Obama's Supreme Court Choices

A new name has emerged as a finalist in the Supreme Court sweeps to replace Justice Scalia. Meet Paul Watford.

< USA Today Poll: Millennials Would "Flock" to Hillary Over Trump | Monday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Judge Paul Watford (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    would be an excellent Associate Justice; a graduate of UCLA Law and editor of its law review. And, he clerked for Justice Ginsburg. He, as well as any Obama nominee will have a tough time, if the Republicans even permit Committee hearings.

    Watford was recently vetted for appointment as appellate judge, but the vote was not a slam dunk (61/34).  Judge Jane Kelly's background as public defender is an attractive quality and she had, at the time, the support of Grassley. Merrick Garland is my least favorite name that has been suggested.

    Whomever the president nominates, it should be soon. Unless there is some strategy in waiting, it seems that the nomination is overdue.

    My personal preference is for Jane Kelly, ... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 03:47:15 PM EST
    ... given her background as a public defender, if we're actually seeking to restore to the High Court the balance and diversity that Peter G. says it so desperately needs. Another woman on that bench certainly wouldn't hurt. (And since Peter's argued before the Court, I value highly his personal take on this matter.)

    Appellate courts at all levels should reflect the wide array of legal expertise and opinion that exist across the board in the profession, and should never be stacked as an attempt to either ensure preordained outcomes or pursue a particular political agenda, as appeared to be the late Justice Scalia's penchant.

    As I've come to trust Obama's judgment regarding his appointments to the federal bench, I'm sure that each of the potential nominees is an exceptional jurist.



    This is going to be fun (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:23:34 AM EST
    To watch.

    For a regular nomination I might be disappointed it was Garland, but for the current circumstances it's perfect.

    To quote a certain robot:

    Let's dispel with this fiction that Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.

    Judge Merrick Garland, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 12:11:39 PM EST
    while not my favorite of the names discussed is a good nominee under the circumstances.  The Republicans will not be embarrassed by their incalcitrance. And, of course, Senators, like Orrin Hatch, will have no shame and lots of reasons why  earlier accolades for Judge Garland are now inoperable. The Republicans have found that the paint in that corner they put themselves into will never dry.  And, the color, Benjamin Moore's "Barack Obama," is the sticky part.

    Judge Garland may feel that this is the best opportunity he has to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and is willing to withstand the brick bats to come his way--or thinks he does. As Chief Judge of the DC Court of Appeals  he is not likely to have a future career blemished by the Republican onslaught as would more likely be the case for a judge still in the earlier stages of a legal career.

    Judge Garland is reported to be a moderate jurist, which already places him light-years away from the late Scalia. And, of course, to be a true "replacement" for Scalia, Judge Garland would have to have an obsessive animus toward the gays.

     With a name like Garland, even if not a distant relative of Judy, my anticipation is that the Judge is a friend of Dorothy.  Judge Garland, if he is confirmed, while probably not in the notorious RBG mold,  is likely to join the liberal members of the Court on most issues. Yes, a good choice.  

    ... whose real name was Frances Ethel Gumm. And at 64 years of age, Merrick Garland -- whose own name sounds like he could be a character from a short story by Flannery O'Connor -- is one of the older nominees for the Supreme Court in recent memory, although we ought to keep in mind that the Notorious RBG was 60 when she was nominated and confirmed for the High Court. At 83, she's in peak performance mode. So, he could be around awhile if confirmed.

    They find themselves between (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    Barack and a hard place.

    Also (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    How amazing is it that the republicans are basing their entire position on something called "the Biden rule"?


    You can not make this sh!t up.


    Someone on One of the News Sites... (none / 0) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 04:02:59 PM EST
    ... wrote if they R's reject Obama's nomination HRC should nominate Obama.  I would take a sick day just to watch the Fox News meltdown.

    I believe O has said (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 06:56:42 PM EST
    He doesn't want the job.  I learned that when I suggested the same thing a while back

    Watching some of the coverage of this today I think Mitch and Chuck are about to get their azzes handed to them.  They are getting killed in the PR war.   Some senators in close races are going to meet with the guy.

    Joe Scarborough had an interesting suggestion.  He said they should take a film crew with Garland around to every senate office.  Request to meet with the senator on camera and if they refuse use the video in ads in November.   I like that idea.


    Nomination announcement today at 11:00 am (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 07:16:28 AM EST
    I'm wondering if he'll go with Merrick Garland, since he is older than the other two leading candidates,  just because he's assuming it will be a "throwaway pick" (even though Judge Merrick is incredibly qualified).  Is one if the top three willing to be a sacrificial lamb, or are there backroom conversatiibs happening that lead the WH to think they can a ruslly get a nominer confirmed?

    So (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:49:06 AM EST
    It's Garland.  He has totally outsmarted the republicans again.

    He's nominated a person they will look like total fools if they don't confirm. But they won't.  The question now is if they will embarrass themselves further by refusing to even meet with the guy as they have promised.

    Republicans look like petty idiots.  He looks statesman like.  No one gets confirmed and Hillary gets to make a better nomination in a few months.

    And btw, this will be a huge issue in senate elections.


    He supervised (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:58:39 AM EST
    The Oklahoma City bombing case and the Unabomber case for the DOJ.   I can't wait to see how the Republicans want to denigrate someone who was actually on the front lines of prosecuting terrorists.

    Also (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:18:40 AM EST
    Now they look like idiots if they don't at least meet with the guy and have hearings AND they look like idiots if they do.

    Ms Lindsey said "if the president nominated me I would not vote for me"
    Another said "if the president nominated my daughter I would vote against her"

    This is going to be fun to watch.


    I wonder (none / 0) (#4)
    by pitachips on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 07:34:24 AM EST
    What if any sort of consultation there has been with Hillary.

    Looks like it's Merrick Garland (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:12:27 AM EST

    Looks like where? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:15:08 AM EST
    NYT, WSJ, WaPo (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:17:37 AM EST
    For starters.

    The following (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:20:37 AM EST
    is called a link to a newstory.

    I didn't need to link (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:22:40 AM EST
    You asked me where I saw it and I told you.

    Now you know why I neeeded that link, JB (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 02:00:23 PM EST
    Reuters had profiled the completely wrong guy.  They've corrected it but wow, what a miss.

    I was busy (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 05:09:11 PM EST
    And since I told you where to find it, I'm not sure why you would go to a different site, then post it with a snarky comment to try and shame me, and THEN realize you had bad information, making yourself look foolish.

    Yes, JB You Have Been Tasked to Ensure... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    ...other do not look like idiots, which is probably a full time job given that doozy yesterday.

    Is that supposed to be an insult? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 11:16:07 AM EST
    Because yes, there are several people around here who can make themselves look like idiots...

    Yes I Was... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    ... but not to you.

    Not too busy to be blogging. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Mar 17, 2016 at 12:11:14 AM EST

    Merrick's a Hindu. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:23:02 AM EST
    If true, the Catholic Church's stranglehold on the Supreme Court has at long last been broken.

    You're confusing your possible nominees (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 09:25:26 AM EST
    but he's not Catholic...not that religion should matter anyway.

    Garland is Jewish (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    So that would make 5 Catholics and 4 Jews.

    Previous Ratio Was 6-3 (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by RickyJim on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 11:31:13 AM EST
    So if he is confirmed, will the court be more or less diverse? :-)

    Mitch (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 10:49:22 AM EST
    Is making the case fir ignoring the nomination.

    Your daily oxymoron is ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 04:52:31 PM EST
    ... "Republican leadership":

    "As phone calls go, this was not a long conversation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decided it would be 'more considerate' to speak to Judge Merrick Garland directly by phone Wednesday. And so when the White House asked McConnell if he would like to speak with President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the Kentucky Republican got on the line. He quickly made clear his position that he doesn't intend to let the Senate vote on Garland's nomination while Obama remains in office."

    AMERICA'S GOP 2016: Standing on principle -- or is that a banana peel?