MPR News Share your insight

Should the Senate take a vote on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee?

MPR News Staff March 18, 2016, 10:54 AM Mar 18, 2016

In an interview with NPR’s Nina Totenberg, the president says Senate Republicans owe it to the Founding Fathers to give Judge Merrick Garland a Supreme Court confirmation vote.

Today’s Question: Should the Senate take a vote on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee?

About the blogger

MPR News Staff

mprnewsstaff@mpr.org

AndyBriebart

They don’t have to. They could just have a vote without hearings and vote no. And when the next one is nominated, just quickly vote no.

Ruckabumpkus

They can’t do that, because a vote against such an obviously well qualified candidate would be too blatantly political to defend to their constituents.
Ralphy

Ah yes. The Party of NO!
Party on Garth.
Party on Wayne.

fromthesidelines21

Yes.

anon

You’re complicit in the dysfunction and gridlock of the government. How is it even questionable whether they should function with a semblance of functionality?

reggie

It is the Senate’s constitutional obligation to receive the President’s nomination, give it due consideration, and vote to approve or reject. Simple enough, but apparently too much work for the petulant obstructionists in the GOP. Really, alll they have to do is turn the crank and vote no, and they will have done the minimum of their duty.

Every time I hear the Repubs mumble about letting the people decide I want to unplug their ears and remind them that the people did decide — by decisive margins — in 2008 and 2012. Why aren’t those tens of millions of votes for President Obama respected, he asks rhetorically?

AndyBriebart

Open the hearing, call for a vote, vote him down. It’s as easy at that.

Sue de Nim

Yes, but they won’t, unless Mitch McConnell figures out how to get himself out of the corner he painted himself into by vowing not to. Obama called the GOP’s bluff by nominating someone they’d otherwise approve of, and now they’re duly embarrassed.

Ralphy

The GOP have truly backed themselves into a corner. McConnell’s pride won’t allow him to acknowledge that this is likely the most palpable c

whitedoggie44

Sure, as long as he is not confirmed. Another liberal judge who can’t be trusted to support the US constitution. He is a supporter of big labor, over regulation and trial lawyers, who contribute 95% only to democrats. In 16 major NLRB decisions, this judge ruled in favor of thug unions 16 times. Constitution, what constitution? This nominaion is nothing more than payback to greedy trial lawyers and big unions so vote but vote NO.

Ruckabumpkus

Judge Garland has a long-standing reputation among both liberals and conservatives for being moderate and scrupulously fair. In Obama’s other two opportunities, Republicans had suggested he nominate Garland, praising him for his respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. But now, just because Obama nominated him, he’s become liberal? A more likely interpretation of that 16 out of 16 statistic you cite is that he was standing up against thug management’s unfair union-busting efforts. This is just another case of the GOP saying No to Obama just because they can, not because they’re correct, and even though he’s doing something they would have approved of if it were anyone else doing it.
- Ralphy
  
  In his work cited by whitedoggie44, Judge Garland was one member of a panel of judges. Most of these were either NLRB or Social Security issues. Judge Garland has consistently taken the position in favor of the agency. Not sure where there were any thugs involved in any of these.
  - whitedoggie44
    
    Sorry, but he takes the side of regulators in all these cases with little regard to the constitution. This is nothing but payback to unions and trial lawyers. Can’t wait for my.25 cent check while the trial lawyers receive millions. As I stated vote but vote no. Anytime democrats lose, it make my day.
- whitedoggie44
  
  He did less damage on the court of appeals then the supreme court. Who do you think creates jobs in the US, the unions?? If anything they destroy jobs. Look at history at the number of industries that went through BK because unions would not renegotiate their contracts in tough times: Airlines, Steel, Auto’s -where Obama overturned 100 years of contract law to award the unions 55% of GM, Lets add Detroit and soon the State of Illinois. It amazes me how people like you have no understanding of history.
  - Ruckabumpkus
    
    Sounds like you’re nostalgic for the days of sweat shops and starvation wages.
    - whitedoggie44
      
      Unions were fine in 1950’s and 60″s but hey are worthless today which is why on 6% of private employees want to join a union. Lefty democrats love card check for union authorization but have you ever asked them for card check for decertifying a union? Take a look at the drop in public employee participation in union in Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana after it became unlawful to force union participation. The union members left by the thousands. Unions destroy jobs and force companies to send jobs overseas.
    - whitedoggie44
      
      there were days when unions added value but no more. Now it is nothing more than obtaining political clout by appealing for the stupid vote of hamburger flippers. Guess if you want to pay $75 for you next pizza then its no problem but the laws of economics are like the laws of physics.
    - Ruckabumpkus
      
      No, actually, the laws of economics are not like the laws of physics. Physical objects have no choice whether to submit to gravity. Human beings are capable of choosing to be generous or selfish, kind or cruel, just or unjust, merciful or ruthless. But I can see how you might want to assert that economic laws are immutable; it’s a way to excuse yourself from any obligation to the common good of your fellow humans.
- whitedoggie44
  
  Interesting as the democrats all started this political review of supreme court nominees when Robert Bork was nominated and now they are “concerned” what goes around, comes around. vote no on Garland!

ACitizen

Yes.

Gary F

Wow! Even Bill Clinton thinks Obama has done a lousy job!

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-bill-clinton-slams-awful-legacy-of-last-8-years/
Gary F

Wow, the heat in the kitchen is getting warmer.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-documents-raise-questions-on-benghazi-clinton-foundation/
Gary F

Looks like the Junior Varsity is pretty good, huh?