I think president Obama made a pretty good selection based, it was something the hadn't really been predicted and keeps him in the clear from taking any heat politically for not trying. This is a power move where he can offer someone who has already been vetted and approved once before further diminishing the senate that has 1/3 up for vote this election season. The inability the get this done is pure ammunition against the republicans and can possibly bring the senate back to democrats. This gives me some more respect for Obama. Personally I think that there is no need to hold hearings for the justice when they have a chance to get everything they want. They have the opportunity to win the presidential election hopefully hold on to the senate and easily get a super conservative on the bench holding a majority in all branches. Worst case scenario is they lose the senate and the presidency and they get a liberal on the bench. While they would be managing their risk with Garland but they are loosing traction because of Trump and if they take control of everything they would ensure themselves as a strong party again.
Obama made a good selection. Although it doesn't fire up the Democratic base as a more liberal judge would, this puts a lot of pressure on Republicans in the Senate, and even Republicans from marginal districts in the house. Failing to give a judge that was previously unanimously confirmed a hearing is just an awful political move. Providing a hearing wouldn't even look bad in my opinion; they can just vote no after all. Republicans are in serious risk of losing both the presidency and a lot of seats in the House, and they can not afford to give the Democrats more ammo to feed the obstructionist republican narrative they are certain going to use in the general.
Katelyn Wolfgang: 1) I have to agree with his pick. Garland has been vetted before and he is more moderate. This shows Obama is willing to do something instead of just accepting that they will not do anything. Will neither side is truly happy, he is at least going for the middle ground. 2) I think they should him hearings. It would show that they are willing to cooperate. Also, there is no guarantee that republican will win. Hilary could win and nominate someone more liberal. Even if a republican wins, it is not certain that things will go their way. Trump could win and nominate someone the party disagrees with based on the people that support him.
President Obama was faced with a serious dilemma- whether to choose a candidate that will create a big news uproar or a more bipartisan choice that will hypothetically appeal to a wider audience. I believe his choice for Garland was a smart move because Garland apparently plays to bipartisan support. I would certainly have enjoyed a nominee that represented a minority or had been more liberal, but with the way in which politics stands currently, being very partisan, I believe Garland is a safe choice. In order to gain the support of the other 13 Republicans needed, if Democrats all vote, I think hearings should be held. If anything, the hearings will provide an opportunity for congressmen who want their moment of fame. Once they get it, they may calm down and vote for Garland. And maybe Garland is not a good fit for government. By holding hearings, this will be decided. Laura Johnson
I appreciate the President's selection of a centrist candidate. I think the Court ought to be restored as a body of law not lawmaking as our Founders intended and electing more centrist candidates will depoliticize the Court as it has become, over the past few decades, an increasingly political institution. I am however disappointed that Obama has ironically selected a centrist candidate for purely political purposes: to expose the Republican Senate as obstructionist, uncompromising, and prone to partisanship and gridlock. This was a shrewd political move on Obama's part, that is appointing a judge Republican have praised and nominated before in no ambitious terms. I am further disappointed that neither side seems to appreciate the fact that the Court should be non partisan and non ideological; Obama ostensibly holds this view but is rather contradictorily held for political purposes. The President generally finds himself in favor of a politically active courts and has lambasted the courts at length for the Citizens United decisions, clearly showing his partisan biases.
I think the Senate should hold hearings at the very least to counter President Obama's narrative in the media of a do-nothing, stupidly partisan Senate. This however, will do very little to change the fact that the Senate is still highly partisan and constantly gridlocked, but may change public perception of Republicans, which is critical in an election year. If far-right conservatives are so committed to the Senate opposing an Obama nominee, they are free to vote for the Democrats in the fall, but in order for the Party to maintain its hold in the Senate and not allow Hilary to fill Congress with Democrats after she trashes Trump in the general election, Republicans must hold at least hearings for Garland.
1. I think President Obama has made a smart, thoughtful, and overall good selection due to the fact that Garland is a moderate. This is important in a time where America is highly polarized both in its government and society. Furthermore, since Obama knows how contentious conservatives are at this time, I believe him picking someone who is more bipartisan than the judge Clinton would probably nominate or unlike someone Trump would most likely select outside of established party lines was very practical and logical. 2. I think the Senate should hold hearings on Judge Garland because presently, many congressmen speak of wanting compromise, and I believe this could be an effective first step although it mainly affects the Judicial Branch. Moreover, it would be a smart decision because if they prolong denying him a hearing until if the Democrats win in November, the American electorate may lose even more faith in the government or Clinton could end up nominating someone even more liberal if they are too stubborn.
Obama's nominee was a good choice, a good choice in terms of a fair pick for a Supreme Court justice as well as a good choice in terms of political shrewdness. I support the moderate choice as the court should be above the extreme partisanship that it has become in recent times. Obama's decision to pick Garland was influenced in no small part by politics, as this is a clear move made to test the Republican senate. If they refuse to hold hearings, Obama can say he at least tried while the public's perception of the GOP becomes a negative one. I think it's in the best interest of the party as a whole to at least discuss the approval of Garland as the Trump-Clinton race, along with decreased GOP support due ro stubborness in replacing the judge, could cause the risk of the republicans not only losing the presidency, but perhaps more importantly losing the senate.
I believe that Obama nominated a good candidate. Merick Garland is not too liberal, but he is also not too conservative. Congress has no good reason to reject the nomination because it is a good balance. The republicans are going against their own beliefs of constitutionality of issues by denying Obama the right to a possible nomination.
The congress should hold a hearing for Garland as they are looking for some type of compromise. Constitutionally, it is Garlands right to get a hearing; he should at least be given a chance.
I think Obama made a good choice in nominating Merrick Garland. He is a moderate so Obama was clearly trying to promote bipartisanship and compromise. Garland was also previously backed by a majority of each party, so it will be hard for the Republican Party to reject him. A hearing should be held for Garland because it's his constitutional right and it would give the public a chance to form an opinion about him. Because Garland is such a moderate choice republicans will seem unreasonable if there is no hearing.
I don’t understand how republican congressman continue to make these mistakes. First the quip by Kevin McCarthy about the email-gate hearings, and now Mitch’s last stand. It’s pure stupidity, and President Obama’s move was well played. Merrick Garland was a brilliant pick, but it was very obviously a politicized move, as he seeks to force Republicans to go back on their word, or replace a far right void with a centrist auxiliary. I’d like to think that the senate should do its job and hold a hearing for Judge Garland. These republican constitutionalists that swear Obama is ripping up the constitution won’t do something that the constitution tells them to do; it’s maddening.
Obama made a good choice nominating Merrick Garland because he is a safe choice. Garland is a "moderate who had enjoyed bipartisan support" and is also highly experienced. It's expected for people such as Ted Cruz to criticize Obama's decision saying that Garland would "side predictably with President Obama on critical issues such as undermining the Second Amendment...". But if that's the case, why is Kelly Ayotte the only Senator who wants to have a meeting with Garland?
In my opinion, I think Garland is a good choice, in that he is not too liberal and is not too conservative. However, what I find interesting is that the public is quick to judge and say "Obama is asking Americans to cheer for yet another white guy." I feel that the government is in a time of need of a moderate, due to conflicting views and prejudices that separate our government. I feel that Garland also has a lot of experience in his field and a rather good record, even if it is being picked apart. The government could use another experienced individual such as Garland. Finally, it is Garland's right to have a hearing held, so I feel that is a necessity in order for the Supreme Court to reach a final decision.
I think Obama made a good choice with his selection of Garland. This selection puts republicans in a tough place considering he's a moderate candidate for this supreme court position. The fact that the senate is refusing to hold a hearing makes them look bad. They should be willing to give him a fair hearing (especially since he's not a far leaning leftie and could possibly side with republicans on some decisions). The Senate should definitely hold a hearing. I think that the next president will most likely be a democrat anyway, so what are they going to do once that happens? Not hold hearings for the next 4 years? It's ridiculous that they won't just hold a hearing for him. They could at least a hold a heading and then reject him that way it looks kind of fair.
I think President Obama made a great selection for the new supreme court justice. He put aside his own liberal bias and chose a moderate candidate that would benefit this country the most. The senate should not hold hearings on Judge Garland. The senate is incredibly biased against President Obama and have already said that they would reject anyone he suggests. The senate could completely love Judge Garland, as most do, but still say no because of its animosity towards President Obama. The senate should not hold hearings because they would not do what is best for this country, but would let their own bias cloud their judgement.
Admittedly, I know very little about Merrick Garland outside of what I have read in a few articles and heard from others but the gist I am getting is that he is moderate. Obama made a good call here. Whether he did it to ridicule Congress for partisanship or gridlock, or to simply do his job, he did his job, whether that be pointing blame at Congress for its gridlock, he still shows people there is a problem, and while he cannot simply solve it, he is bringing the issue of gridlock to the forefront. Aside from the political repercussions of this nomination, Obama picked a moderate, this will not fire up the Democratic base, but Obama has nothing to lose by growing out of favor with the base, I do not foresee him holding future high public office, his job is done. He picked a candidate that should be the closest thing to a consensus pick there is. He did not act in a liberal's best interest, he acted in the best interest of this country. Republican Senators now find themselves between a rock and a hard place. If they choose to postpone a hearing until the next presidency they run the risk of Clinton picking an even more liberal judge, which barring anything drastically changing in the race, seems to be the most likely outcome. However, if they do hold the hearings, it may show their base that they compromise with Democrats, which could hurt their chances for reelection. It is my opinion that I think they should hold the hearing, not because it is their job or because the supreme court should not be another battleground of partisanship, but because the devil they do know is better than the devil they do not. If they lose a few seats in the Senate and Clinton wins and nominates an even more liberal candidate, they cannot delay that hearing for another four years. The Republican party has to come to the realization that 2016 is a year where they will experience losses, Senators should compromise despite the loss of reelection because Garland is the best fit for this country, and the conservative ideology, long term. Congress has reached a catalyst where gridlock will need to be addressed, and, just like a teenager with a AP Government blog to write, they should address it sooner than later. Also, and this is just my opinion, if Obama is doing this to show how little Republicans are willing to compromise, they should, just as a final way to stick it to the man they have disliked for so long.
I believe that President Obama made a really good choice for a Supreme Court nominee. Garland appeals to many people on both sides of the spectrum, both republicans and democrats support him as a judge. The only thing stopping him from becoming the next Supreme Court judge is the fact that it is an election year and republicans don't want to allow a nominee from President Obama. The republicans in congress are working on what they call the "Biden rule" which doesn't exist. Congress should hold proper hearings for Garland without the bias of him being nominated by a democratic president. There is a risk of waiting until after the presidential race, if they lose and a democrat is in the White House, they lose the chance of having a moderate candidate for a justice.
1. I think Obama made the right choice by choosing Garland because of both the democrats and republicans thoughts on him. If the republicans think he is too liberal and the democrats think he isn't liberal enough, surely they both can realize that he is something akin to a compromise. I think it is good that Obama didn't pick someone purely based on their ethnicity, because that is not nearly as important as their views. 2. Yes the senate should hold hearings because it being an election year is no reason to stop doing their job. The senate not holding hearings is like students not doing their work at the end of the school year. Also, I think it would at least be fair to give Garland a hearing and not outright deny him.
Obama made an educated decision nominating Merrick Garland. Obama is aware so many things political-wise have become fairly polarized, so nominating a moderate showed Obama striving for bipartisanship. Unfortunately, even though Garland is moderate, the Republican party is not open to accepting him. This was a smart move on Obama's part because by nominating a moderate he shows how the Republican party remains to be childishly stubborn about decisions (even if Obama is meeting them half-way by not nominating someone far-left): "Republicans in the Senate have already said they won't even hold hearings to consider Mr Garland's nomination.". Hearings should be held because not only does it show cooperation, but it also shows the Senate doing their job. They are rejecting Obama's decision because of bias and hostility.
1) Garland is a good pick by Obama. He is widely considered a moderate, and is a solid "middle ground" pick for the Supreme Court Nomination. However, republicans have already said the will not hold hearings, or vote yes for his nomination. However, Garland is a very good choice for the Supreme court, he has a very proven track record, and will only help make the Supreme Court more bipartisan.
2) The Senate should still hold hearings. They can't keep denying nominations, especially since it's the Presidents job, as outlined in the constitution to pick a Supreme Court judge. They should hold hearings, so that the more moderate Republicans can make a rational decision. The Senate also needs to start making progress and by denying nominations, and not holding hearings, they simply increase dissent toward the Republican Party, and damage chances for another Republican controlled congress.
1. I think he was a good pick as he is a moderate person. I think it is a step in the right direction choosing someone who will not always side with one party's beliefs. 2. The senate really needs to do their job and hold these hearings. We elected them to do a job so its time they do it. It makes the senate look bad and like usual, slows things down. They have to at least start making progress. -Nick Pignetti
I believe that Obama made a very smart and strategic choice, selecting a moderate and generally bipartisan judge. His decision was well-thought-out, especially since the next president is likely to nominate a very polarized Supreme Court judge. I think the Senate should hold hearing in order to discuss whether Gardland should become the next justice or not. Perhaps they'll begin to realize that a more moderate nomination will be the best choice, so that the court can become more bipartisan.
1) As many people were expecting the president to nominate a more liberal candidate for the Supreme court, it was a bit of a surprise that he selected Garland. None the less, it was absolutely a good choice that will hopefully have bipartisan support. 2) Should the senate hold hearings? Of course they should - it is their job. Obama did his part in selecting a moderate candidate, and whether the Senate confirms him or not, they at least need to go through the motions of having hearings and going through the process. Otherwise, I don't think we'll have many incumbents reinstated in January of next year.
I think that President Obama's selection was the right choice, He is more of a moderate and not as liberal while also being approved by the senate earlier so the senate has no reason to deny him. This puts Obama in a good spot because by picking a nominee that is respected on both sides of the aisle he is taking the higher road. I feel that the senate should still hold hearings because opinions could have changed and views could change. -Rishabh Mistry
I think president Obama made a pretty good selection based, it was something the hadn't really been predicted and keeps him in the clear from taking any heat politically for not trying. This is a power move where he can offer someone who has already been vetted and approved once before further diminishing the senate that has 1/3 up for vote this election season. The inability the get this done is pure ammunition against the republicans and can possibly bring the senate back to democrats. This gives me some more respect for Obama.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think that there is no need to hold hearings for the justice when they have a chance to get everything they want. They have the opportunity to win the presidential election hopefully hold on to the senate and easily get a super conservative on the bench holding a majority in all branches. Worst case scenario is they lose the senate and the presidency and they get a liberal on the bench. While they would be managing their risk with Garland but they are loosing traction because of Trump and if they take control of everything they would ensure themselves as a strong party again.
Obama made a good selection. Although it doesn't fire up the Democratic base as a more liberal judge would, this puts a lot of pressure on Republicans in the Senate, and even Republicans from marginal districts in the house. Failing to give a judge that was previously unanimously confirmed a hearing is just an awful political move. Providing a hearing wouldn't even look bad in my opinion; they can just vote no after all. Republicans are in serious risk of losing both the presidency and a lot of seats in the House, and they can not afford to give the Democrats more ammo to feed the obstructionist republican narrative they are certain going to use in the general.
ReplyDeleteKatelyn Wolfgang:
ReplyDelete1) I have to agree with his pick. Garland has been vetted before and he is more moderate. This shows Obama is willing to do something instead of just accepting that they will not do anything. Will neither side is truly happy, he is at least going for the middle ground.
2) I think they should him hearings. It would show that they are willing to cooperate. Also, there is no guarantee that republican will win. Hilary could win and nominate someone more liberal. Even if a republican wins, it is not certain that things will go their way. Trump could win and nominate someone the party disagrees with based on the people that support him.
President Obama was faced with a serious dilemma- whether to choose a candidate that will create a big news uproar or a more bipartisan choice that will hypothetically appeal to a wider audience. I believe his choice for Garland was a smart move because Garland apparently plays to bipartisan support. I would certainly have enjoyed a nominee that represented a minority or had been more liberal, but with the way in which politics stands currently, being very partisan, I believe Garland is a safe choice.
ReplyDeleteIn order to gain the support of the other 13 Republicans needed, if Democrats all vote, I think hearings should be held. If anything, the hearings will provide an opportunity for congressmen who want their moment of fame. Once they get it, they may calm down and vote for Garland. And maybe Garland is not a good fit for government. By holding hearings, this will be decided.
Laura Johnson
I appreciate the President's selection of a centrist candidate. I think the Court ought to be restored as a body of law not lawmaking as our Founders intended and electing more centrist candidates will depoliticize the Court as it has become, over the past few decades, an increasingly political institution. I am however disappointed that Obama has ironically selected a centrist candidate for purely political purposes: to expose the Republican Senate as obstructionist, uncompromising, and prone to partisanship and gridlock. This was a shrewd political move on Obama's part, that is appointing a judge Republican have praised and nominated before in no ambitious terms. I am further disappointed that neither side seems to appreciate the fact that the Court should be non partisan and non ideological; Obama ostensibly holds this view but is rather contradictorily held for political purposes. The President generally finds himself in favor of a politically active courts and has lambasted the courts at length for the Citizens United decisions, clearly showing his partisan biases.
ReplyDeleteI think the Senate should hold hearings at the very least to counter President Obama's narrative in the media of a do-nothing, stupidly partisan Senate. This however, will do very little to change the fact that the Senate is still highly partisan and constantly gridlocked, but may change public perception of Republicans, which is critical in an election year. If far-right conservatives are so committed to the Senate opposing an Obama nominee, they are free to vote for the Democrats in the fall, but in order for the Party to maintain its hold in the Senate and not allow Hilary to fill Congress with Democrats after she trashes Trump in the general election, Republicans must hold at least hearings for Garland.
1. I think President Obama has made a smart, thoughtful, and overall good selection due to the fact that Garland is a moderate. This is important in a time where America is highly polarized both in its government and society. Furthermore, since Obama knows how contentious conservatives are at this time, I believe him picking someone who is more bipartisan than the judge Clinton would probably nominate or unlike someone Trump would most likely select outside of established party lines was very practical and logical.
ReplyDelete2. I think the Senate should hold hearings on Judge Garland because presently, many congressmen speak of wanting compromise, and I believe this could be an effective first step although it mainly affects the Judicial Branch. Moreover, it would be a smart decision because if they prolong denying him a hearing until if the Democrats win in November, the American electorate may lose even more faith in the government or Clinton could end up nominating someone even more liberal if they are too stubborn.
Obama's nominee was a good choice, a good choice in terms of a fair pick for a Supreme Court justice as well as a good choice in terms of political shrewdness. I support the moderate choice as the court should be above the extreme partisanship that it has become in recent times. Obama's decision to pick Garland was influenced in no small part by politics, as this is a clear move made to test the Republican senate. If they refuse to hold hearings, Obama can say he at least tried while the public's perception of the GOP becomes a negative one. I think it's in the best interest of the party as a whole to at least discuss the approval of Garland as the Trump-Clinton race, along with decreased GOP support due ro stubborness in replacing the judge, could cause the risk of the republicans not only losing the presidency, but perhaps more importantly losing the senate.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Obama nominated a good candidate. Merick Garland is not too liberal, but he is also not too conservative. Congress has no good reason to reject the nomination because it is a good balance. The republicans are going against their own beliefs of constitutionality of issues by denying Obama the right to a possible nomination.
ReplyDeleteThe congress should hold a hearing for Garland as they are looking for some type of compromise. Constitutionally, it is Garlands right to get a hearing; he should at least be given a chance.
I think Obama made a good choice in nominating Merrick Garland. He is a moderate so Obama was clearly trying to promote bipartisanship and compromise. Garland was also previously backed by a majority of each party, so it will be hard for the Republican Party to reject him. A hearing should be held for Garland because it's his constitutional right and it would give the public a chance to form an opinion about him. Because Garland is such a moderate choice republicans will seem unreasonable if there is no hearing.
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand how republican congressman continue to make these mistakes. First the quip by Kevin McCarthy about the email-gate hearings, and now Mitch’s last stand. It’s pure stupidity, and President Obama’s move was well played. Merrick Garland was a brilliant pick, but it was very obviously a politicized move, as he seeks to force Republicans to go back on their word, or replace a far right void with a centrist auxiliary. I’d like to think that the senate should do its job and hold a hearing for Judge Garland. These republican constitutionalists that swear Obama is ripping up the constitution won’t do something that the constitution tells them to do; it’s maddening.
ReplyDeleteObama made a good choice nominating Merrick Garland because he is a safe choice. Garland is a "moderate who had enjoyed bipartisan support" and is also highly experienced. It's expected for people such as Ted Cruz to criticize Obama's decision saying that Garland would "side predictably with President Obama on critical issues such as undermining the Second Amendment...". But if that's the case, why is Kelly Ayotte the only Senator who wants to have a meeting with Garland?
ReplyDeleteG. Bonsu
In my opinion, I think Garland is a good choice, in that he is not too liberal and is not too conservative. However, what I find interesting is that the public is quick to judge and say "Obama is asking Americans to cheer for yet another white guy." I feel that the government is in a time of need of a moderate, due to conflicting views and prejudices that separate our government. I feel that Garland also has a lot of experience in his field and a rather good record, even if it is being picked apart. The government could use another experienced individual such as Garland. Finally, it is Garland's right to have a hearing held, so I feel that is a necessity in order for the Supreme Court to reach a final decision.
ReplyDeleteI think Obama made a good choice with his selection of Garland. This selection puts republicans in a tough place considering he's a moderate candidate for this supreme court position. The fact that the senate is refusing to hold a hearing makes them look bad. They should be willing to give him a fair hearing (especially since he's not a far leaning leftie and could possibly side with republicans on some decisions).
ReplyDeleteThe Senate should definitely hold a hearing. I think that the next president will most likely be a democrat anyway, so what are they going to do once that happens? Not hold hearings for the next 4 years? It's ridiculous that they won't just hold a hearing for him. They could at least a hold a heading and then reject him that way it looks kind of fair.
I think President Obama made a great selection for the new supreme court justice. He put aside his own liberal bias and chose a moderate candidate that would benefit this country the most. The senate should not hold hearings on Judge Garland. The senate is incredibly biased against President Obama and have already said that they would reject anyone he suggests. The senate could completely love Judge Garland, as most do, but still say no because of its animosity towards President Obama. The senate should not hold hearings because they would not do what is best for this country, but would let their own bias cloud their judgement.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, I know very little about Merrick Garland outside of what I have read in a few articles and heard from others but the gist I am getting is that he is moderate. Obama made a good call here. Whether he did it to ridicule Congress for partisanship or gridlock, or to simply do his job, he did his job, whether that be pointing blame at Congress for its gridlock, he still shows people there is a problem, and while he cannot simply solve it, he is bringing the issue of gridlock to the forefront. Aside from the political repercussions of this nomination, Obama picked a moderate, this will not fire up the Democratic base, but Obama has nothing to lose by growing out of favor with the base, I do not foresee him holding future high public office, his job is done. He picked a candidate that should be the closest thing to a consensus pick there is. He did not act in a liberal's best interest, he acted in the best interest of this country.
ReplyDeleteRepublican Senators now find themselves between a rock and a hard place. If they choose to postpone a hearing until the next presidency they run the risk of Clinton picking an even more liberal judge, which barring anything drastically changing in the race, seems to be the most likely outcome. However, if they do hold the hearings, it may show their base that they compromise with Democrats, which could hurt their chances for reelection. It is my opinion that I think they should hold the hearing, not because it is their job or because the supreme court should not be another battleground of partisanship, but because the devil they do know is better than the devil they do not. If they lose a few seats in the Senate and Clinton wins and nominates an even more liberal candidate, they cannot delay that hearing for another four years. The Republican party has to come to the realization that 2016 is a year where they will experience losses, Senators should compromise despite the loss of reelection because Garland is the best fit for this country, and the conservative ideology, long term. Congress has reached a catalyst where gridlock will need to be addressed, and, just like a teenager with a AP Government blog to write, they should address it sooner than later. Also, and this is just my opinion, if Obama is doing this to show how little Republicans are willing to compromise, they should, just as a final way to stick it to the man they have disliked for so long.
I believe that President Obama made a really good choice for a Supreme Court nominee. Garland appeals to many people on both sides of the spectrum, both republicans and democrats support him as a judge. The only thing stopping him from becoming the next Supreme Court judge is the fact that it is an election year and republicans don't want to allow a nominee from President Obama. The republicans in congress are working on what they call the "Biden rule" which doesn't exist. Congress should hold proper hearings for Garland without the bias of him being nominated by a democratic president. There is a risk of waiting until after the presidential race, if they lose and a democrat is in the White House, they lose the chance of having a moderate candidate for a justice.
ReplyDelete1. I think Obama made the right choice by choosing Garland because of both the democrats and republicans thoughts on him. If the republicans think he is too liberal and the democrats think he isn't liberal enough, surely they both can realize that he is something akin to a compromise. I think it is good that Obama didn't pick someone purely based on their ethnicity, because that is not nearly as important as their views.
ReplyDelete2. Yes the senate should hold hearings because it being an election year is no reason to stop doing their job. The senate not holding hearings is like students not doing their work at the end of the school year. Also, I think it would at least be fair to give Garland a hearing and not outright deny him.
Obama made an educated decision nominating Merrick Garland. Obama is aware so many things political-wise have become fairly polarized, so nominating a moderate showed Obama striving for bipartisanship. Unfortunately, even though Garland is moderate, the Republican party is not open to accepting him. This was a smart move on Obama's part because by nominating a moderate he shows how the Republican party remains to be childishly stubborn about decisions (even if Obama is meeting them half-way by not nominating someone far-left): "Republicans in the Senate have already said they won't even hold hearings to consider Mr Garland's nomination.". Hearings should be held because not only does it show cooperation, but it also shows the Senate doing their job. They are rejecting Obama's decision because of bias and hostility.
ReplyDelete1) Garland is a good pick by Obama. He is widely considered a moderate, and is a solid "middle ground" pick for the Supreme Court Nomination. However, republicans have already said the will not hold hearings, or vote yes for his nomination. However, Garland is a very good choice for the Supreme court, he has a very proven track record, and will only help make the Supreme Court more bipartisan.
ReplyDelete2) The Senate should still hold hearings. They can't keep denying nominations, especially since it's the Presidents job, as outlined in the constitution to pick a Supreme Court judge. They should hold hearings, so that the more moderate Republicans can make a rational decision. The Senate also needs to start making progress and by denying nominations, and not holding hearings, they simply increase dissent toward the Republican Party, and damage chances for another Republican controlled congress.
-Eyad Hasan
1. I think he was a good pick as he is a moderate person. I think it is a step in the right direction choosing someone who will not always side with one party's beliefs.
ReplyDelete2. The senate really needs to do their job and hold these hearings. We elected them to do a job so its time they do it. It makes the senate look bad and like usual, slows things down. They have to at least start making progress.
-Nick Pignetti
I believe that Obama made a very smart and strategic choice, selecting a moderate and generally bipartisan judge. His decision was well-thought-out, especially since the next president is likely to nominate a very polarized Supreme Court judge.
ReplyDeleteI think the Senate should hold hearing in order to discuss whether Gardland should become the next justice or not. Perhaps they'll begin to realize that a more moderate nomination will be the best choice, so that the court can become more bipartisan.
1) As many people were expecting the president to nominate a more liberal candidate for the Supreme court, it was a bit of a surprise that he selected Garland. None the less, it was absolutely a good choice that will hopefully have bipartisan support.
ReplyDelete2) Should the senate hold hearings? Of course they should - it is their job. Obama did his part in selecting a moderate candidate, and whether the Senate confirms him or not, they at least need to go through the motions of having hearings and going through the process. Otherwise, I don't think we'll have many incumbents reinstated in January of next year.
I think that President Obama's selection was the right choice, He is more of a moderate and not as liberal while also being approved by the senate earlier so the senate has no reason to deny him. This puts Obama in a good spot because by picking a nominee that is respected on both sides of the aisle he is taking the higher road. I feel that the senate should still hold hearings because opinions could have changed and views could change.
ReplyDelete-Rishabh Mistry