Cenk Uygur rips Merrick Garland: If he were nominated by a Repub ‘I’d want to filibuster him’

[LiberalArkie]

Young Turks host Cenk Uygur slammed the idea that Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland is a boon for progressives or that his nomination was a clever move by President Barack Obama.

“I’m supposed to support this guy because somebody with a (D) next to their name said that that was the ‘party line,'” Uygur asked. “‘Hell no’ is not strong enough. If he was proposed by a Republican president I’d want to filibuster him.”


While activists are staging rallies to pressure Republicans to vote on Garland’s nomination, Uygur argued that Garland’s record concerning the Citizens United ruling and habeas corpus rights make him unfit to serve on the high court.

Uygur noted that, as Just Security reported, Garland was the only Democratic appointee who chose not to dissent when the DC Circuit Court of Appeals refused to rehear a case involving US detainees’ right to a hearing “before being transferred to countries in which they might credibly fear torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.”

Snip

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/cenk-uygur-rips-merrick-garland-if-he-were-nominated-by-a-repub-id-want-to-filibuster-him/

[BeyondGeography]

1. This is more informative than one of Cenk's spasmodic rants

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/merrick-garlands-record-and-style-hint-at-his-appeal.html

[Chasstev365]

2. Yep!

If this was a bluff; it could backfire big time. I would have nominated a liberal with stellar credentials and stopped trying to work with assholes that have obstructed my entire presidency.

[Cosmocat]

9. It isn't a "bluff"

there is 0, absolutely zero, ZERO chance they hold a vote on any BHO nominee now.

The pick was made to highlight their completely untenable partisan position on this matter, but as much as they are going to take a big hit for not holding a vote, they have a greater fear - their own lunatic fringe base.

ANY R who voted to allow for cloture on a BHO SC pick now would never see another term.

They fear for their jobs first and formost, and they fear their own base INFINITELY more than the general public.

[Scuba]

15. I wish DC's Democrats feared their base.

[zentrum]

31. Like the government

…..in France fears its people.

In France—a large street demonstration can topple the government. Here, thousands in the street in each major city won't even get MSM coverage.

[-none]

42. They do fear their base.

It is just not the base most people think it is.

[truebluegreen]

64. Maybe not "now" but some at least have let it be known

that they might maybe possibly be willing to vote on and approve this nominee after the election (if Democrats win of course).

Dawg forbid a Democrat could actually select a Democrat for that seat.

[Cosmocat]

68. BHO picked two very solid progressives

When he had a d senate ....

Hed have done the same this time, too.

There is a reason merrick got picked at his age.

He knew he had aged out and no r would pick him, hes a toss away.

BHO will pull his nomination before the election.

[truebluegreen]

71. He did--but I was speaking of this seat,

the one that could change the nature of the court.

[Cosmocat]

74. As was I

The rs arent even going to allow a vote on this seat, not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

BHO has made two prior strong progressive picks the first two openings, so it is clear hed do it again if he could.

[truebluegreen]

81. "duh" on what the Rs will allow.

That being the case, why didn't he pick someone that we could be excited about?

[21st Century Poet]

28. President Obama is doing his duty.

The Constitution says that the President has to appoint judges to the Supreme Court in consultation with the Senate. The Constitution does not make exceptions for when Senate members happen to be assholes. Appointing a liberal judge would have been the right thing to do if Democrats had been elected as a majority to the Senate. The people chose otherwise so the President's choice has to reflect the situation of a Democratic President and a Republican majority Senate.

I know that this is not what the Democratic base likes to hear but that's the way it is. You have the Constitution, the President and the Senate all playing a role in this. These institutions and people's democratic choices are what run the country and not the Democratic base.

[Surya Gayatri]

35. Realpolitic...it's real.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

52. Senate is to oppose an appointment ONLY if there are obvious or unusual

problems with the appointee.

Which would never be the case with an appointment by Obama.

[RAFisher]

70. Based on what? The Senate can advise and consent however they want.

Imagine if a President Cruz appoints a replace for RBG and the Democrats control the Senate. I don't many Democrats will be supporting the pick just because there is no obvious or unusual problems with the nominee.

[salinsky]

60. Correct ...

... the fact that this nomination is tying the Republicans in knots is just gravy.

[tularetom]

3. Can we all just STFU about umpteen dimensional chess?

Mitch McConnell may be doing the president a favor by holding up this nomination.

In ten years people would be asking what brain dead moron appointed that asshole to the SCOTUS.

[dembotoz]

4. ahhh the chess thing.....whenever obama does something that makes me wanna puke

you see the chess thing.....

we keep making excuses on how the centrist obama is really a progressive but he is just too damn smart for us when he does these middle of the road things.....

[NYC Liberal]

11. What you mock as "umpteen dimensional chess" is actually

just good politics, of which President Obama has proven himself to be a master time and again.

There is no chance - zero, zilch, nada - that ANY nominee is going to get a hearing, much less a vote. Obama knows that. Garland knows it. Congressional Democrats know it.

Some apparently would like Obama to waste a nomination on an actual, viable candidate and have them dragged through the mud and raked over the coals for absolutely nothing. They wouldn't get the seat and the next president certainly wouldn't nominate someone who has already been through that.

[Loki]

13. So now you are calling our President a "brain dead moron"?

BS would be so proud of you. And that's just what it is BS..

[billhicks76]

20. This Pick Is BS

Just like the name calling you just tried to assert you are against. Expected though.

[Loki]

25. I didn't call President Obama a brain dead moron.

Repukes do that.

[revbones]

78. Whoever alerted for that should just hang it up.

The terms of service say "But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. "

I'm so tired of people saying you can't criticize someone if they have a D behind their name. How else does the part improve and grow if you can't criticize them???

[MariaThinks]

48. iconically the post calling the 'brain dead moron' out was hidden by jury

but not the actual name calling.

[itsrobert]

26. Another Bernie supporters thinks Obama is "a brain dead moron"

True colors come out.

[Gothmog]

30. And Sanders supporters wonder why they are not appealing to the broad base of the Democratic Party

[messiah]

32. LOL

the replies to this are hilarious. People on this forum are mostly Republicans who defend conservative polices.

[BeyondGeography]

36. "People on this forum are mostly Republicans who defend conservative policies."

Asinine post.

[geek tragedy]

41. Such bitter, toxic, irrational hatred directed towards President Obama. nt

[Cassiopeia]

5. This isn't a chess move nomination.

It's a nomination to protect the TPP.

[redkwamya]

6. Obama is the only one in this discussion who got elected to be POTUS

You may not like what he does, but he has been more successful than not. If Cenk doesn't like his choice, it really doesn't matter.

[MisterFred]

7. He may not matter.

But he's right. It's a pretty conservative nomination.

[billhicks76]

19. Didnt Like What Bush Did Either

And it may not have mattered to you but it matters to us because we look at facts not personalities. The fact is this guy is exactly like John Roberts. Thanks for settling though. Next.

[chervilant]

21. ...

(Welcome to my IL...)

[Cassiopeia]

47. Everyone has opinions.

I've disagreed with a majority of Obama's myself, especially his major ones.

[geek tragedy]

53. that's literally nonsense.

the SCOTUS doesn't have anything to do with the TPP

[Cassiopeia]

56. They weighed in on NAFTA

They will on the TPP as well.

[geek tragedy]

57. that case was unanimous. Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted to uphold NAFTA nt

[blackspade]

8. Exactly.

This guy is terrible.

When the repubs like him you know it was a bad choice.

[Cosmocat]

10. No, it was the perfect choice for that reason

They would not hold a vote on a BHO pick this cycle if he reanimated Reagen corpse and nominated it.

People want to get into histrionics, but there is zero, ZERO chance the Rs hold a vote any BHO's now because any R senator who voted for cloture to even allow a vote would never see another term because their base would turn on him.

All his picking a big liberal would do would give them some semi-legitimate bs rationale.

Merrick just helps to further highlight how big of assholes they are.

[NYC Liberal]

12. Picking a viable liberal candidate would just ruin their chances of

getting picked for a viable nomination next year. Garland is a throwaway candidate.

Amazing how people here don't see that. It's not some crazy, twisted plot...it's just common sense politics.

[BeyondGeography]

14. IOW, permanently limit their careers

This was Garland's last chance. All the other candidates were much younger. Obama was actually, you know, thinking about more than politics. But he's a 3rd way corporatist tool of the MIC so damn him anyway.

[A Simple Game]

23. Funny how a week ago I was told to support Garland because President Obama

knew what he was doing and Garland would make a fine Supreme Court judge. Now we must back the President because he is just using this judge as a pawn.

By the way, how does Garland stand on Roe v. Wade? Because there is a chance this guy will be the ninth judge.

[NYC Liberal]

29. I didn't tell you that. I said the same thing the day he was nominated.

[blackspade]

18. That is a nonsensical arguement.

The repubs can now easily hold a vote, confirm, and claim victory in forcing the President to nominate a judge they would want anyway. Your theory about this hurting the GOP discounts the M$M, who will spin this to the voters as a 'win' for conservatives.

At least if there is no vote Obama can use it as a tool to ensure the defeat of multiple GOP Congress critters.
So, no, this nomination only makes sense of Obama wants a conservative as a replacement for a conservative.

[BeyondGeography]

22. A conservative would have green-lighted a lawsuit against the Abu Ghraib prison contractors?

Pause for a moment, consider that you might not have a better understanding of this nominee than the President. I know it's a longshot, but it could be possible, you know.

[blackspade]

43. I never said he wasn't a mixed bag.

But standing with Citizens United and against Habius Corpus are huge negatives that are not mitigated by green lighting a lawsuit.

So, on the whole a disappointment. His nomination is terrible politics.

[BeyondGeography]

45. In truth, no one can credibly say they know how he would vote on CU

From the NYT article posted above:

Throughout, Judge Garland’s opinions were models of judicial craftsmanship — unflashy, methodically reasoned, attentive to precedent and tightly rooted in the language of the governing statutes and regulations. He appears to apply Supreme Court precedents with punctilious fidelity even if there is reason to think he would have preferred a different outcome and even where other judges might have found room to maneuver.

“He’s been a lower-court judge and acted like one for these past 19 years,” said Neal K. Katyal, a former acting United States solicitor general.

And:

In campaign finance cases, too, Judge Garland followed Supreme Court precedent in ways that sometimes frustrated liberals and sometimes cheered them.

He joined a unanimous opinion in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 ruling from a nine-judge panel that allowed unlimited contributions to “super PACs,” nominally independent groups that support political candidates. The logic of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United required the move, the appeals court’s opinion said, transforming the political landscape.Citizens United concerned only independent spending by corporations and unions, not rich people. But it said that there was only one justification for restricting political spending: quid pro quo corruption akin to bribery. It added that independent spending could never satisfy that standard.

While Judge Garland unhesitatingly extended Citizens United when he believed its logic compelled him to do so, he was unwilling to push further than it required. In July, writing for a unanimous 11-member panel in Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, Judge Garland upheld a ban on campaign contributions from federal contractors, saying the interest in preventing corruption that survived Citizens United warranted the move.

That both cases were unanimous suggests that the D.C. Circuit works hard to achieve consensus and confirms findings by political scientists that ideological voting is less common on federal appeals courts than on the Supreme Court.

There's also this, fwiw:

Political scientists say the answer is clear. Judge Garland is well to the left of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the member of the court at its ideological center and the one who often holds the controlling vote. A Supreme Court including Judge Garland would contain a five-member liberal bloc and put either him or perhaps Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the most conservative liberal, in what had been Justice Kennedy’s pivotal spot.

[blackspade]

61. Well, I hope you are right.

But I don't put much faith in anonymous 'political scientists'

[Cosmocat]

67. What part dont you get

They will NOT hold a vote.

It isnt happening.

He could nominate the reanimated corpse of ronald reagen and they wouldnt hold a vote because of how horribly brain washed their zombie base is.

OBAMA PICK BAD, ME KILL R WHO VOTES FOR OBAMA PICK.

[blackspade]

69. I don't 'get' that part because it is an assumption based on no data.

Based on Obama's historical interaction with the GOP, I find it much more likely that they will cave, realizing that the are getting mild pro-corporate conservative to replace Scalia that will side with the donor class.
I don't see this happening until after the Democratic nomination though.

The fact is that the M$M will market any about face by the GOP as a victory over Obama to shore up the bulk of the GOP base going into November.

[Cosmocat]

73. So

You dismiss my assumption as having no data n w assumption w no data ...

Except I have endless "data" based on the behavior of these assholes supporting my point, which stands.

Feel free to respond back id the rs actually vote for merrick, cause I know you wont when the dont.

[blackspade]

75. My data comes from previous standoffs w/Obama

That have ended w/the GOP caving.
Can you point to an incident where they haven't?

[Cosmocat]

79. Which is a LOT smaller sample size

than Rs being absolute and complete partisan jackoffs in their obstruction of him ...

On what planet is there even 1/100 of the data of them "caving" to BHO vs them cutting of their and nations noses in strident opposition to him?

Point stands, there will NOT be a vote on Merrick ...

[blackspade]

80. Well, you are entitled to your opinion.

[geek tragedy]

54. the Republicans are the ones not allowing him to get a hearing nt

[blackspade]

62. They will.

Because he is a great nominee from their standpoint.

[geek tragedy]

63. how is Merrick Garland--who clerked for William Brennan--a "great" choice

for people who think Scalia was perfect?

[blackspade]

65. Ask the GOP

They are the ones who like him.
One example.....

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/republicans-are-huge-hypocrites-about-merrick-garland-20160321

[Scuba]

16. Garland's nomination is another example of why we don't need another status quo President.

Damn Obama has been disappointing.

[fasttense]

17. I'm continually amazed at Obama's RepubliCON like behavior

This is the the man from a still persecuted minority group who made history and talked like a more eloquent Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail. But then turned and gave us RepubliCON lite policy. He could have been as great as FDR but he settled for H W bush.

[imagine2015]

24. kick

[onenote]

27. In other words, no SCOTUS justice should ever be confirmed again, ever.

Unless one party has 60 plus Senators.

Garland wouldn't have been my choice, not by a long shot. But if his nomination warranted filibustering, then basically every nominee would warrant filibustering by one side or the other.

If that's the standard, then no one ever gets confirmed.

[gordyfl]

33. Perhaps it's just as well we wait until after the General Election

when Dems take back the Senate. With Bernie at the helm, we'll get rid of Citizens United.

[Surya Gayatri]

34. Cenk Uygur is a loud-mouthed, blowhard, windbag poseur.

He's found a niche schtick posing as the supposed "mouthpiece of the legitimate left."

Obnoxious and insufferable imposter.

His unending outrage is so "faux" and so wearying.

[sufrommich]

37. Agree.I can't even watch that blowhard.nt

[Surya Gayatri]

38. I last tried to watch him on MSNBC and was glad when he was axed.

Berckkkk!

[blackspade]

44. The typical 'attack the messenger' response.

[Surya Gayatri]

46. Messenger, Shemessenger...he's just plain obnoxious, even when he's

saying something I thoroughly agree with.

[blackspade]

49. Well, sad day for you then.

[Surya Gayatri]

51. What ev...I suspect I'll do just fine without Cenk's daily screeds.

[Red Knight]

39. This should not be surprising at all

Garland is another Harvard educated representative of the "professional" class that Obama worships so dearly. I don't even know if it's about one issue or another--it's the whole 'class" he really represents. Look at his advisers and where they come from--it's really enlightening in explaining who president Obama is and what he really stands for.

The Dems have essentially tossed away the working class as part of a strategy going back to McGovern. The DLC really put this into action and Bill Clinton was the biggest leader of its movement. President Obama is the same, really.

He also puts the next President(if it's a Democrat) in a bind. Do they pick someone truly liberal? Or--since this was Obama's choice do they have the excuse that this candidate deserves a hearing?

President Obama knows exactly what he's doing.

I highly recommend reading Thomas Frank on this subject of the Democratic party--how it got here and what it means for the future.

[DemocraticWing]

40. Garland is a moderate liberal. He's a respected judge. I'll take that.

I'm not gonna read too much into why he was nominated. I'm not gonna proclaim we could have gotten something better. He's the President's nominee and he seems fine. I may have picked somebody different, but on an up or down vote, he's way better than an empty seat and WAY better than Scalia.

[blackspade]

50. Moderate liberal?

Based on what?

[geek tragedy]

55. he clerked for William Brennan. nt

[blackspade]

59. Which means what, exactly?

You don't have to be in ideological agreement to work for someone.

[CharlotteVale]

58. K&R

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. he's perfectly fit to serve on the court, he just is not ideologically left enough

unfit is a really unfair categorization for someone with so many years on the bench. harriet miers was unfit, garland is fit.

[Aerows]

72. If Antonin Scalia was ressurrected

and President Obama nominated him, Republicans would scream that Scalia is too liberal.

Attilla the Hun would be "too liberal".

They would reject a zombie Ronald Regean on principle.

It's pure stupidity, but that is what a typical Republican wants - their way or the highway and even if they agree with you, if they didn't think of it themselves, your idea is worthless. Domineering asshole is about as kind of a description I can offer.

[OhZone]

76. What is up with Cenk lately?

He used to be pro-Democrat, but he's gone way out to la la land.

Obama is playing 3d chess with the GOP obstructionists. Wasn't there a time that TYT would appreciate and support him?

Or am I delusional?


Oh well.

Stephanie Miller and Bob&Chez are about the only good shows anymore.

[sendero]

77. Get used to the new normal..

.... Republicans nominate hard right idealogues and the Democratic senate confirms them. When Democrats get to nominate, they are restricted to "centrists".

Your party, working for you!