Who really wants Garland on the SC?

I've seen article after article about his lack of progressiveness, his pro Citizen's United stance from his vote in SpeechNow vs. FEC and many conservative decisions.

He is a disheartening pick to say the least, but while I share outrage about the Senate not doing its job, is this really the guy Democrats want on the S upreme Court?

I know we get outrage when conservative judges in lower courts refuse to follow the Supreme Court's rulings on gay marriage saying that they are going rogue and not following the law.

In adjuticating complex cases at the level he is at, there is often not a clear answer that X is wrong, that's why it's floated up to his level.

You're talking about extremely lower level and state judges refusing to adhere to decisions.

So, was it fair game for the Alabama Supreme Court to ban lower courts in the state from providing marriage licenses to same sex couples. The Alabama Supreme Court is high level. If the judge had issued this order before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, I would disagree with it. However, the fact that the judge is disregarding the U.S. Supreme Court is what makes it truly outrageous and lawless from a judge.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/top-ala-orders-judges-refuse-gay-marriage-licenses-article-1.2487546

Alabama's Chief State Supreme Court Justice issued an order Wednesday banning all lower judges in the state from providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect," Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, wrote in the order.

The order, first reported by The New York Times, directly defies the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last June that effectively legalized gay marriage nationwide.

The state laws Moore referred to in his ruling — Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act — both make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages.

(I despise that prick. . )

I can think of 20 better picks off the top of my head. Especially if Bernie is going to be our nominee.

I think the whole nth dimensional chess is just a way for followers to project their views onto him.

Why would he nominate a corporatist to the bench for the deciding vote's seat? I think the answer is simple. Because for the deciding vote's seat he wants a corporatist.

I've heard crap about the nth-dimensional chess for so long. Garland was on his short list already for quite some time before Scalia died. It isn't some recently formed plot to embarrass the Republicans, this is someone he legitimately wants on the bench. You don't joke around with Supreme Court nominations.

Best case from this, the Republicans hold strong and don't allow Garland through. Worst case, our side wins and Garland is put on the bench.

Where are all the people that were posting loyalty pledge posts claiming the Supreme Court should be reason enough to vote for Hillary? If they place such a high value on Supreme Court nominations being progressive or liberal, why aren't they up in arms over this one?

I don't bring it up much, to keep down the discord. I will never understand his coddling of these malcontent, intransigent congressmen and women. I have tried to crawl in his head, and it just doesn't compute. Yes, he got a dealt a crappy hand with these low-lifes, but you would think in his final year he could throw us a bone.

I keep hoping, against hope, that he will get to appoint a nominee, though I honestly would much prefer a vastly more liberal candidate. Hell, I'm not sure Garland is even more liberal than, say, John Paul Stevens. However, if no nominee is appointed before Bernie wins the general, then I'd prefer he leave it open for Bernie to pick one. I know for a fact Bernie wouldn't nominate anyone nearly as conservative as Obama's most liberal pick.

I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor have been very good Supreme Court judges who have consistently opposed the judicial activism from the right. I would be curious to hear the 20 picks you have in mind, and how they are better picks. Are they better writers? More impressive history of practical legal experience prior to being a judge? Went to a better law schools?

While I am sure there are folks who should also be on the short list, like Sri Srinivasan or Neal Kumar Katyal, would I say that they are demonstrably "better"?

at education. (which wouldn't surprise me in the least.) Ginsberg was appointed by Clinton, btw, as was Breyer. Of the others you mentioned, each has rubbed me the wrong way at least once, though I don't remember on which case, offhand. I didn't mean to offend, just being honest. Like frogs in a pot of boiling water, I'm not sure we can easily comprehend the enormity of the decision in current time. So for that reason alone, I'd rather err on the side of caution; I would probably pick a gay, female, ethnic of any kind (other than white), atheist of the highest order, and shove it in their faces.

Sheesh! I'd hate to get on her bad side!

Of course, she is correct.