HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Obama's deal with the Rep...

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:58 PM

Obama's deal with the Repugs on Supreme Court nominee?

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by azurnoir (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Rachel Maddow Shoe 3/16/16

According to Nina Totenberg, NPR's Legal Correspondent appearing on the Rachel Maddow Show tonight Obama has made a deal with the Repubs that goes like this: The Repugs will still not consider or do anything with Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court until after the election in November. Then, if the Democrats win the Repugs will approve Garland for the Supreme Court. Totenberg stresses that this is in line with Obama's judicial philosophy of wanting judges (or Justices) who defer to the Legislature and the Executive.

No link yet.

51 replies, 4135 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama's deal with the Repugs on Supreme Court nominee? (Original post)
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 OP
DrToast Mar 2016 #1
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #42
a kennedy Mar 2016 #2
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #12
a kennedy Mar 2016 #22
brush Mar 2016 #29
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #34
brush Mar 2016 #44
Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2016 #3
jaysunb Mar 2016 #4
asjr Mar 2016 #16
PSPS Mar 2016 #5
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #10
msongs Mar 2016 #45
cstanleytech Mar 2016 #46
msanthrope Mar 2016 #6
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #9
msanthrope Mar 2016 #11
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #13
PoliticAverse Mar 2016 #27
geomon666 Mar 2016 #7
enough Mar 2016 #8
mountain grammy Mar 2016 #14
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #41
houston16revival Mar 2016 #15
Pantagruelsmember Mar 2016 #17
LynnTTT Mar 2016 #18
7962 Mar 2016 #19
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #35
Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #43
highprincipleswork Mar 2016 #20
TM99 Mar 2016 #21
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #36
elljay Mar 2016 #50
MillennialDem Mar 2016 #23
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #38
totodeinhere Mar 2016 #24
Zambero Mar 2016 #25
billhicks76 Mar 2016 #47
SFnomad Mar 2016 #26
alfredo Mar 2016 #30
SFnomad Mar 2016 #32
alfredo Mar 2016 #33
Blasphemer Mar 2016 #28
alfredo Mar 2016 #31
kiranon Mar 2016 #37
COLGATE4 Mar 2016 #39
billhicks76 Mar 2016 #48
colsohlibgal Mar 2016 #40
billhicks76 Mar 2016 #49
azurnoir Mar 2016 #51

Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 09:59 PM

1. Heard it...not sure I buy it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrToast (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:47 PM

42. I don't know, either. Time will tell. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:02 PM

2. How does she know this???

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a kennedy (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:14 PM

12. It's Totenberg's story.

According to Totenberg she spent all day today talking with Repub political and judicial figures. Her credibility has always been pretty good.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:43 PM

22. Thanks.....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:28 PM

29. I heard that story on "Thom Hartman". There is no deal.

Through back channels the repugs made it known to the White House that they will confirm Garland but only after the election it's blackmail of a sort as if they somehow win, they would ditch Garland and nominate another right wing extremist.

The president has not agreed to this so-called deal at all. His nomination of a moderate, respected jurist who has already been confirmed by a bi-partisan vote to the D.C. circuit court attests to the fact that he is applying pressure to the repugs to hold hearing before the election.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #29)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:37 PM

34. I'm not sure that there's no deal. Totenberg was

fairly explicit in stating that this move was consistent with Obama's desire to leave his legacy as well as his inclination favoring jurists who tend to be more 'hands off and deferential to the Legislature and the Executive'. After all, this man is an older candidate (63) who did not receive the type of virtually unanimous confirmation by the Senate that many of the other potential candidates did - his vote was something along the lines of 72 in favor, 20 some-odd opposed. Other candidates have been confirmed 97-0. This would explain Obama's choice to name a 'plain Jane' jurist rather than the type many of us would have preferred (and were expecting).

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #34)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:56 PM

44. Obama wants to get a nomination through but he's not agreeing to wait . . .

Last edited Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:46 AM - Edit history (1)

until after the election. If he wanted to go along with the repugs he would wait until after the election to nominate a judge.

He's putting forth Garland, the least objection choice he could make, to publicly put pressure on the obstructionists in the Senate to act before the election especially the one third of the senators that are up for election.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:03 PM

3. Dubious, but even so, weak R Senators up for re-election may push for hearings & vote anyway. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:04 PM

4. Bull Shit !!

And, I'm old enough to remember when Totenberg was a professional journalist.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jaysunb (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:29 PM

16. And not a very good one back then. She leans Republican, but I think she should

go ahead and retire.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:04 PM

5. This doesn't belong in LBN.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:11 PM

10. Because?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:17 AM

45. since you asked - LBN statement of purpose...

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:30 AM

46. Because right now its only a rumor and for all we know the Kochs could have planted the story

to weaken the president in pressuring the republicans in the senate to actually do their jobs and hold hearings on this nominee for example but for now it shouldnt be in LBN until its actual verified news and not rumor.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:07 PM

6. Your link is broken. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:11 PM

9. No link yet. Just heard it on MSNBC.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:12 PM

11. Malaise does these threads do much better. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:15 PM

13. ???

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #11)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:22 PM

27. No, malaise would have just posted "Turn on Maddow now!". n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:07 PM

7. And if I'm Hillary or Bernie?

I work my ass off to block this. What's the point of waiting until after the election and then approving Garland? Surely Bernie or Hillary would want their own nominee.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:11 PM

8. If this is the way our country is being run, it's already over.

I can't express my disgust. Hoping this is bullshit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:23 PM

14. I doubt this is true..I can't believe Obama would do this.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:47 PM

41. No comment from me on its veracity. The reporter

who broke this, Nina Totenberg is a well-respected reporter who has spent years covering the Supremes for NPR. I've never found her to have an ideological bent nor to be an exaggerator but your guess is as good as mine. This is what's being talked about in D.C.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:24 PM

15. Hard to believe

So the Republicans get what they want - 1) their own pick in 2017 if GOP wins or 2) a moderate pick
(Garland) if Dems win the White House in November?

And Obama gets to try to oust GOP Senate with his pick?

It may be reality, it's pragmatic, it may appear that way, but it's not
something that required any negotiation. It's like they said "we're at an
impasse, let's table it for 6 months" and "keep it quiet"

It's not a deal, it's a stalemate

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:31 PM

17. Obama deal with GOP

Makes some political sense. Both sides get red meat to throw to their base in front of the vote.
GOP look tough denying the "Back Devil" a liberal nominee who'll take their guns and kill their babies.
Dems get to play the obstruction card right up to the vote, then they get a moderate to replace Scalia.
Problem is if , god forbid, the evil Trumpeter wins, then it's a total loss of a nomination chance.
So I'm saying Nina got played by the GOP actors she was talking to, she's been going downhill as a journalist for 2 decades.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:32 PM

18. Bull

How then can you explain Kagan and Sotomayor?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynnTTT (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:36 PM

19. Long time ago in a world far away.....

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynnTTT (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:41 PM

35. I'm not doing anything but reporting what was said

by a very reliable and experienced Supreme Court reporter. Obama is anxious for his legacy and I don't fine it at all improbable that he decided to do a deal to get his third appointee before he leaves office. It's the only way he can get it done.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LynnTTT (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:49 PM

43. Kagen August 7, 2010, Sotomayor August 8, 2009. Both approved by a Democratic Senate.

We do not have that Senate.
Elections have consequences.
A republican Senate is a nasty consequence.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:38 PM

20. I hope not. Wud be 1 other lousy deal. Thinking today how do we start a write-in of enough volume...

 

to make the difference?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:41 PM

21. I would not be surprised by this.

 

Obama got a version of HeritageCare passed and worked really closely with the GOP to get the TPP moving forward.

This would not be out of the question as long as you don't live in denial that Obama is anything other than the New Dem he has always been.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #21)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:42 PM

36. Unfortunately, I completely agree. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:26 AM

50. Obama is likeable, so we keep forgetting that he is not really a progressive

in most issues. He's a moderate and he ran for election as a moderate. Remember how he keep trying to accommodate the Republicans years after it became obvious that they would only obstruct, he appointed Wall Street insiders to be Secretary of the Treasury, he did not support marriage equality until Biden forced the issue, etc. He expresses disappointment, occasionally anger, but really hasn't played hardball as much as he could. I truly don't think he has changed in his desire to work with the Republicans and would not be surprised at all if he cut such a deal..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 10:44 PM

23. If that's the deal Obama reached, it's the worst deal I've ever heard.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MillennialDem (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:42 PM

38. Yep.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:10 PM

24. I don't know if Obama made that deal or not. But it makes a lot of sense that

if the Democrats win the general election the GOP will confirm Garland in the subsequent lame duck session. Garland is quite moderate and he would almost certainly be better from the Republican point of view than a Clinton or Sanders nominee.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:16 PM

25. This is no "deal"

If true, the GOP has everything to win and nothing to lose. For one it's conditional on the Democrats winning the Senate. And if they win the presidency as well, a more progressive candidate could be nominated and confirmed after the inauguration in January. I take it the GOP has agreed not to engage in a lame duck session filibuster as their end of the "deal"?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zambero (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:41 AM

47. Don't You Get It Yet?

 

Those who control Onama and Hillary won't allow a more progressive selection. There is no Democratic Party at the executive level...only republican-Lite.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:16 PM

26. If Clinton wins the Presidency and the Democrats take back the Senate ...

 

I would suspect Obama would prefer to nominate someone that is more liberal. But at that point, he really would be a lame duck.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SFnomad (Reply #26)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:30 PM

30. I think it was a good election year move. Again, Obama is the adult in the room.

The Republicans look childish.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #30)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:33 PM

32. What he has done ... I agree

 

What they're saying about a "deal" ... I'm not one to believe it without some serious confirmation. And then, I wouldn't believe it would be a good deal.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SFnomad (Reply #32)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:37 PM

33. Obama loves playing rope a dope.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:25 PM

28. Doesn't really make sense

It's just the status quo. Obama didn't need to make a deal like that because he gets nothing out of it. Nor does the GOP. Of course, they'd be more open to consider the nominee after the election. There's a high probability they will lose and would have to vote on a Democratic president's nominee anyway. If by some miracle they win, they would in no way agree to even a moderate nominee. They'd find someone to the right of Scalia. If it's all about the election, they might as well just wait.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blasphemer (Reply #28)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:32 PM

31. Republicans rejecting a moderate judge makes them look even worse.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:42 PM

37. Do not trust Rep. leadership to keep

it's end of the alleged bargain.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiranon (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:45 PM

39. Doesn't really hurt them. If Democrats win in November

they know that Hillary or Bernie will appoint someone a hell of a lot more liberal that this guy. If the Rethugs win, all bets are off, anyway. So why not let Obama nominate a plain vanilla Repub lite jurist like this guy. That way they can stiff him all the way up to the election and then cover their bets by filling the vacancy with a judge who is very much to their liking before the new President comes in.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:43 AM

48. Hillary Will Select A Centrist

 

Cmon. Have you been paying attention? She is part of the national security establishment and isn't even close to liberals.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Wed Mar 16, 2016, 11:46 PM

40. Even If True

The guy Obama picked may be OK but....I would have thought it smarter had he nominated someone younger. Republicans seem to have figured things out with their pick of Roberts.

We should want someone who might be there a long, long time IMHO.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to colsohlibgal (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:44 AM

49. Younger...exactly

 

He's selling is out to them again

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:15 AM

51. locking no link and

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1014

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink