It is a microcosm of how they got to Trump. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. How much have they paid for this in the Obama years?
People forget how much the GOP could have gotten if they had just agreed to Obama's Grand Bargain in 2011. At the time the Dems were only asking on the Bush tax cuts expiring for those with income over $1 million dollars per year.
The GOP said 'Hell no' and in 2013 they had to eat a much worse tax hike on everyone that makes over $400,000 per year-$450,000 for married couples.
With Garland, arguably this is sort of like Obama's 2011 offer.
1. Garland has a more moderate image.
2. He's a white male.
3. He is well liked by both sides of the aisle and Mitch McConnell and a number of GOPers have voted for him in the past for his current position.
4. Best of all from the GOP perspective, he's 63 years old.
If you're a liberal you can argue about Obama's pick. It doesn't increase the diversity of the Court and he is not as liberal-at least that's his reputation. Of course you never know who a SJC which actually rule in a particular case.
But the biggest knock it would seem to me is his age. As the President wouldn't you prefer someone a little younger who can be there longer with a chance for a real legacy?
The answer I heard some suggest yesterday is that the advantage of Garland is that he's ready to do the job on day one. Someone younger might have to grow into the job more but he can have an immediate impact.
Of course, relatively, it's a big improvement for liberals to replace Antonin Scalia with a moderate squish.
The GOP obviously is upset at this turn around. Part of why they are so stubborn here is that they lost Scalia. It's who is being replaced that is part of their frustration.
But again, this could end up like the GB. They may kill the Garland pick and get someone they truly hate.
Right now some on the GOP side are suggesting they might be willing to confirm him in a lame duck session-if Hillary is the President-Elect.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lame-duck-session-merrick-garland
This confirms that there is no Biden Rule that says you can't confirm a SCJ in the last year of a President's term but we knew that.
But I think it sets them up for ending up with someone worse than Garland-in their eyes. This is not a normal political year to say the least.
In a normal year while what the GOP is doing is yet again obstructionist and wrong, it might make some political sense.
After all, it's kind of rolling the dice on the chance that the next POTUS is a Republican wish might be roughly a 50-50 proposition.
However, the betting odds now show Hillary with a more than 3 to 1 chance of beating Donald Trump-the likely GOP nominee.
https://electionbettingodds.com/
Obama may well have withdrawn Garland by then if they truly stall him for the next 8 months.
Indeed, many think he may just be a sacrificial lamb.
"Merrick Garland Is Obama’s Rope-a-Dope Nominee."
"The president has learned to let the GOP punch itself out."
"Merrick Garland, the appellate chief judge whom President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court, is not going to become a Supreme Court justice before the election or probably ever. One imagines that both he and Obama are aware of this. He is a prop, chosen to spend the next eight months as a prop."
"The proof is in the basic description: Garland is a 63-year-old white man with a centrist inclination. If Obama were selecting a Supreme Court justice whom he genuinely expected to be confirmed, Garland’s nomination would constitutepolitical malpractice. He is too old, too unreliable, too much a creature of the statist center, and he brings no diversity to the bench. No offense to him, of course. But he knows this, and he knows that his nomination exists largely as a political lever against Republicans. He is someone about whom Senate Republicans have said nice things in the past, and his selection allows Democrats to wield those statements against Republicans as evidence of hypocrisy. Obama “could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Sen. Orrin Hatch said in a recent Newsmax interview, to give just one example. “He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.” It will be genuinely amusing for the remainder of the year to watch Hatch defend himself against this and other quotes as he refuses to consider Garland’s nomination."
Yes let them punch themselves out like they did on the Grand Bargain. I mean they could have had chained CPI and a rise in the Medicare retirement age. This is now gone forever.
So where do we proceed from here?
The odds strongly favor continuing Republican solidarity. The seat is the tipping point to a Democratic majority on the court, and the GOP will put up with a lot of heat to prevent the loss of the court for a generation.
True, a President Hillary Clinton might pick someone even more liberal, but better to risk a fight later than lose one now. When it comes to the Supreme Court, political calculation is nothing new. There were no good old days."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/opinions/merrick-garland-supreme-court-obama-toobin/index.html
People forget how much the GOP could have gotten if they had just agreed to Obama's Grand Bargain in 2011. At the time the Dems were only asking on the Bush tax cuts expiring for those with income over $1 million dollars per year.
The GOP said 'Hell no' and in 2013 they had to eat a much worse tax hike on everyone that makes over $400,000 per year-$450,000 for married couples.
With Garland, arguably this is sort of like Obama's 2011 offer.
1. Garland has a more moderate image.
2. He's a white male.
3. He is well liked by both sides of the aisle and Mitch McConnell and a number of GOPers have voted for him in the past for his current position.
4. Best of all from the GOP perspective, he's 63 years old.
If you're a liberal you can argue about Obama's pick. It doesn't increase the diversity of the Court and he is not as liberal-at least that's his reputation. Of course you never know who a SJC which actually rule in a particular case.
But the biggest knock it would seem to me is his age. As the President wouldn't you prefer someone a little younger who can be there longer with a chance for a real legacy?
The answer I heard some suggest yesterday is that the advantage of Garland is that he's ready to do the job on day one. Someone younger might have to grow into the job more but he can have an immediate impact.
Of course, relatively, it's a big improvement for liberals to replace Antonin Scalia with a moderate squish.
The GOP obviously is upset at this turn around. Part of why they are so stubborn here is that they lost Scalia. It's who is being replaced that is part of their frustration.
But again, this could end up like the GB. They may kill the Garland pick and get someone they truly hate.
Right now some on the GOP side are suggesting they might be willing to confirm him in a lame duck session-if Hillary is the President-Elect.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lame-duck-session-merrick-garland
This confirms that there is no Biden Rule that says you can't confirm a SCJ in the last year of a President's term but we knew that.
But I think it sets them up for ending up with someone worse than Garland-in their eyes. This is not a normal political year to say the least.
In a normal year while what the GOP is doing is yet again obstructionist and wrong, it might make some political sense.
After all, it's kind of rolling the dice on the chance that the next POTUS is a Republican wish might be roughly a 50-50 proposition.
However, the betting odds now show Hillary with a more than 3 to 1 chance of beating Donald Trump-the likely GOP nominee.
https://electionbettingodds.com/
Obama may well have withdrawn Garland by then if they truly stall him for the next 8 months.
Indeed, many think he may just be a sacrificial lamb.
"Merrick Garland Is Obama’s Rope-a-Dope Nominee."
"The president has learned to let the GOP punch itself out."
"Merrick Garland, the appellate chief judge whom President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court, is not going to become a Supreme Court justice before the election or probably ever. One imagines that both he and Obama are aware of this. He is a prop, chosen to spend the next eight months as a prop."
"The proof is in the basic description: Garland is a 63-year-old white man with a centrist inclination. If Obama were selecting a Supreme Court justice whom he genuinely expected to be confirmed, Garland’s nomination would constitutepolitical malpractice. He is too old, too unreliable, too much a creature of the statist center, and he brings no diversity to the bench. No offense to him, of course. But he knows this, and he knows that his nomination exists largely as a political lever against Republicans. He is someone about whom Senate Republicans have said nice things in the past, and his selection allows Democrats to wield those statements against Republicans as evidence of hypocrisy. Obama “could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” Sen. Orrin Hatch said in a recent Newsmax interview, to give just one example. “He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.” It will be genuinely amusing for the remainder of the year to watch Hatch defend himself against this and other quotes as he refuses to consider Garland’s nomination."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/merrick_garland_is_obama_s_rope_a_dope_nominee.html
Yes let them punch themselves out like they did on the Grand Bargain. I mean they could have had chained CPI and a rise in the Medicare retirement age. This is now gone forever.
So where do we proceed from here?
The odds strongly favor continuing Republican solidarity. The seat is the tipping point to a Democratic majority on the court, and the GOP will put up with a lot of heat to prevent the loss of the court for a generation.
True, a President Hillary Clinton might pick someone even more liberal, but better to risk a fight later than lose one now. When it comes to the Supreme Court, political calculation is nothing new. There were no good old days."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/opinions/merrick-garland-supreme-court-obama-toobin/index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment