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

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 05:19 PM Mar 2016

The President Announcing Judge Merrick Garland as his Nominee to the Supreme Court -

Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

.. What a speech! It's another one for the history books. He sounds like an attorney making a closing argument to a courtroom jury. Unfortunately, the Republican members are in a "hanging mood" and couldn't care less about meeting their responsibilities as public servants (GOP: "Public Servants???? ....Haw-Haw-Haw-Haw!!!&quot . The GOP: the party of nihilism.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/16/remarks-president-announcing-judge-merrick-garland-his-nominee-supreme


......

At a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they’re disposable -- this is precisely the time when we should play it straight, and treat the process of appointing a Supreme Court justice with the seriousness and care it deserves. Because our Supreme Court really is unique. It’s supposed to be above politics. It has to be. And it should stay that way.

To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up or down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise -- that would be unprecedented.

To suggest that someone who has served his country with honor and dignity, with a distinguished track record of delivering justice for the American people, might be treated, as one Republican leader stated, as a political “piñata” -- that can’t be right.

Tomorrow, Judge Garland will travel to the Hill to begin meeting with senators, one-on-one. I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him a fair hearing, and then an up or down vote. If you don’t, then it will not only be an abdication of the Senate’s constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. It will mean everything is subject to the most partisan of politics -- everything. It will provoke an endless cycle of more tit-for-tat, and make it increasingly impossible for any President, Democrat or Republican, to carry out their constitutional function. The reputation of the Supreme Court will inevitably suffer. Faith in our justice system will inevitably suffer. Our democracy will ultimately suffer, as well.

I have fulfilled my constitutional duty. Now it’s time for the Senate to do theirs. Presidents do not stop working in the final year of their term. Neither should a senator.
(more)
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The President Announcing Judge Merrick Garland as his Nominee to the Supreme Court - (Original Post) Bill USA Mar 2016 OP
Indeed. Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #1
We should have michael moore and his film crew go with garland... dubyadiprecession Mar 2016 #2

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
1. Indeed.
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 05:20 PM
Mar 2016

The GOP has two choices, do the patriotic thing which is their duty, or show the greatest disrespect for the American people any political body has ever shown.

And their duty is to confirm the appointment, by the way.

Unless there is a very real reason they shouldn't, and that will not be the case with ANY appointment this man would make.

dubyadiprecession

(5,716 posts)
2. We should have michael moore and his film crew go with garland...
Wed Mar 16, 2016, 05:43 PM
Mar 2016

to Mitch McConnell's office and ask him where it is written in the constitution that hearings for supreme court justices aren't allowed for a president during his last year in office.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The President Announcing ...