Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsslate - "Seat Merrick! Trumps nominee shouldnt get a hearing until Merrick Garland is seated
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/dear_congress_don_t_seat_donald_trump_s_nominee_until_merrick_garland_is.htmlby Dawn Johnsen
As President Donald Trumps nominee for the vacant Supreme Court seat receives public scrutiny in the coming days, its incumbent for us all to remember one thing: This seat was not Trumps to fill.
In fact, the U.S. Senate should refuse to confirm anyone President Trump nominates to the Supreme Courtuntil Trump renominates and the Senate confirms Judge Merrick Garland. On Monday, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon said he would be leading a Senate filibuster of any Trump nominee until Garland is seated. This is the only correct approach.
To recap: The Senate failed to fulfill its constitutional responsibility with its unprecedented refusal even to consider President Obamas nomination of Garland. Obama made the nomination with about a year left in his presidency, but from day one the Republican Senate leadership insisted that it would permanently block the nomination.
No one ever questioned Garlands qualificationsan impossibility for this brilliant, dedicated public servant. The obstruction constituted an insulting challenge to Obamas legitimacy, accompanied by calls for the people to decide via the election of the next president.
snip - much more to read.
I completely agree - was thinking about this today while listening to The World on NPR
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 885 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
slate - "Seat Merrick! Trumps nominee shouldnt get a hearing until Merrick Garland is seated (Original Post)
NRaleighLiberal
Jan 2017
OP
PJMcK
(22,037 posts)1. Come on, this is a little dumb
Judge Garland's nomination expired. He cannot be seated on the Supreme Court without a new nomination.
His nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress. Due to the election of President Donald Trump, his nomination has not been reintroduced to the Senate.
More explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland
IggleDuer
(964 posts)2. To turn the tables ...
The RW line has been that Garland could not be considered since the 2016 presidential campaign was already underway. If Merkley or some other Democrat would declare him/herself a candidate for 2020 now, using the RW standard, any Trump nominee should not be considered by the Senate. Since Kim Jon Don is likely to be impeached, he should not have the right to nominate anyone for SCOTUS. That is the standard the Repubs have established.
In other news, Judge Scalia is still dead.