It’s too late for the administration to appeal to Constitutional norms:
the Obama administration, with its aggressive assertions of executive power, is in a poor position to appeal to constitutional norms. The administration showed a severe lack of respect for constitutional norms when, for example, contrary to decades of precedent that the Justice Department will defend any federal law with a plausible defense, it refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act; when the administration forced Common Core standards on local education without anything resembling explicit congressional approval or even debate, based on an aggressive reading of vague existing law; when the administration unilaterally changed immigration policy via executive order, after Congress failed to pass legislation that would have accomplished similar ends; when the president has simply refused to enforce provisions of Obamacare that proved politically problematic; and, for that matter, when the president advocated for and signed perhaps the only major piece of American social legislation (Obamacare) that not only failed to win widespread bipartisan support, but also attracted not a single vote in either house of Congress from the other party. More generally, President Obama has repeatedly promised to try to circumvent Congress using any arguably legal means available, on the rather extra-constitutional grounds, contrary to the norms attendant to the separation of powers, that “we can’t wait” for Congress to pass legislation that the president favors.
Beyond that, it’s not as “moderate” a pick as some are claiming. For instance, he opposed Heller and the 2nd Amendment, and would have disarmed residents of DC.
[Update a few minutes later]
And now for something completely different: Wolf Blitzer actually calls out Debbie Wasserman Schultz for hypocrisy.
When the Hive’s media describe someone as “moderate,” it usually means “statist, just like us, but more subtle about it.”
Indeed.
A genuine centrist is hard right from their perspective.
Bilwick, you saw this newsmax article?
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-gizzi-orrin-hatch-obama-will-nominate/2016/03/13/id/718871/
Senator Orrin Hatch: “The President told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him,”
“[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” he told us, referring to the more centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia who was considered and passed over for the two previous high court vacancies.
But, Hatch quickly added, “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.”
Is Hatch part of the Hive? Is Newsmax?
No, I’d say he’s more of an idiot.
I was going to say “dupe,” but “idiot” works well, too.
Why on earth would you include Newsmax? They just reported the story.
Jon, Newsmax’s coverage described Garland as “more centrist”, Newsmax didn’t just quote from Senator Hatch. I am curious about what Bilwick thinks of Hatch’s characterization of Garland, and I am curious about what Bilwick thinks of Newsmax’s characterization of Garland.
“More centrist” is not centrist.
@Bob-1
“Centrist” is just a made-up term.
Bob-1,
You *DO* realize, do you not, that to Conservative, Orrin Hatch is a RINO’s RINO and a moron to boot?
Gregg, it sounds like you understand Bilwick’s Hive theory better than I do, so could you help me? Are RINOs part of the Hive?
Bob-1,
I don’t think about hive theory – you want to know what Bilwick means by that – ask him.
I think Sidetrack Bob is doing his usual thing–at all cost keep the discussion away from what it’s about–in this case diverting the discussion into a trivial and ultimately stupid point over whether Newsmax is part of the Hive. It’s also the usual “liberal” thing of pretending not to know what those of us in the pro-freedom camp are talking about. (“‘Statism’? What is this ‘statism’ you talk about? I know of no such thing–I just want to raise your taxes . . . .”)
Anyway, “the Hive” was a useful nickname that either Joseph Sobran or Tom Bethel came up with to describe what could be called “the ‘Liberal’ Gang.” The hive concept not only captures the collectivist mentality of its members and dupes, but also the way they seem to have a hive-mind when it comes to talking points, places to attack, party-lines etc. See:
http://www.sobran.com/hive/index.shtml
You should start out with the link that says simply “The Hive.” Sobran expands upon that in neighboring links.
He served as clerk for Justice Brennan, who obnoxiously destroyed every state’s own constitution with Baker v Carr.
What if it looked like the Republican nominee (i.e., Donald Trump) was going to lose to the Democratic nominee (i.e.,…) Would it then make sense to confirm this appointment because the one in 2017 is guaranteed to be worse?
Probably, but there’s no hurry on that. On the other hand, in that event, the administration might withdraw the nomination.
I would be surprised if Obama withdrew the nomination after the election. He’d have to give a reason, and it isn’t as if he can come out and say that he’d prefer a justice picked by Clinton, and only nominated Garland for temporary political gain. I think Obama wants to fill the seat himself, and Garland is his top choice.
That makes me think that Garland will be confirmed in the lame duck session after Clinton wins the election, regardless of whether the GOP holds the Senate. He’s a better option for the GOP than either a Hillary pick or a 2+ year blockade on SCOTUS nominations.
He’d have to give a reason Why? He’s not required to do anything of the sort. He could just tell (the few) reporters who question him to go pound sand. And guess what they would do? Fume, and then grudgingly pound sand. And for the rest (the eager transcriptionists), he could claim it was because of the portents of the Ides of November, and they would hurriedly start reporting on two-headed bulls being born full grown, conservatives born without hearts and yet walking, and other dire signs, giving their full approval of the delay until his successor comes into office. Doubt this? Lay your wager, boyo.
I think you are right that Obama wouldn’t withdraw the nomination in the event Hillary wins, his ego wouldn’t let him.
That’s an interesting angle, would Obama then remove his nominee?
I don’t think Hillary has coattails, especially if disaffected Republicans put her in office. Maybe the Democrats get out the riot squad strategy will gin up Democrat turnout though, so who knows?
Maybe if Obama’s DOJ had prosecuted Lois Lerner we could talk about the rule of law. Obama would have been better off using soft power at home and using his supreme diplomatic skills to work with his fellow Americans.
Also, you can add the Iran deal to skirting the rule of law.
I’m impressed that you used Iran Deal and Rule of Law in the same sentence.
Garland is the oldest nominee to the Supreme Court in 40 years, and the most moderate nominee in 20. Obama could have gone with a younger, more liberal nominee, but he seems to have wanted to make it harder for the Republicans to justify saying no.
His age has zero bearing on the justification for saying NO.
The guy is a progressive. I’d hardly call that moderate.
Nothing moderate about denying human rights.
It doesn’t matter what the law says, it matters who the judges are…
And if the progressives keep pushing their “kill whitey” nonsense, pretty soon, it will matter who the commanders are. Not the law, and not the judges.