pay attention to his body language as he commits the ultimate fraud on working people, which is selling us the TPP. He reeks of disingenuousness.

[SamKnause]

79. Excellent video.

Thanks for posting.

[arcane1]

34. "He nominated the guy Orrin Hatch asked for" isn't exactly a confidence-booster.

I wish I hadn't read that.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

36. Sheesus... 24 years of this ideology has left us happy that we didn't step in the dog shit wearing

our nice shoes.

Maddening

[SamKnause]

80. Excellent analogy !!!!!!!!!!!!

[onecaliberal]

61. ^^^ This is why we are fucked, people settle for the god damn crumbs instead of demanding the bread

They deserve. People who stand for nothing accept candidates and their choices who also stand for nothing.

[TransitJohn]

2. Go Team Donkey!

eom

[PoliticAverse]

3. If they don't give him a hearing then choosing a "moderate" helps make the

case against obstructing Republicans in 2016...

You can watch President Obama explain why Garland is his choice here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7688132

[SHRED]

6. Yeah...It's all about Repukes...

...rather than us.

I get that.

[PoliticAverse]

8. Last I checked Republicans control the Senate. They cannot really be ignored...

especially if you want that to change in November.

[SHRED]

11. With that in mind...

...you'd think Obama would want to fire up the base of his party.

Oh well.

[Kittycat]

5. Hurrah to the third way

[FLPanhandle]

10. In other words, waste everyone's time but be ideologically pure.

I don't blame Obama for this choice.

He has to work in the real world. The real world situation is that he is a lame duck president with a short time left in office, an obstructionist republican controlled senate, and a big election coming up for the Democratic party.

He can be an ideologue and nominate a very progressive judge that will fail, or he can be a realist and get the best judge he can get through in the current situation.

[SHRED]

12. He's not getting anyone through

Not this Congress.

[FLPanhandle]

16. Maybe not, but this is the nominee with the best chance.

And if the republicans deny a moderate nominee, they come off looking bad politically.

It's a win / win for Obama. He gets his nominee or the republicans look bad in an election year.

[SHRED]

20. I don't see how this improves voter turnout...

...from the base.

If Hillary gets the nod she'll need all the help she can get.

[Orrex]

40. Explain how nominating a guaranteed-to-fail lefty judge would help voter turnout

How would that work, even in theory?

Anyone who's watching the process closely enough to be conscious of Obama's choice of nominee will already know what's at stake in the November election, and they'll see the importance of electing a Democrat to the Whitehouse.

And if they don't already know what's at stake, then it's unlikely that they'll be greatly moved by Obama's choice of nominee in the first place.


Either this nominee will be approved, which will move the court to the left, or he won't be approved, which will reveal the GOP Senate as hypocritical partisan hacks. How does either of those hurt voter turnout for the Democrat?

[NYC Liberal]

62. That's the whole point.

It would be utterly foolish to waste this nomination, that's in all likelihood going nowhere, on a young liberal, who will be dragged through the mud and raked over the coals for nothing.

When the Repubs reject a moderate they just voted unanimously to confirm only 3 years ago, they will put themselves in very real danger of giving us the Senate.

[Lochloosa]

15. I have been meaning to tell you that I saw your post the other day that was locked...

and I completely understand. The part of FL you live in can be hell sometimes, politically.

But, boy do the fun things out weigh the bad...

[FLPanhandle]

17. Thanks!

I was surprise that thread got locked.

It's a great area to live.

[Lochloosa]

23. That was my playground growing up. Raised in Tallahassee. Lived in Pensacola and Mobile.

[FLPanhandle]

32. Great place to grow up.

[Lochloosa]

37. Oh man..that makes me homesick. I used to camp on the beach at Ft. Pickens. Nothing like the Gulf.

And sugar sand.

[Baitball Blogger]

18. The "real world" defines that we are a corrupt nation who doesn't hold up to

its own principles. If that is the pragmatic choice of today, then we need to teach children how to lie better while earning the confidence of their peers. That would be a useful skill in today's pragmatic world.

Honesty, integrity and truth are concepts of yesteryear.

[FLPanhandle]

25. When was this ideal yesteryear?

Can you name one period in the US history where politicians didn't have to pragmatic and when "honesty, integrity, and truth" ruled?

Every generation has this idealized view of the past that never existed. Whatever period you think was ideal, I could find articles/books/quotes from those living in that time about how things suck and the past was better.

[Baitball Blogger]

41. I can't buy into your skepticism.

I was raised during the Civil Rights era, so maybe I came in during the one time in history where the good forces in this country finally prevailed. But I know that even Republicans had their moment of truth. Specifically, when they worked together to let Nixon know it was time to step down.

It has been downhill since Reagan came in. But, let's face it, before then, there were moments in history that we could be proud of.

[COLGATE4]

59. He had other candidates who were as if not more

acceptable, not ideologically pure but he didn't choose one of them. Srinivasan was confirmed 97-0 but didn't get the nod. Garland only got a 72-20 some-odd vote on his confirmation in much less contentious times. Plus, he is 63 now. Why not be smart and put a liberal on the court who's going to be around for more than 10-15 years?

[whistler162]

66. It doesn't matter who President Obamam nominated

there will always be posters who "think" the nominee isn't progressive or pure enough for their liking and whine about it.

[treestar]

92. +1 I'm shocked at these demands

They know the progressive would not be even given a hearing so what would be the point? Again ignoring Congress input. I think they truly believe the President "runs the country" all by his lonesome. He should be catering to the progressives by picking a progressive justice for an apparently powerless branch anyway.

[oioioi]

19. "the edge of its corporate right wing cliff. "

the party or the country?

[gcomeau]

27. Both.

The party appears intent on charging ever rightward. And the GOP is happy to keep going the same direction so the "centrist" point between the two just keep right on walking the same way and what is "liberal" is constantly watered down and corrupted until it's a fucking meaningless descriptor as far as most politicians in Washington are concerned.


FFS, look what's happened in just 8 years


http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008


http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Orrin Hatch is a despicable bigot. 'Let's take his council, he called LGBT Nazis!!!'

Reagan Democrats abounding.

[SHRED]

22. Preach it!

[Meldread]

24. I agree with you 100%. +1

Okay, maybe Obama couldn't nominate a flaming liberal like I'd want him too. I get that. The Republicans control the Senate. However, he could have at least nominated a solid and well qualified progressive--there were many on his list.

Obviously, Garland is qualified to sit on the court. I don't dispute that. However, Obama could have--and should have--done better than him.

The odds are in our favor right now when it comes to retaking the Senate and the White House in November. If Obama had actually nominated a qualified progressive, another Elena Kagan for example, someone who was a minority as well--then that would have been good.

We could have campaigned against Republicans for their obstruction, as well as threatening to nominate someone EVEN MORE liberal should Hillary become President.

There is a possibility that the Republicans would have allowed a more progressive justice through, and then voted him or her down. That is fine. At that point, you bring forward a Garland. You don't have Garland as your opening move. They could vote him down as well--then where do you go? Further to the right?

The best strategic move for Republicans is to have hearings on Obama's nominee and then vote them down on whatever flimsy grounds they can find. They would treat it like a negotiation, forcing Obama's nominees further and further to the right. Their worst strategic move is the one they are openly playing right now.

In the end, I am confident that the Republicans are going to eventually cave and let a nominee through--at least to get a full vote on the Senate floor. I don't believe obstruction is possible--not with Donald Trump as their likely nominee. It's too easy for Democrats. "Republicans are openly obstructing President Obama's nominee to allow the KKK loving Donald Trump to make an appointment to the Supreme Court!" The ads practically write themselves.

[zipplewrath]

31. Compromising with himself

It's Obama's old tactic, that's never worked. Compromise with himself and hope that the GOP agrees. If he wanted to play this game, he needs assurances up front that his nominee will be confirmed. Otherwise you nominate someone younger and more progressive. IF you lose that gambit, THEN you decide if you move towards moderate or whether you play the "then wait until you see the NEXT guy" game.

[COLGATE4]

60. Obama is an expert at negotiating

with himself. He has already agreed to give up half of his position when he first presents it to the Rethugs, and the continues to negotiate the remaining 50%.

[gcomeau]

26. Settling for what the right gives us...

....is apparently how all our decisions are made in the Democratic Party these days.

(Look at me not pointing to the obvious example here outside of GD ...)

[HassleCat]

28. Well, it's an improvement, I guess.

We don't get what we need, but we get what's possible. The prez knows it will be difficult to stop this nominee. A real progressive would inspire an everlasting embargo.

[djean111]

29. The Democratic Party is now firmly to the right of center.

Nothing to be done, IMO, but to hope something else appears on the horizon. Third Way Wins!!!!!!!

Remember, there are Democrats who are DEDICATED to working with the GOP, and giving the GOP what they want, and then crowing that they "got something done."
When I moved to Tampa from Durham, I opened up a new Florida credit union account, and asked that my direct deposit be switched at the same time from the account in Durham. Two weeks later, I idly opened up what should have been a "not for deposit" paycheck, and was horrified to see it was a real paycheck. Ordinarily I never even opened those things. I called the new credit union to find out why that happened, and they told me they couldn't do that online, I would have to do that in person. (1987). I said well, why didn't you call me or leave the direct deposit at my old credit union, I could still access it. They said, well, we wanted to do SOMETHING, so we just cancelled your direct deposit.

That's how this feels, although I suspect a moderate/conservative judge suits Obama just fine.
Anyone who thought Obama was going to nominate anyone liberal (or that Hillary would) is a fool.

Yeah, nominate something the GOP will bless - and then the rest of us have to live under that for many years. Thanks.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. I guess that the best answer that I have is that PBO

isn't a true, or near, progressive.

How many corporate suits has he stocked in his administration?

And as to the DUers who are salavitating over another corporate Joe / GOP friendly candidate...do you have to wonder what side of the Isle they sit on?

[0rganism]

38. i see this as "the offer they cannot refuse"

it's going to be downright difficult for the cranky tortoise to justify ignoring this nominee, and approving Garland's going to look more and more like a pareto optimal situation, given the strong likelihood of president Clinton + Democratic senate next year (aka the horse's head in the bed).

politically clever of president Obama to not take the quick & easy approach by nominating a series of progressive minority judges -- since presumptive GOP nominee Trump has already done so much to alienate minorities, not a whole lot to be gained from having the senate stall on them.

[LanternWaste]

39. the most popular reason for rejecting him en toto seems to be Hatch's tactical endorsement

This morning on DU, the most popular reason for rejecting him en toto seems to be Hatch's tactical endorsement from some weeks back, standing shoulder to shoulder in agreement with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell statement from an hour ago to refuse any consideration of Garland. Very little discussion at all in regards to his decisions as a jurist or his stance in regards to immigration, the environment, labor, etc.

I'm guessing when Pres Obama asked the Republicans in the Senate to give him a fair hearing rather than an outright rejection for its own sake, he may have been speaking to recalcitrant Democrats too short sighted to see beyond one endorsement as well.

[JoePhilly]

42. Be ideologically pure ... get nothing ... great strategy.

[Democat]

65. Not only get nothing, but perhaps let the GOP keep the Senate

Obama has made a strategic decision. I've been disappointed by some of his actions, but one thing he knows about is winning elections.

[Waldorf]

43. "Why couldn't Obama have picked a true Progressive minded judge?"

Because the Senate is controlled by Republicans, and would stand no chance of getting approval. And then they could easily say they didn't confirm not because this is Obama's last year, but it was a Progressive minded judge.

[SHRED]

44. Oh like they are now?

[Action_Patrol]

45. Should have just nominated the unicorn

[Odin2005]

46. Some people still haven't learned from the ACA debacle.

You can't compromise with the GOP, they will only allow complete capitulation.

[pnwmom]

85. We won on the "ACA debacle." It got passed and almost 20 million more have insurance. nt

[Odin2005]

90. The Healthcare industry "won", not the American people.

[pnwmom]

91. Tell that to the millions of single people now eligible for Medicaid

or to the millions who were banned because of preexisting conditions and now have good insurance.

[One_Life_To_Give]

47. Because it's to replace a uber conservative justice

IIRC The right was pushing for someone alot more conservative than Robert's too. My observation is that Presidents have a tendency to not want to be seen as making a huge shift to the SC. So they are reluctant to substitute one extreme for the other. But would instead pick some compromise towards the center when replacing an opposing partisan justice. My $.02

[Scootaloo]

51. I'm not cheering, but I know it's not obama's final answer

So I'm optimistic. The Republicans will shoot this guy down, blowing some of hteir capital, and obama will nominate someone better. he does this, he gives the republicans an option that suits them, they shoot it down because obama presdented it, and he continues with his favored option.

You want to see odd cheering? Oughtta see the thread cheering and back-slapping for Rahm Emmanuel.

[Stinky The Clown]

55. Ah, would that the world were so one dimensional, black and white, so simple

[Zynx]

63. Obama has been a very good president for progressives, whether we all realize it or not.

This pick would unquestionably move the court to the left while also appearing very reasonable. The Republicans, by throwing a temper tantrum, will ensure he doesn't get confirmed while also making them look like crazy people. The net of this is that Dems gain votes all over the country. This will flip seats and influence the presidential vote in our favor. It all works well.

[Kip Humphrey]

64. Milk Toast... ever have milk toast?

icky.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

68. Keep in mind, DU is only uniformly Progressive when there's a R in office

when it's a Democratic administration, the Third Way seperates. Its something I noticed very early during the Obama admin. That said, I believe the cheering is consistent with DU, where you have Third Wayers constantly butting heads with Progressives. The DLC, Third Way is a failed relic, and the mood of the country is rife for an FDR Democrat to lead the Party. If Bernie was running against a Third Way white man, he'd likely win comfortably. Unfortunately, Bernie is losing 100% of a key demographic: the "Who's Bernie Sanders?" demo.

[Matrosov]

69. The Democratic party doesn't exist in a vacuum

Focusing on the GOP has to be part of the strategy in a two-party system. What good is nominating a more progressive judge when the far-right is going to obstruct him regardless, and the centrists would think 'Obama is not interested in compromise.'?

You have to be practical. Garland is still far to the left of Scalia, but he's slightly left of center on a normal political scale. He's the best chance that President Obama has of getting a nominee confirmed before the general election, and if the GOP decides to obstruct him anyway, it'll make them look bad.

[Blue_Tires]

74. Sotomayor is a moderate...

But don't let that ruin your righteous indignation...

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. I think it was a good and smart choice ...

part of my reasoning is because Garland is a good, fair and non-ideological jurist.

But my opinion is, also, based on how it will affect the republican party, particularly, republicans in the Senate. Vulnerable Senators are faced with a no win situation ... If they hold to their promise to not give the moderate, consensus confirmed nominee, who was good enough for the Court of Appeals for a hearing, they piss off a majority of the electorate.

If they give him a hearing; but, don't confirm the moderate, consensus confirmed nominee who was good enough for the Court of Appeals, they have to provide an explanation that can overcome their widely publicized, partisan resistance to doing their job ... and they risk pissing off a majority of the electorate.

If they give the moderate, consensus confirmed nominee who was good enough for the Court of Appeals a hearing and can't come up with a compelling reason to vote "No" that overcomes their widely publicized, partisan resistance, they get a Justice that will, at a minimum, swing the SCOTUS to the Left.

Why couldn't Obama have picked a true Progressive minded judge?

Because picking a "true Progressive minded judge" would have validated the republican's reason for not holding a hearing, and even if they did, in this climate, a "true Progressive minded judge" would never be confirmed.

Why do we in this party settle for anything less?

Because we live in the real world. And in this real world, we have a divided government, ergo ... we don't get all of what we want.

[immoderate]

82. Does the judge have a history?

Has he ruled on voting rights, reproductive rights, collective bargaining, environment, drugs, or anything that indicates how he makes decisions? I haven't seen anything yet.

Many SCOTUS appointments have been surprising in office. I don't know enough about him to be surprised.

--imm