The Search For The 113th Supreme Court Justice, v1: Obama Nominates Merrick Garland

[MicroBrew]

It will be Sri. I'm 90% sure of it. The republicans f*ck with him they mess with the Hindi donors who are becoming big dogs.

They are big donors to the Dems, more so than the GOP but the GOP will consider that it would be prudent for them to not alienate them since Hindus are well represented in White collar jobs, Board of directors and as CEOs.
Obama will push him because he is Indian ; I think Obama the sort of person who sincerely believes that it would be good for society to have an Indian on the bench. He already got Sotomayor on, so the female Hispanic slot is covered.

 

[Fawlty]

So Obama makes recess appointment, then Senate says they weren't really at recess. They go to court. It ends up at SCOTUS. They split 4-4. So lower court (i.e. DC court) ruling will be one that matters. What a clusterfuck that could be.

Okay now that's exactly the sort of ridiculous theater I was hoping for...

 

[ncordless]

Okay now that's exactly the sort of ridiculous theater I was hoping for...

Even better, DC court is pretty even. Also does Sri recuse himself from deciding whether he becomes a lawgod, or does he cast deciding vote?

 

[Fawlty]

Even better, DC court is pretty even. Also does Sri recuse himself from deciding whether he becomes a lawgod, or does he cast deciding vote?

And it just got better!

 

[Arkain2K]

I thought today how funny it would be if Republicans win the White House and Democrats regain the Senate.

The political game with judges nomination going on right now was basically opposite during the Bush administration. The Democrats were filibustering left and right to prevent him from nominating any judges during the entirety of his first presidential term. Hostilities didn't end until the compromise by the Gang of 14 with 7 senators from each side, and the President was able to appoint judges in his second term.

Senate Democrats used the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of conservative appellate court candidates nominated by Republican President George W. Bush. In the Republican-controlled 108th Congress, ten Bush judicial nominees were filibustered by the minority Democrats: Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III, and Janice Rogers Brown.

So yeah, all those young Democratic voters who are crying about "obstructions" right now could use a little history lesson, I think.

 

[Lead]

The political game going on right now was basically opposite during the Bush administration. The Democrats were filibustering left and right to prevent him from nominating any judges during the entirely of his first term. Hostilities didn't end until the by the compromise by the Gang of 14.

Isn;t the nuclear option that Reid did in the senate make the vote for Appellate Court appointees only at 51 vote?

 

[ncordless]

The political game with judges nomination going on right now was basically opposite during the Bush administration. The Democrats were filibustering left and right to prevent him from nominating any judges during the entirely of his first term. Hostilities didn't end until the by the compromise by the Gang of 14 with 7 from each side calling a truce.

Funnily enough, William H Pryor was appointed via recess appointment power.

 

[ncordless]

Obama should nominate the corpse of Wild Bill Douglas.

 

[Ruprecht]

One of the things with Sri is there's absolutely no good reason a GOP senator could refuse to vote for him except pure obstructionism. They just voted the man in unanimously. He's qualified. Hell, he clerked for a Conservative justice in Sandra O'Connor. If Obama wants to get someone in. If he wants to score points in the next election, he picks a Hispanic and lets the GOP eat shit for it blocking it.

Vox had another idea for a "nuclear option".

Enter Pam Karlan, one of the most celebrated liberal law professors of her generation and a former deputy assistant attorney general for voting rights under Obama. Openly bisexual and with a female partner, she famously wrote Justice Harry Blackmun's dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, the since-overturned Supreme Court decision validating state bans on gay sex. She has attacked the Roberts Court for overly constraining Congress's power, and thinks the Court is too soft on both the death penalty and prison conditions.

"Would I like to be on the Supreme Court?" she once said in a graduation speech at Stanford Law. "You bet I would. But not enough to have trimmed my sails for half a lifetime." She hasn't trimmed her sails, and as such has a paper trail that would make her hard to confirm even with a Democratic Senate. But that makes her a perfect "fuck you" nominee if Obama just wants to wait until his successor takes over.

 

[Arkain2K]

Srinivasan, Lynch fit Obama's formula for nominees
In pushing candidates through a reluctant Senate, he has emphasized demographic firsts and cooperation with GOP.

By Edward-Isaac Dovere
02/15/16 05:34 AM EST​

President Barack Obama has a proven formula for getting big, politically charged nominations through Republicans in the Senate — and close observers say that now points to Sri Srinivasan as his likeliest Supreme Court choice, with Loretta Lynch suddenly lighting up chatter as a potential sleeper candidate.

In thinking about Antonin Scalia’s possible replacement, they look at how Obama won previous confirmations, including the two that Republicans most wanted to stop: Lynch as attorney general and Sylvia Mathews Burwell as Health and Human Services secretary, who each glided through confirmation with surprising ease just months after the 2013 Obamacare website launch disaster.

With those and others, Obama picked a nominee who would be a historic first or hail from a politically charged demographic, promoted their work with or, better, for Republicans and pointed out that the Senate had already confirmed the individual for a previous job. He touted their educational and professional credentials, and their life stories. And all of them survived this White House’s very extensive vetting process.

Srinivasan, a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, checks every box — which is why he’d already been considered a shoo-in for the high court if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had stepped down before the end of Obama’s term.

But if Srinivasan doesn’t want to sign up for what could be a year in limbo or if Obama decides to go with the more politically potent choice, well-connected lawyers say Lynch makes almost as much sense.

“Obama’s had a record of nominating people with sterling credentials,” said Caroline Fredrickson, president of the American Constitutional Society, which does not endorse potential nominees. “He has brought greater diversity to the bench, so that will probably be on his mind to see if that’s a possibility.”

Spoiler

Srinivasan, who immigrated with his family from India as a child (then grew up in Kansas, to boot) and went on to Stanford for undergradate, law and business school, clerked for Ronald Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor and was an assistant solicitor general under George W. Bush. He argued 25 cases before the Supreme Court and then became a deputy solicitor general under Obama.

Republicans delayed his appointment for six months when Obama nominated him to the D.C. Circuit in 2012. Then he was approved in committee and on the floor in 2013 by a vote of 97-0 — as it happens, just one short of the 98-0 vote count that put Scalia on the bench in 1986. Former Whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr was among the people who supported his nomination.

Srinivasan would be the first Hindu on the Supreme Court, and took the oath for his current job on a copy of the Bhavagad Gita. He’s spent just 2½ years as a judge, which gives him that politically important shine of experience on the bench, but before that was a litigator, which means he’s got very little record of judicial opinions to pick through. Democrats hate that he worked for Bush, Exxon, and Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling.

Obama’s nominating speech, delivered in his familiar how-can-you-disagree-with-this-based-on-anything-but-politics tone, would write itself. Well-connected lawyers in town spent Sunday imagining the possibility that O’Connor or Harvie Wilkinson, the conservative former chief judge for the Fourth Circuit whom Srinivasan also clerked for, might be willing to testify for him in front of Congress.

Plus, if Srinivasan were to be confirmed to the high court, he’d be 49 when he joined, allowing him to flip the ideological balance of the court now and likely for decades to come.

Lynch looks good for many of the same reasons that drive talk of Srinivasan, which all helped make her a surprise pick for attorney general in November 2014.

Obama touted her childhood in North Carolina rooted in the civil rights movement and her well-respected work as a United States attorney from Brooklyn (approved in 2010 for a second tour on the job), as she became his answer to how he’d possibly get a replacement for Eric Holder through Congress: by holding her up as the first female African-American attorney general.

Lynch’s confirmation fight became one of thelongest in American history, but facing this same Republican Senate, the White House and allies wore it down to a win last year by pressing those points over and over again. But the wounds from that fight may still be too fresh for the White House to put Lynch’s name forward again, and there’s a sense among lawyers with close ties to the White House that she wouldn’t get as high a grade as Srinivasan on Obama’s former constitutional law professor test.

Obama might pick neither Srinivasan nor Lynch, but most of the other names floating as serious possibilities in the informed speculation fit Obama’s nomination formula, too.

The unfolding presidential election and the much higher stakes of a lifetime appointment make these circumstances different from Obama’s previous showdowns with Congress. Democrats’ best case scenario is probably that the five blue and swing state Senate Republicans up for reelection this year (New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte, Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, Illinois’ Mark Kirk and Ohio’s Rob Portman) are driven to help the 46 Democrats to oppose a filibuster, and nine other Republicans somehow come along, because they’re in safe seats or worried about the longer term political fallout for the GOP from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s threat to block any nominee.

“A large question is whether the fight is framed as one about the nominee, or President Obama. They are different fights,” said Robert Raben, a former assistant attorney general under Bill Clinton who’s managed and staffed many confirmations. Given how the battle lines have been drawn, Obama’s play is against Republicans, not so much keeping Democrats in line, Raben said.

The White House is avoiding any comment about Obama’s process or the potential nominees. All that aides will confirm is that he won’t make an announcement this week.

“Given that the Senate is currently in recess, we don’t expect the president to rush this through this week, but instead will do so in due time once the Senate returns from their recess,” said White House principal deputy press secretary Eric Schultz on Sunday.

The White House wouldn’t comment on whether Obama has started having meetings with staff or reviewing materials about a possible confirmation. People familiar with the West Wing say that this situation is a surprise, both in Obama’s confronting a vacancy in his final year and in having the open seat be Scalia’s.

The White House has been struggling with much simpler confirmations. Obama’s nominees to be ambassador to Norway and Sweden spent seven months held up by Sen. Ted Cruz, who was trying to make a statement about the Iran nuclear deal, and others are still being delayed. The White House also can’t get a vote on Adam Szubin to be the Treasury undersecretary in charge of tracking terrorist finances, despite many public complaints centered, naturally, on the fact that Szubin’s got strong credentials and a history of working for Republicans.

The White House was considering skipping a formal nomination of John King to be the new education secretary, though he’s qualified and an African-American and has amazing life story: He was orphaned at 12 and found his way through public schools in New York. King has been acting secretary since October, and Obama formally nominated him only Friday afternoon, when the West Wing felt it had received enough assurances from Congress that, at least at that moment, it seemed like he’d go through.

As the trenches are dug, the absolutists on the left are already preparing to settle for whatever they can get.

“But is Srinivasan progressive?” former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wondered on Facebook on Sunday morning, insisting that his “White House mole” had told him Srinivasan’s the one.

Reich couldn’t give an answer, but seemed fine with that.

“My suspicion is Obama couldn't do better than Srinivasan,” he wrote. “No other nominee [will] get a majority of Senate votes.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...mas-formula-for-nominees-219296#ixzz40JV71vr2

 

[ncordless]

Vox had another idea for a "nuclear option".

That'd be awesome. Appoint her during recess, nominate Sri for the lifetime appointment, and tell GOP to pick their poison.

Hell it doesnt even have to be a lawyer. He should put Jay-Z in there. He could rap his opinions.

 

[COTUR1@43]

The following list of potential nominees is based on past nominations and discussions with sources, including government officials involved in the selections of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan:


Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

The North Carolina native became the nation’s top law enforcement officer last year, after a bitter confirmation fight in the Senate. She served two stints as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, earning a reputation as a tough prosecutor in several high-profile financial and terrorism-related cases. Most recently in the AG role, she filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Ferguson, Mo., Police Department over what she called its unconstitutional violation of the rights of the largely minority community. If successfully nominated, the daughter of a Baptist minister and a school librarian would be the first African-American woman on the high court.


Judge Patricia Millett, D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Millett was named in 2013 to a bench considered a stepping stone to the high court -- where four current justices once served. Formerly a private Washington-based appellate attorney -- Obama called her "one of the nation's finest"-- who also had more than a decade of experience in the U.S. Solicitor General's office, Millett argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court, the second-most ever for a female lawyer. Sources of both ideological stripes call her fair-minded, no-nonsense and non-ideological.


Judge Sri Srinivasan, D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Srinivasan was named to the court in 2013, months before Millett joined him. The son of Indian immigrants – who was born in India and raised in Kansas -- Padmanabhan Srikanth Srinivasan was the principal deputy solicitor general at the Justice Department, and argued more than two dozen cases before the Supreme Court. He would be the high court's first Asian-American. Known as low-key, practical and non-ideological, he may not excite many liberals, or give conservatives much to dislike.


Judge Paul Watford, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Watford was named to the appeals court in 2012. He clerked for conservative-libertarian federal Judge Alex Kozinski on the 9th Circuit, and later for liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Supporters call the Orange County, Calif., native an ideological moderate, which may not sit well with liberals seeking a stronger liberal voice.


Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

The Vietnam-born Nguyen was named to the court in 2012 after two years as a federal district court judge. She, too, would make history as the high court's first Asian-American justice. She is already the first Asian-American woman to sit a on a federal appeals court and is a former state judge, federal prosecutor and private attorney. She moved with her family to the U.S. when she was 10, just after the fall of then-South Vietnam to the Communists.


Full article is available here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ist-potential-nominees-to-succeed-scalia.html

 

[VivaRevolution]

Can obama nominate himself in a recess appointment, war room lawyers?

Is that legal?

 

[Pelosi2020]

It is going to be a minority female. Obama likes the ladies.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

So yeah, all those young Democratic voters who are crying about "obstructions" right now could use a little history lesson, I think.

Somebody could use a history lesson, because this isn't "equal on both sides".

http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2015/09/putting-gop-obstruction-judges-perspective

So in 2007, Leahy and new Majority Leader Harry Reid worked together to make sure the Judiciary Committee and full Senate fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities. During those two years, the Senate vetted and confirmed 68 of Bush’s circuit and district court nominees. In fact, the Democratic Senate had already confirmed 33 of Bush’s judges by this same point in the year (October 5 of 2007). In stark contrast, the McConnell Senate has so far confirmed only seven Obama judges. No matter how you look at it, 33 ≠ 7

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5417...wheels-justice-slow-overloaded-federal-courts

Legal scholars say Congress needs to fill judicial vacancies more quickly but also increase the number of judges in some districts — both issues that get bogged down in partisan political fights over judicial nominees.
In the late 1990s, the median time for civil cases to go to trial in the district averaged 2 years and four months. From 2009 to 2014, that number jumped by more than a year

And that doesn't even wade into the morass of the incredibly poor quality of some of the Republican judicial nominations, comparatively speaking (Clarence Thomas & Harriett Miers being the most high-profile examples).

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Can obama nominate himself in a recess appointment, war room lawyers?

Is that legal?

I think he could legally nominate himself, but not sure as a recess appointment. He'd likely have to cede the presidency to Biden or face immediate impeachment charges.

He could always be nominated by a later (liberal) POTUS. Taft considered his time as Chief Justice to be his highest career achievement. He was nominated by Harding about a decade after leaving office.

 

[Diamond Jim]

Can obama nominate himself in a recess appointment, war room lawyers?

Is that legal?

Obama is the law.


I have no idea.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

To the SD lawyers how accurate do you think the Segal/Cover score is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segal–Cover_score

 

[djacobox372]

The political game with judges nomination going on right now was basically opposite during the Bush administration. The Democrats were filibustering left and right to prevent him from nominating any judges during the entirety of his first presidential term. Hostilities didn't end until the compromise by the Gang of 14 with 7 senators from each side, and the President was able to appoint judges in his second term.
So yeah, all those young Democratic voters who are crying about "obstructions" right now could use a little history lesson, I think.

The political game with judges nomination going on right now was basically opposite during the Bush administration. The Democrats were filibustering left and right to prevent him from nominating any judges during the entirety of his first presidential term. Hostilities didn't end until the compromise by the Gang of 14 with 7 senators from each side, and the President was able to appoint judges in his second term.

So yeah, all those young Democratic voters who are crying about "obstructions" right now could use a little history lesson, I think.

No, no, this is not the same thing.

The minority party filibustering a nominee is very different and far more understandable then the majority party not even allowing anything to move forward.

Think of it this way: if the dems were the majority party and the filibuster was taken off the table, Obama could appoint the most radical liberal socialist judge he wanted, and it would just sail through. The GOP could all vote against it and it wouldn't matter. In this situation I wouldn't blame them for using the filibuster to exercise some degree of balance to the decision. This is what the dems did to Bush.

The GOP has set a new standard on majority party obstruction, which is, for the most part, unprecedented.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

Merrick Garland and Sidney Runyan Thomas are the most qualified and one of them should be the nomination because of their experience as judges and prowess as Constitutional scholars. However, because they are white men, they have no shot despite there being no white, Protestant men on the court, and white Protestant men making up a large chunk of the country. They will get passed over by a less qualified minority to fulfill Obama's agenda of having a diverse court, as if diversity somehow helps the court determine the constitutionality of matters.