Do your job guys!

Obama has them boxed in. they are in a no win situation. Well no win to themselves. There is the LAW however and the only win there is to do their jobs. Bernie is doing his. Now lets see what ol Chuck does with his Grandma and death panels that don't exist Still don't.

as always

They haven't been doing their damn jobs for the past 8 years. Why would they start now?

they pretend to argue and get drunk together after work

I mean Citizens United, Roe VS Wade, Stand your ground laws, the ACA, etc.

I think he's left to moderate on other issues.

I have not read his decisions, though may skim through them when I have the time. I did read a SCOTUSblog article regarding Garland and their determination that he is more "conservative" on criminal issues is derived from supposition based on 10 cases in which he disagreed with more liberal colleagues. I am an attorney, and a former prosecutor/criminal defense attorney, and can say that there are very many reasons for a judge holding a particular opinion. A judge may believe that a case was not properly brought before a court on procedural grounds, may decide that an issue does not need to be resolved because another issue controls (i.e. the case is dismissed for Reason 1 so there is no reason to even address Reason 2), may have their hands tied by a particular law (if the law requires a mandatory sentence that is not cruel and unusual), or may not see a legal issue that can be resolved by appeal (an appeals court is generally limited to finding errors in the record from the lower court; the Supreme Court does not make decisions as to whether a defendant was factually innocent or guilty, but whether any laws or rights were violated in the conviction).

From everything I have seen and read about Garland, he seems like a thorough and fair jurist, not a political ideologue like Scalia. He will definitely be an improvement.

strong criminal defense background.

We need justices on the Supreme Court who will review the laws that are permitting so much racism in our justice system, so many attacks on minorities by police officers and so many deaths at the hands of police officers or in prisons.

This was the time to clearly take the side of Black Lives Matter. It would give Democrats something important and exciting to vote for in November.

I am quite disappointed in this choice for the Supreme Court. I realize that the Republicans would have rejected a strong advocate for criminal defendants and human rights at this time, but I think it would be worth the risk.

This pick makes me think that Obama is pessimistic about the likelihood that we will have a strong Democratic victory in November.

We have to keep reminding ourselves that he is not a liberal, has not and will not nominate liberals. This is as good as it gets. I was worried he would nominate a "moderate" Republican!

seems he's more interested in winning the "game" than providing hope and change.

Democrats once again miss an opportunity. Nominating a candidate that was outspoken about criminal justice and in particular institutional racism would have made GOP burn red, but on a national scale, it would have been seen as listening to not only BLM, but most all Americans. And the GOP fighting against it would only make them look worse.

I think Obama, and by extension the Democratic party, would be respected for putting forth an advocate like that, within the party and without, even if those more conservatives own party leaders railed on against the pick. Republicans learned years ago under Bush that voters always choose the one not afraid of bold moves and standing by their beliefs. Whether to the right or to the left. That's why Bernie is such a phenom.

Whether the candidate was affirmed or not, the message would have been sent. Would have helped re-brand the party and show they were listening.

far from the petty quarrels and bickering of the in-crowd.

It just baffles me that Obama would miss this opportunity to make a statement about his stance on civil rights and police brutality considering what has happened what with all the killings in the past couple of years.

It's as if Eisenhower failed to send troops to Little Rock. It's as if LBJ failed to sign the Civil Rights Act.

This was Obama's chance, even if one doomed by Republican partisanship to failure, to make a strong statement about the police killings and other bad acts.

Missed by a mile.

Agreed.

https://m.

I really think Bernie is just playing screw the R Senators on this.

He is probably related to Omaha lawyer Garland. (Waiting confirmation). I know his cousin Marty Shukert in Omaha.

http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/no-person-better-for-supreme-court-seat-ex-omaha-planning/article_d042bdfe-eb94-11e5-8cca-571738c6f824.html

Way down in the story.

Branstad spokesman Ben Hammes said Wednesday that the Iowa governor met Garland for the first time a few weeks ago during a trip to Washington. Garland and Branstad are related through Branstad's mother, whose birth name was Rita Garland.

Branstad, who was governor in 1995 when Merrick Garland was nominated for the federal appeals court in Washington, wrote a letter to Grassley asking for his support.

Hammes said Wednesday that Branstad "supports the path chosen by Senator Grassley as chairman of the Judiciary Committee."

Give the guy a hearing, at least. Do your constitutional duty!

GOP have rigged it
Gerrymandered the districts
they know 3 or 4 Justices will be appointed by the next president

what's the use in voting for a minority party in a safe GOP district

This can depress Senate vote totals as well as Presidential totals
and therefore Electoral College count

It's a ripple effect to squeeze us out

Elections are decided, when close, on the margins and the marginal
voters

Sometimes as in the close Congressional elections of the 1990s

20-40,000 votes nationwide, sprinkled in a few close races, would have
grabbed control of the House.

It is ALL about turnout.

Sitting on these boards and thinking we're organizing and increasing
turnout is sometimes not a very valid concept

A dispute over the nomination and confirmation of a pro-Black-Lives-Matter justice would have brought out Democrats in droves.

This is a lackluster appointment. Not very courageous.

What do you think Black Lives Matters support is with Democrats, no less independents and Republicans? The idea of Obama, America's first black president, nominating a Black Lives Matter activist to the Supreme Court is a Republican dream.

Our Fourth Amendment rights have been eviscerated by this conservative court. The likelihood that this nominee will be confirmed by the Senate is small. Why not make a moral statement and raise this moral issue for discussion?

I am talking about the police abuse of people of color. The moral statement needs to be made. Obama is the president to do it. He has nothing to lose. He is not up for re-election.

LBJ had the courage to sign the Civil Rights Bill. Where would we be had he not signed it? The price for signing it was great. We Democrats are still paying it today. But what is morally right is morally right. This was Obama's chance to speak out in a meaningful way on a subject of the greatest moral importance.

Obama has nominated a stellar judge who would be expected to vote the Democratic side on most issues such as abortion, on both sides of the aisle for fairness, legal knowledge and experience, and upholding the constitution. It is a win-win for Obama and the left. If Republicans approve him, we have someone who will concretely tip the court towards liberal decisions. If they refuse to bring his nomination to a vote, they are exposed once again for the obstructionist hypocritical partisans they are. that could be one more factor leading to a win for the Democratic candidate.

...by suggesting that President Obama was not legitimately elected. Of course, the GOP "establishment" then expresses surprise that racist Trump and Crazy Cruz are dominating their primaries.

Surely voters are sick of them.

the non-critical thinkers are flocking to Trump

Glad to hear this.