Clinton Says She May Not Choose Garland for Supreme Court

[brooklynite]

Source: Bloomberg

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she wouldn’t be bound by President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, hinting that she would consider a bolder choice if she takes office in January with the seat still unfilled.

Clinton would "look broadly and widely for people who represent the diversity of our country" if she has the opportunity to make "any" Supreme Court nominations, she said in a radio interview that aired Thursday on the Tom Joyner Morning Show.

The comments are Clinton’s most specific yet on how she would handle the 7-month-old vacancy. They offer hope to progressives who say the Supreme Court nomination should go to a younger, more liberal jurist and possibly to a racial minority or woman. Garland turns 64 in November, is white and is widely considered an ideological moderate.

Clinton said she wouldn’t ask Obama to withdraw Garland’s nomination after Election Day, leaving open the possibility he could be confirmed with her implicit blessing in a congressional lame-duck session.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/hillary-clinton-hints-she-may-not-renominate-garland-for-court?utm_content=politics&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-politics

[PatSeg]

1. That could be a very clever way

to get the Senate to confirm Garland's nomination.

[Renew Deal]

6. Agree

[appal_jack]

8. Yes: turns up the heat now, but keeps her own options open. K&R, nt

[BlueMTexpat]

22. My first reaction too ...

[LynneSin]

33. First thing I considered

[PatSeg]

39. Hillary is really shrewd

I can picture republicans in Congress going, "Oh shit!" as they contemplate what they're in for the next four or eight years.

[OKNancy]

2. smart! n/t

[ffr]

3. Good, I want a liberal court justice.

Last edited Thu Sep 15, 2016, 03:03 PM - Edit history (1)

The swing from Scalia to a liberal will change the court for the remainder of my life.

[PatSeg]

10. I'm sure there will be

one or two more openings on the Supreme Court in the next few years. I think Obama deserves to have his nominee confirmed. Hillary will have her own.

[NewJeffCT]

24. He deserved to have Garland confirmed months ago

but, I have a feeling that if Clinton wins the presidency and Democrats retake the senate, Republicans will rush to confirm Garland in the lame duck session in fear of Clinton nominating Goodwin Liu or similar instead of Garland.

[PatSeg]

38. I think you're right

Over the years, Obama has bent over backwards to compromise with these republicans, but they were determined to never give an inch. I hope Hillary gets to nominate some justices that will give them nightmares for years. They just can't learn how to play nice.

[William Seger]

4. If Garland does come up for a vote now, Dems have a tough choice

... based on how confident they are that Hillary will win.

[Rose Siding]

7. Not gonna happen. But repubs may choose to vote on Garland after Hillary wins

-but before she takes office. Glad she's supporting Obama's choice AND signaling the possibility of a more liberal pick if they DON'T bring him up. It puts pressure on them to consider Pres O's choice.

[democrattotheend]

13. They will be racing to confirm Garland in lame duck if Hillary wins

If President Obama gives them the option. He could withdraw the nomination, but he probably won't.

[William Seger]

21. Might be too late by then; I think a lot of Dems would probably vote no (nt)

[cstanleytech]

9. I dont think its a tough choice for them since Trump winning is unlikely still.

The Republicans though are the ones facing a tough one and they are going to have to answer to the voters for it because they were the ones that gambled that a Republican would win the Presidency and that they could get enough majority conservative justices pack into the courts to have their dreams of an America based around the The Handmaidens Tale come true.

[Xithras]

25. It wouldn't be tough at all. They would confirm Garland.

Garland may not be the most liberal judge in the country, but there's no question that he's still solidly center-left and would be helpful to progressive causes. I can't imagine a scenario in which the Senate Democrats would pass up a guaranteed center-left SC justice, nominated by a Democratic President, on the HOPE that the incoming President MIGHT nominate someone even further to the left.

It's far more likely that the Senate Democrats would confirm him as quickly as possible, and try to get a more progressive choice for future nominations (and Clinton will have AT LEAST one more while in office).

[ColemanMaskell]

40. Agree that Garland can be confirmed IF the Republicans move on it prior to the election

I think Hillary has gotten really smart lately about tactics.

If Congress Republicans want to confirm Garland prior to the election, the Dems will go along because that's (1) a bird in the hand, and (2) respectful to Obama, who deserves a lot of respect.

If Hillary wins, as is the most likely outcome, then anything can happen. She is serving notice that anything can happen, probably (imho) to pressure the Republicans to show some respect and confirm Obama's appointee now while they know they still can.

During the lame duck, the ball is in Obama's court. He can withdraw the appointment or leave it stand. Obviously the Republicans would try to approve Garland during the lame duck if given the chance. If it does come to a vote, Democrats ought to approve it out of respect for all Obama has done and is continuing to do -- I mean, he's out there campaigning, not just for Hillary, but for all Democrats (if you heard the speech); and he's going at it 100% too. If he leaves the nomination stand, the Dems should approve it. It should be up to him if he wants to change his mind. He's still president.

Hillary knows that -- when she says she won't ask Obama to withdraw the nomination, her underlying message is that everybody should show still-President Obama the respect he deserves. That's the only interpretation I can see for her saying that she will not ask him to withdraw his appointee after the election.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. no. for the dems the question should be 'who is president right now?' if the answer is obama

then they should confirm his nominee.

[yallerdawg]

5. This'll keep her straight!

"I think we should stick with one president at a time," Clinton said. "I’m going to let this president serve out his term with distinction and make the decisions that he thinks are right for the country."

[caraher]

11. They won't give her the choice

If she wins there will be a confirmation in the lame duck session. Guaranteed.

But this is very smart for her to say, and I'm glad she's thinking it.

[democrattotheend]

12. Good news!

Garland is appealing in some ways, but I would rather have someone more liberal. This is a good idea to energize the base.

[bucolic_frolic]

14. GOP Obstructionism Round 2

will begin in January if she wins

They will stall and filibuster and complain and point to the Scalia Gods

In any given election cycle we really need to win more Senate seats

[lark]

15. Well played, Secretary, well played!

Make them think twice about obstructing him further for fear she'll nominate someone even less to their liking.

Of course, that probably won't matter because they think they'll retain the Senate and just block anything and everything she does.

[ananda]

16. I hope it's somebody more liberal.

nt

[louis-t]

17. Smart move, but maybe she could have said that

6 months ago. We would have the seat filled by now. She was further ahead in the polls 6 months ago, wasn't she?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. Bill.

[onehandle]

19. I want to see her put three liberals under the age of 40 on the court.

Odds are pretty good she'll be placing at least three.

[Demit]

27. Maybe they should have enough experience under their belt.

And have demonstrated their judicial thinking.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. def not under 40 but 50-ish is a good age

[Firebrand Gary]

20. I love Garland, but at this point he is the wrong choice for the country...

[LiberalLovinLug]

23. "They offer hope to progressives...

...who say the Supreme Court nomination should go to a younger, more liberal jurist"

or...is it more likely to to go the other way? That is a very slim hope indeed.

[JaneQPublic]

26. She should nominate Obama for SCOTUS.

Of course, if she signals that move before being inaugurated, the GOPers will confirm Garland in a New York minute.

[Frustratedlady]

28. That was my first thought, as well. She described Obama to a "T"...talk about rubbing their noses

in it.

Like so many of the other "tricks" they've pulled where Obama came right back at them with his chess game moves, this would be SO fitting. They always think they are so clever. The highlights of Obama's career for me has been watching the Repubs wilt when they caught on they'd just been had. McConnell is the best "wilter" of the bunch! He even reverts back to the green pallor of his "ancestors".

[47of74]

35. You think they would have learned by now not to try playing tic-tac-toe...

...when the game is 128 dimensional chess and their opponent is a grand master of that kind of chess.

[lame54]

29. I hope she doesn't

[Gothmog]

30. To keep GOP honest Clinton needs to maintain the right to select younger and more liberal nominee

The only way that Garland will be confirmed is if the GOP is worried that President Hillary Clinton will pick a much younger and far more liberal SCOTUS nominee

[47of74]

34. Hopefully she'll ask President Obama if he would be willing to serve.

If we could get him in as a SC Justice reich wing heads would be exploding for the next 20 years.

[Odin2005]

37. Taft did it, I can't see why Obama can't.

[Odin2005]

36. Translation: "Confirm Garland or I nominate a super-progressive!"