General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court hypothetical time
The situation: It's January 21, 2017. We have a Democratic president, a Democratic House, 65 seats in the Senate and eight Supreme Court justices, thanks to Mitch McConnell's strange theory that the National Rifle Association has to sign off on any and all Supreme Court picks.
At this time we can pick whoever the hell we want to replace Fat Tony Scalia. Who should it be?
First Speaker
(4,858 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)jmowreader
(50,533 posts)The only real problem I've got with Obama as a justice is he's never been a judge. I know it's not required, but it's helpful.
Peregrine
(992 posts)And he turned out pretty good (except for that internment camp stuff).
Thurgood Marshal was never a judge.
former9thward
(31,949 posts)In his later years he went into dementia and wrote an opinion saying trees could sue the government. When that happened the SC stopped hearing cases when his vote might mean a difference. They waited until he died or retired. When he retired guards at the SC had to stop him from coming to the building because he thought he still worked there.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)to confirm Obama's nominee Garland between the time the new Senate is seated and the new President
is chosen.
jmowreader
(50,533 posts)One of Garland's selling points is the GOP already likes him - this gang of thieves voted pretty overwhelmingly to give him his current position. If we GOTTA wait till the new Congress is seated, why not pick one of their nightmares?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)refute the Republican conduct by giving it to him.
But if the Republicans believed your scenario was likely wouldn't they just confirm Garland instead after the election?
CincyDem
(6,338 posts)Look him up. He'll kick ass so bad they'll give him 2 votes.