Obama Destroys His Legacy With Corporate-Friendly Supreme Court Pick – The Ring of Fire

[leftcoastmountains]

After a month of speculation, President Obama has made his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia. That person is Judge Merrick Garland, who comes from the corporate defense law firm of Arnold & Porter. With this pick, Obama has secured his legacy as a corporate appeaser. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this.


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

[onecaliberal]

1. Honestly, did anyone think he was going to nominate a liberal? He's gone the other way

every single time....

[Drunken Irishman]

4. LOL right because his last two picks were just awful.

What a ridiculous statement.

[Pastiche423]

11. One was...

Elena Monsanto Kagan

[tularetom]

2. Um, his legacy was pretty much destroyed by ACA, TPP, Cat Food Commission

Rahm Emanuel, Wall Street Insiders guarding the henhouse, drones, appointing Hillary Clinton, etc, etc, etc.

There isn't a lot left of it to destroy at this point.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. Oh great.

Doesn't it just figure? We've definitely been bamboozled.

Elizabeth Warren seems to think highly of him. Though she hasn't met with him or reviewed his record /history. She might change her tune after she does. It sounds like she's just happy he nominated someone. I didn't sign her petition.

Her email I just received:

Chief Judge Merrick Garland has served our country for decades – as a federal prosecutor, a senior official at the Department of Justice, and a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

He’s won praise from Democratic and Republican Senators, liberals and conservatives. Even the Bush-appointed Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, has said: “Any time Judge Garland disagrees, you know you’re in a difficult area.”

President Obama has done his job – sending a Supreme Court nominee to the United States Senate. Now it’s time for the Senate to do its job.

Sign our petition now to tell the Senate Republicans to give Chief Judge Merrick Garland fair consideration and an up-or-down vote.

I look forward to meeting with Chief Judge Garland, reviewing his record closely, coming to a decision on his nomination, and then voting.

After hearing from people like you all across the country, I hope that all Senators will show that they respect the President, the Constitution, and Chief Judge Garland enough to do the same.

Thank you for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[bernbabe]

6. This guy defended the tobacco companies?

[Else You Are Mad]

7. The sad thing is..

Obama has ruined his legacy well before this. He has been a corporatist, moderate Democrat for most of his two terms. See, e.g., TPP. This, sadly, is just the nail in his coffin.

[basselope]

8. More like cemented his legacy.

He is and always has been a right of center president.

ACA, TPP, Bush tax cuts permanent, no movement on campaign finance reform, weak as water wall street legislation.

It stands to reason he would select a right of center Supreme Court nominee as well.

[RoccoR5955]

9. Yep, another corporatist on the bench.

If ever a judge was pro-corporation, and anti-people, this one is it.
Just look up his record.
Go ahead, google it. I am not anyone's personal research analyst.
And if you think Clinton would do any better, I have a bridge for sale for you, very cheap!

From http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760727/who-is-merrick-garland/:

"The former prosecutor also has a relatively conservative record on criminal justice. A 2010 examination of his decisions by SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein determined that “Judge Garland rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants’ appeals of their convictions.” Goldstein “identified only eight such published rulings,” in addition to seven where “he voted to reverse the defendant’s sentence in whole or in part, or to permit the defendant to raise a argument relating to sentencing on remand,” during the 13 years Garland had then spent on the DC Circuit."

[ruralsteve]

10. A lot has to be weighed in selecting

...a Supreme Court nominee. A president never knows if he/she will get to make such a nomination and if so how many times this will happen. Inevitably nominations are affected by who might get approved. The best way to assure approval is to select someone with unassailable legal qualifications, and presidents who don't wish to see a politicized SCOTUS, lean more heavily on that, rather than trying to divine how a justice might want to rule on future cases. There is a lot of uncertainty in trying to do that -- both Nixon and Reagan chose justices who turned out to be more liberal on certain issues than they would have ever guessed.

If this Garland is a slave to big business (rather than having ruled both for and against them in different cases), why does Al Franken, a card-carrying liberal (and veritable pinko commie in the view of Republicans) say that he is an excellent nominee? Why does the Southern Poverty Law Center applaud his nomination?

[nc4bo]

12. Of course he did. He's been leaving Easter Eggs for 8 years beginning with 1st cabinet picks

which weren't exactly hidden but even I was in denial that we were to be betrayed so quickly.

Lucky we got what we did SCOTUS-wise.

On the brightside, I read he's a very "fair and balanced" judge, pun intended and he should be reasonably easy to get seated despite the 'cons unbipartisan bipartisanship.

As usual, jmho and means abaolutely nothing.

[Ivan Kaputski]

13. I'm surprised he didn't pick someone who is pro CPI.