Obama to announce Supreme Court nominee at 11 a.m.

[lennygoran]

Wow, this should be interesting! Regards, Len

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... at-11-a-m/

[John F]

Obama to Announce Supreme Court Nominee
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
MARCH 16, 2016

WASHINGTON — President Obama will announce on Wednesday his choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, even in the face of Republican vows not to consider his nominee, Mr. Obama said in an email to supporters sent from the White House. The president, in a move that could shape the nation’s highest court for a generation, will present his nominee during a Rose Garden ceremony at the White House, officials said. It is expected to kick off a monthslong political stalemate and to become a searing issue on the campaign trail.

“As president, it is both my constitutional duty to nominate a justice and one of the most important decisions that I — or any president — will make,” Mr. Obama said in the email. “In putting forward a nominee today, I am fulfilling my constitutional duty. I’m doing my job. I hope that our senators will do their jobs, and move quickly to consider my nominee.”

White House officials declined to say whom Mr. Obama had chosen, but the president was said to have focused on several sitting judges who have already won approval from Democratic and Republican lawmakers. Among the finalists are the federal appellate judges Sri Srinivasan, Merrick B. Garland and Paul Watford. Mr. Obama has insisted for weeks that he will nominate a highly qualified individual and has demanded that Republicans fulfill what he says is their constitutional responsibility to vote on his nominee.

In the email, Mr. Obama said he considered three principles in making his choice: whether the person possessed “an independent mind, unimpeachable credentials and an unquestionable mastery of law”; whether the nominee recognized “the limits of the judiciary’s role”; and whether his choice understood that “justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook.” Mr. Obama said that he was “confident you’ll share my conviction that this American is not only eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court justice, but deserves a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote.”

The White House has created a new Twitter handle, he said — @SCOTUSnom — and he urged people to follow it for “all the facts and up-to-date information.”

At a news conference on Thursday, Mr. Obama said that Republicans must “decide whether they want to follow the Constitution and abide by the rules of fair play that ultimately undergird our democracy and that ensure that the Supreme Court does not just become one more extension of our polarized politics.”

Republican senators have urged the president to hold off on a nomination, saying the next president should make the pick after voters express their preference in the presidential election. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has repeatedly said he would oppose any nomination until next year. “President Obama is getting dangerously close to narrowing down the field of potential candidates for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Mr. McConnell warned his supporters in a fund-raising appeal last month.

The outcome of the Washington clash could determine whether Mr. Obama gets to set the direction of American jurisprudence for decades. After the death last month of Mr. Scalia, a leading conservative, the court is evenly divided, with four liberal justices and four conservatives. A new justice appointed by Mr. Obama could be the deciding vote in several close cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/po ... minee.html

[John F]

A Faceless Supreme Court Battle No More
By CARL HULSE
MARCH 16, 2016

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s announcement of his choice for the Supreme Court will provide the White House and the Obama administration’s eager allies a human face, a life story and a distinguished legal career to accelerate their push against concerted Republican resistance. It will remove the theoretical from the proxy war Senate Republicans and Democrats have been waging in their arguments over past political contortions and over a speculative nominee.

“When the president nominates a brilliant legal mind with impeccable credentials to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Republican senators are going to come under enormous pressure to consider that person on the merits,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday.

Over the past few weeks, a veteran group of Obama administration and Obama campaign strategists have been working with activist groups that have played a role in previous court fights to prepare an aggressive campaign against Republicans. They plan to hit them both in their home states and in Washington for failing to undertake what Democrats will describe as a fundamental Senate duty.

Republicans are also prepared. They intend to stress their view that the dispute over whether to consider the president’s pick has nothing to do with the individual and that their objection is strictly about allowing the president to fill the vacancy with less than a year remaining in his tenure. Republicans say that Senator Mitch McConnell’s decision to rule out any action on a nominee so quickly after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was to make that very point – that their pledge block the process was not due to any particular nominee’s ideology or background. Their stance is that the 2016 electorate should have a say in picking the next member of the Supreme Court via the November presidential election. One top Republican noted this week that Republicans should all be ready with their prepared statements on the nominee because their position would not change no matter who the president picked.

Republicans have their own support group. Conservative allies are planning to swing into action and buck up any Republicans who might waver in the face of strong criticism. Members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, who have in the past been critical of Mr. McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and majority leader, issued a statement lauding him and Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who leads the Judiciary Committee, for standing against any nominee. “We appreciate their efforts,” members of the caucus said. “We believe that Senate Republicans are acting within the framework of the Constitution to prevent hearings on any nominee, and we expect that they will continue to hold strong.”

The Senate is scheduled to break for two weeks as early as Thursday. Democrats were anxious that the president would announce his selection before then to give them a chance to take Republicans to task on the floor before they go home to face activists hoping to stir up constituent criticism.

Republicans say they are confident that they can defend their position and that conservative voters are strongly behind them. Both sides expect the next few weeks to be crucial in determining whether their competing strategies are effective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/po ... gress.html

[John F]

President Obama To Announce Merrick Garland As Supreme Court Nominee
March 16, 2016
Bill Chappell

Federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland is President Obama's pick to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, NPR has learned. Citing a source close to the process, NPR's Nina Totenberg says Obama chose Merrick over two other federal judges who were seen as contenders for Scalia's seat. Obama is slated to make the announcement official at 11 a.m. ET, speaking from the Rose Garden at the White House.

The president's move to fill the seat left vacant by Scalia, who died just over one month ago, comes as conservative Republicans have pledged to block any attempt to fill the spot before a new president is sworn in next January. But this morning, Obama called on the Senate to hold a fair confirmation hearing of his nominee, and to hold an up-or-down vote. Announcing his plan to fill the vacancy, Obama said, "it is both my constitutional duty to nominate a Justice and one of the most important decisions that I — or any president — will make."..

Garland is "formerly a prosecutor; he ran the Oklahoma City bombing investigation; he ran the Unabomber investigation. ... The con is that because he has all that experience, he's 63 years old, and a lot of Democrats would like somebody younger than that, who presumably would be there longer than that."..

The nominee is likely to find a contentious reception in the Senate — but Nina says the outcome of the national election could change that.

Referring to Sri Srinivasan and Garland, NPR reporter Nina Totenberg says that if current Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton wins in November, "the likelihood is that the Republicans would go ahead and confirm either one of these two men, on the theory that anybody Hillary Clinton would nominate would be more liberal."..

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... obama-says

[lennygoran]

President Obama To Announce Merrick Garland As Supreme Court Nominee
March 16, 2016
Bill Chappell

I listened to Obama's speech introducing Garland-a very fine presentation imo-probably won't get him anywhere though. Regards, Len

[John F]

No surprises this morning; Merrick Garland is the man.

Looking at the Wikipedia article about him, I find that unlike some of the other possibles, his confirmation to the DC circuit court of appeals was far from unanimous and smooth. His nomination by President Clinton was held up for 19 months in the Republican-controlled Senate on the specious grounds that the circuit court had enough judges without him. When, after Bill Clinton's reelection, there finally was a vote, 23 senators voted against him, all Republicans, including now majority leader Mitch McConnell and judiciary committee chairman Chuck Grassley. So even if the senate were to go ahead with hearings and a vote, it's far from certain that Merrick Garland would be confirmed by the currently hyper-political senate.

After the election, Garland's nomination will be withdrawn if the new president is a Republican, or perhaps it will expire at the end of the 114th congress. But Hillary Clinton may also withdraw it, in favor of a younger and more clearly liberal nominee. With this possibility hanging over the senate Republicans, there's a third possibility. During the period between the election and inauguration day, if Clinton wins, the senate may push through Garland's confirmation as a defensive measure. It would then be too late for Republican voters to punish their senators for breaking what they had been told was a solemn pledge. Whether McConnell & Co. are cynical enough to do that, is anybody's guess but theirs, for surely they know.

McConnell took to the Senate floor shortly after the Rose Garden ceremony to restate his determination to obstruct any action on the president's nominee. He referred often to what he calls the "Biden Rule," which is no rule at all but a speech Joseph Biden gave in 1992 when chairman of the senate judiciary committee. It's essentially the same as the McConnell Rule, except that in 1992 there was no Supreme Court vacancy, so it was purely hypothetical. We don't know what Biden and the senate would have done when presented with an actual nominee, because that didn't arise.

[rwetmore]

Look, a lot of people are deluding themselves and making themselves look like fools on this issue. I will not engage in such hypocrisy and overt foolishness. I've been reading a lot of blog comments on this, and it's sad what I'm seeing.

BTW, if any of you ever wonder why many of us conservatives think you liberals are dupes and fools and have a hard time taking your views seriously this issue provides a really good example.

BTW also, this is essentially a staged or phony nominee, a deliberate moderate that Obama knows isn't going to even get a hearing, let along get confirmed. The purpose is to use the nominee to cast Republicans as obstructionists and unreasonable. In other words, this nomination is big façade. Again, at least for those of us know what's really going on.

[John F]

Some Republicans Break Ranks, Offer to Meet With Garland

After President Obama’s announcement, several Republicans, including some up for re-election, said they would meet with Judge Merrick B. Garland. Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, said that while she did not believe the Senate should move forward on a nominee until after the presidential election, she would meet with Mr. Obama’s pick. “I feel I would want to explain my position to the nominee,” she said. “He does serve on the Circuit Court of Appeals, so I want to give him that courtesy.” Ms. Ayotte is locked in a tough battle for re-election with Gov. Maggie Hassan.

Other Republicans who said they would meet with Judge Garland included Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine. Ms. Collins — who said White House officials had asked her, like many other senators, to meet with him — also said she believed the Judiciary Committee should hold hearings on Mr. Garland’s nomination, a lonely stance on her side of aisle.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/obama-supre ... s-garland/

[Ricordanza]

The purpose is to use the nominee to cast Republicans as obstructionists and unreasonable.

Well, they are being obstructionist and unreasonable, aren't they? Or can you give us a clue what is "really going on" that refutes the notion that they are obstructionist and unreasonable?

BTW, on our State level, I think that Senate President Sweeney is being equally obstructionist and unreasonable in refusing to grant a hearing to Governor Christie's nominee to the NJ Supreme Court.

[John F]

Merrick Garland's appointment will indeed expire at the end of the 114th congress if he is not confirmed by then. The new president, let's say Hillary Clinton, will then appoint her own choice. It's widely assumed, on the left and the right, that this will not be Garland but a more obviously liberal nominee.

What happens then will depend on the outcome of the senatorial elections this year. If the Republicans retain their majority, they can stall confirmation as long as they like, as they did with Garland in 1992. If the Democrats retake the majority, the Republicans can use filibusters to stall. So it may be quite a while before the Supreme Court has 9 justices again.

As for the Republicans rushing to confirm Garland after a Clinton victory but before she is sworn in, the White House press secretary said that such a lame duck confirmation would be unacceptable, but not that the president would reject it. If the Republicans are asked about it - maybe they have been, I don't know - I expect they'll repeat their pledge not to process any nomination by President Obama. What they will actually do, only they know, if even they do.

[John F]

Judge Garland and the Obama administration are proceeding as if his nomination were going to be the subject of hearings and a Senate vote. He has been making personal courtesy visits to those senators who will see h im, who today will include two Republicans - and the NY Times says that "16 Republican senators have said they are willing to at least meet with him in person." It's a long way from that to Senate hearings, which can only be convened by Senator Grassley, chair of the Judiciary Committee. But the Republicans' united front against any action at all on the nomination doesn't look so united any more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/po ... racas.html

Also, "Two dozen Republican senators either support or do not rule out allowing a vote to confirm Merrick Garland during the lame-duck session," if a Democrat wins the presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... 22dd35a6d/

[jbuck919]

In general, I've taken to expecting worst-case scenarios from the Republicans (heaven knows they've already delivered on the promise in spades) with my fingers crossed that there are chinks in the armor, that not everything along the lines John describes is wishful thinking or fantasy. I take the same approach to the GOP stonewalling Hillary Clinton the same way they have opposed Barack Obama or worse. As someone approaching retirement age, I have along with many other Americans very basic considerations such as Medicare and Social Security that affect me directly. It's easy enough to say that a Democratic president will continue to veto any legislature that endangers those programs, but it is Congress that must keep the trust funds healthy. My Republican congresswoman to whom I have referred elsewhere believes in compromise with these programs, which sounds like the GOP of yore, but by compromise she means no one's taxes are raised and benefits are reduced. When I say compromise with respect to the entitlements, I mean that the situation as it currently exists is already a compromise and there's nothing remaining that can be conceded.

[John F]

No doubt those Republicans are under pressure from their right, with threats of withdrawing PAC support or even running biddable candidates against them in the remaining primaries. So they're caught between party politics and the voters' wishes. Once the primaries are over, they may have more freedom of action. We'll have to wait and see.

As for what the next president will face after the congressional elections, that too remains to be seen. If the voters throw enough of the rascals out, and the reason is (among other things) their refusal to let anything be done just because the president favored it, party discipline in the Republican caucus might crack. But who knows?