Quote:I don't for a moment believe that Judge Garland was President Obama's first (or second) choice, but, as Michael Corleone once said, "it's the smart move."
Quote:Janice San Francisco 11 hours ago
Using the Republicans' argument that President Obama should not have his Supreme Court nominee considered because this is his final year in office (albeit this is only March), should the senators who are in the final year of their terms be allowed to vote -- on anything? Maybe they will be re-elected, maybe not, but why should we take the chance?
Quote:
Smallwood Germany 11 hours ago
Mitch McConell says we should let the American people have a voice in filling the Supreme Court vacancy and I agree.
The people spoke resoundingly to re-elect the current President. What manner of patriotism does the Republican Party follow that it would deny the people its rightful voice?
Perhaps the party of obstruct and divide could take a bold step in the direction of putting duty and service to the nation above partisanship. It would be a dramatic example of how our political system can actually work, especially at this moment in history when that system seems to be crumbing beneath us.
Quote:soxared040713 Crete, IL From Boston, MA 11 hours ago
Comparing Robert Bork and Merrick Garland is like comparing a symphony and an orchestra; it cannot be done because they're two unlike things. Mr. Bork was clearly on the extreme right of women's rights and minority gains preceding his nomination by a scant 30 years.
Judge Garland is middle-of-the-road, almost pure vanilla. I don't for a moment believe that Judge Garland was President Obama's first (or second) choice, but, as Michael Corleone once said, "it's the smart move."
The Republicans in Congress will tie themselves in knots trying to justify their refusal of even the barest civility and courtesy to Judge Garland (not to mention the sitting president, to whom courtesy is certainly due, but, with this posse, has been conspicuously lacking since he took his first oath on January 20, 2009.
In the end, I think they have to give Judge Garland a hearing and a vote, and if it comes to a vote, they must confirm. They have no reasonable justification for denying this president's choice. Unless, of course, it's all about *this* president.
Quote:
Peter Cambridge, MA 9 hours ago
Judge Garland is by any measure, a centrist and a moderate, and completely qualified to fill the position. If Republicans persist in refusing to consider him, how is it not obvious to all that they are the ones who are politicizing this process?
What they are saying is in effect, "we won't approve of a qualified centrist, one who earned praise from us just a few years ago, because we insist on a partisan conservative candidate to tilt the court as far to the right as possible. And we're willing to stonewall like nothing in the past 240 years to accomplish that."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/opinion/the...ef=opinion
