Labor Leaders Applaud Supreme Court Nomination, Demand Senators #DoYourJob

[Omaha Steve]

Source: NH Labor News

Today, President Obama announced Merrick Garland as his nominee to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.

“Merrick Garland, the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has more federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history. No one is better suited to immediately serve on the Supreme Court,” said Obama.

Chief Judge Garland was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit 76-23, with majority support from both Republicans and Democrats. He has served for 19 years on that court – often considered the most important appellate court in the nation.

Labor leaders were quick to applaud Obama’s nomination and condemn the Republican senators who have vowed to block this nomination for eleven months until a new President is inaugurated.

FULL story at link. NH Labor News is run by DUer Matt Murray!



Read more: http://nhlabornews.com/2016/03/labor-leaders-applaud-scotus-nomination-demand-senators-doyourjob/

[still_one]

1. Someone posted a negative link from Ring of Fire about Judge Garland. So is there reason for

concern or not?

Here is the link:

http://trofire.com/2016/03/16/obama-destroys-legacy-corporate-friendly-supreme-court-pick-ring-fire/

[Omaha Steve]

3. I think it is smoke and mirrors to mess with the R Senators

He is too pro-business for labor & me.

[mpcamb]

4. I hope so. This is not the choice America needs.

[babylonsister]

5. One big punk? How cool would that be!

I think this guy might be the canary in the coal mine.

We'll see.

[still_one]

6. appreciate the assessment Steve. I agree with the smoke and mirrors because most likely the R's

would not even have hearings let alone approve an nominee

[JDPriestly]

9. Ring of Fire is right. Obama should have chosen a true liberal and made the same kind of deal.

If a Republican wins in November, then they will appoint whomever they wish.

But now, Obama should have picked a true liberal for the Court. It would give Democrats something to vote for in November.

Obama blew this one really badly.

[still_one]

21. I hear you, but I also agree with Omaha Steve, they republicans aren't even going to allow a hearing

it will be all smoke and mirrors

[Ed Suspicious]

2. Corporate defense attorney, Garland? Farron Cousins isn't pleased. I'm guessing I shouldn't be

either.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Posted by request ...

I'm thinking its a brilliant move. Vulnerable Senators are thinking ... If we hold to our promise to not give the moderate, consensus confirmed nominee, who was good enough for the Court of Appeals for a hearing, we piss off a majority of the electorate.

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

If we give him a hearing and can't come up with a compelling reason that overcomes our widely publicized, partisan resistance, they get a Justice that will, at a minimum, swing the SCOTUS to the Left.

Trap laid and they walked right into it!

[pnwmom]

8. And no wonder what some progressives think,

replacing the most far-right member of the court with a moderate will move the court to the left.

The Rethugs realize that. We should all be smart enough to realize that.

We can push for more liberal appointees when Hillary or Bernie is in office.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. It's a shame when the gop recognizes what the left cannot ...

That a moderate, moves the court to the left.

[JDPriestly]

10. I think that argument is too complicated. Way over the heads of most American voters.

Obama should have nominated a strong liberal who would help support the reform of the judicial system so that we don't have kids who are members of minorities fearing for their lives when a cop is around.

He should have nominated a strong liberal who would uphold his own (Obama's) actions on the environment.

He should have nominated a strong liberal who would stand for women's rights.

And back to the first issue, if Obama were truly a liberal, he would insist on nominating a strong liberal for the Supreme Court who would stand up for human rights including the right to privacy in our communications on electronic media, the right to vote, the rights to free speech and assembly and to petition our government, and above all for the right to be free from excessive search and seizure when stopped.

I could go on and on, but I think deep down you agree with me and so do all other DUers. Because this is a chance in a lifetime to change the balance on the court.

Arnold & Porter probably won't do it.

The only good side of this is that the judge has been in the court system for many years and may have learned a little about the entirety of life and not just the corporate point of view during those years. I would not rely on that though.

This was Obama's chance to really do something to make sure that Black Lives Matter and he has failed.

[pnwmom]

12. Why? So the strong liberal could be flatly rejected and Obama could accomplish nothing?

By nominating Garland, a judge Repubs indicated as recently as 2010 would be a solid consensus choice, Obama has called their bluff. If they don't confirm him, they will demonstrate their naked partisan position.

By getting the Senate to confirm Garland, Obama would replace the most far right member with a moderate -- clearly moving the Court to the left.

That would be an accomplishment, even if he wouldn't be every liberal's dream candidate. He would be a great deal better than Scalia.

With the current Congress, this is NOT a "chance in a lifetime" to get a strong liberal confirmed to the court. But it is a chance to change the balance of the court. Replacing Scalia with a moderate would be a solid step forward.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. This is yet another instance of the left being critical of President Obama playing chess...

when they onlt seem to be capable of understanding tic tac toe.

[JDPriestly]

16. I'm thinking of electoral politics. If Obama nominated someone that the left likes, it would help

Democrats get the vote out in November.

That's my point of view. This guy is not someone who is going to excite Bernie supporters and get us to vote in November.

I would have to see how this judge has come down on Fourth Amendment issues -- search and seizure especially searches at traffic stops and police brutality, but I think that Obama should have chosen someone who would really appeal to African-Americans and the need to stop the police brutality. That is a human issue that the Supreme Court needs to deal with. Maybe this candidate is strong on Black Lives Matter issue.

In other words, this is Obama's chance to do something to protect the lives of minorities. That is the biggest judicial issue right now. This nomination does not seem to me to go in that direction, but I could be wrong.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. See, that's the problem ...

Obama should have nominated a strong liberal who would help support the reform of the judicial system so that we don't have kids who are members of minorities fearing for their lives when a cop is around.

He should have nominated a strong liberal who would uphold his own (Obama's) actions on the environment.

He should have nominated a strong liberal who would stand for women's rights.

You, and many of the Left, don't play political chess well. Do you think a "strong liberal" being advanced would have been accepted by the gop? If not, that would have been one off the nomination table.

The "game" is to show the gop for the BSers that they are.

[JDPriestly]

15. No. I don't think that a strong liberal would have been accepted.

But a strong liberal would have given America something to talk about and liberals something to vote about in November.

A strong liberal would have been a great move.

A strong liberal would have made Obama look like a stronger, more courageous president.

I like Obama very much. He is a man with a strong sense of right and wrong. He is probably the kindest president we have ever had (at least in my lifetime) and that is saying a lot because Jimmy Carter was elected in my lifetime.

But Obama gives in too easily to pressure from the right. He gives in to fear of being too bold. This is the time for him to be bold.

If a Democrat wins in November, Obama will be able to appoint whomever he wishes. If a Republican wins in November (God forbid), then Obama won't be able to appoint anyone. Obama should have taken the risk in my opinion. It would have helped Democrats win in November.

By the way, I am a good chess player. Learned from my father at an early age.

[PatrynXX]

18. I see the Democrats winning back the senate and maybe the house

one wonders if there's a split second he can nominate a second just as they are sworn in. as Republicans failed to do it , it sits for the New Democrats to do it. Naturally whomever R would veto but not sure if they can. since congress is part B. Not sure it goes back to part A

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. You msy be a good chess player; but, you are not showing it ...

sacrificing a "strong liberal" rook, early in the game to inspire the left, would result in a lost rook, with NO movement on the portion of the electorate that you are attempting to move (i.e., the American electorate), as they could/would argue the nominee was to extreme.

I've play chess ... well ... for many a year.

[JDPriestly]

20. It isn't early in the game. This is Obama's last year in office.

He could at least make a gesture for justice for minorities.

Thurgood Marshall he is not.

FDR he is not.

No wonder we have so many right-wingers in Congress. Democrats present no exciting alternatives.

Appointing a moral leader to the Supreme Court, a person of passion and commitment to justice would not be "sacrificing a 'strong liberal' rook early in the game." It would be a play on a larger chessboard than the Congress. It would be a play for the hearts of the American people.

In politics, there is a dimension that does not exist on the chess board. It is the dimension of justice. And the emotions must be engaged in order to win in that dimension.

Chess is played on a flat surface. But politics is played on the many layered surface of the heart. By nature, Obama is good at playing on the multi-layered surface of the heart. I wonder who whispered in his ear to be so cautious. Obama should have gone with instincts and chosen a true liberal, preferably one whose name is a household word for the Supreme Court. He would have had enormous popular support for his nomination. I am not thinking of someone in particular.

This nomination makes me wonder whether Obama is depressed or maybe has given up. That would be very sad for the country. He needs to have more courage and do the boldest thing he can with regard to the Supreme Court nomination.

The Republicans are not going to vote for his nominee no matter what so he should just risk it and make a statement.

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. Okay ... Do you play chess on-line? eom.

[TBF]

23. Arnold & Porter

I'm quite familiar w/the firm.

On a whole they hire top legal minds and they tend to be less stuffy than some of the older defense firms in town. There is also substantial Clinton support in that building (they ran the legal fund for the Clintons in the 90s out of there - the meetings were after hours). A nod to Hillary, a nod to Chicago, along with nods to some other status quo dems (Brooksley Born for example is a retired partner, and of course RIAA a long-time client). So. This is a VERY safe pick for Obama and it is a gift to the republicans who will be too stupid to take it.

[JDPriestly]

24. Just because he works for a corporate defense firm does not mean that he is a conservative.

But my argument is that Obama should have used this occasion to force Republicans to come down on the issues of police brutality and Black Lives Matter.

Yet another chance to allow that top-of-the-list, important matter to be ignored. He should have appointed and in-your-face liberal justice who would clearly support the human rights issues that the African-American community is concerned about.

This was his chance to make that statement loud and clear.

Instead we get this petty jousting play that says nothing on a moral level.

[TBF]

25. There is no way Obama would do that -

he has stuck to the status quo for the past 8 years and that is not going to change. I don't think he's that bad of a guy, but he has been rather conservative all along and that won't change in his final year.

[JDPriestly]

27. Which sadly means that his legacy will be unremarkable.

He will be remembered as the first president who was a person of color. But that distinction will be less remarkable because we will have many such presidents in the future.

He increased the numbers of employed and instituted Obamacare, but those are achievements that will not be viewed as remarkable in history. They are just his job.

He has improved our foreign relations, but we can say that only because GWB took them to an all-time low.

Opening up our relationship with Cuba is a wonderful achievement depending on what happens in Cuba and South and Central America in the future.

The environmental accord in Paris may or may not be an achievement. Hard to tell what the future will bring.

He is a great person, but he has not dared to be a truly great president, and I am sad about that.

[TBF]

28. Agree on all points. nt

[PatrynXX]

17. speaking of Do Your Job

Kim Davis just got someone fired at the Vatican Because THEY didn't do their job. SO she doesn't do her job gets fame then some nut at the Vantican decides why not then loses his job for not doing his job. Which is ironic bcause she hasn't.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. What makes anyone think a Republican Senate in 2017 will approve Garland

or any Justice that they don't like.

Even if he is a moderate, Garland will move the court left. What they want is to keep the court's right wing bias.

If they get away with this shit, there is nothing to stop them from piling it higher and deeper in 2017 with some other bogus, unconstitutional claim.

Thanks, Steve, this is a good article.
I stand with the unions.