Yvette Gagum
3/23/2016 07:45:08 pm
While many senators, Republican or Democrat, do not want to give Obama the Supreme Court nomination, they also do not want to give the new president, be it Hillary or Trump, a nomination as well. The senators and other politicians are really judging how bad it would be to let Mr. Garland step in or wait it out and see what kind of person the new president will bring in. Based on the articles, and personal preference, I would rather the senate vote, discuss and think of the idea of allowing Mr. Garland become the new Justice instead of trying their luck with a nominee that a new president, who will have to quickly adjust to the political ties in the executive office, will propose. The Republican party controls both parts of congress, and knowing how difficult it will be to get a nominee approved by the Senate, President Obama chose a nominee with "proven appeal to Republicans". It is likely that a new democratic president would've done the same, however it is better to vote on Mr. Garland than take a chance.
Reply
Payson
3/23/2016 11:34:04 pm
I agree that it could end up being the best option to accept Mr. Garland, but only because if a Democrat gets elected as president then the Republicans of the Senate will no longer have the leverage they have now and will be forced to accept someone less moderate than Mr. Garland and Mr. Garland does have some appeal to the Republicans, as far as a democratic nomination can anyways.
Reply
Jacqueline Fonseca
3/24/2016 02:38:14 pm
I agree with you because if the senate does wait they won't know who will become president. And like Payson said, for the Republicans they should vote now because if a Democrate wins then they would nominate a worse justice.
Reply
Nina Almase
3/28/2016 05:13:33 pm
I agree with all of this but I wouldn't necessarily say it would be a "worse" justice. I do think that they are playing a risky game just to hold back Obama, everything seems up in the air, but from polls, Clinton is more favorable as the next U.S. president over The Trumpster. 3/24/2016 04:58:19 pm
I agree with you. I see what the Senate is doing, but choosing now is a safer choice than waiting. Based on how things are going now, if they wait for the next president to appoint a judge, then it will be under either Trump's reasoning or Hillary/Bernie's (Bernie for those who think he can pull ahead). Its much better, in a neutral standpoint, to go for a moderate then hope that the next president is partial to your side.
Reply
Jerbear
3/29/2016 08:11:46 am
I don't think that choosing now is the safer choice in the view of the republicans. Because Republicans believe their nominee for president can beat Hilary. Whether that is true or not is up for debate and will be decided in November. But i think that no matter what it is risky, if it were me i would wait.
Kynzie W
3/24/2016 11:41:55 pm
I agree, because it would be safer for the Republicans to allow Garland to take Scalia's place than role the dice with the next president. Especially since the Republicans cannot be 100% certain that they will remain in control of congress. Therefore it would be better to gain a justice who is fairly accepted on both sides than one who is extremely conservative or extremely liberal, because a one-sided justice will push the Judicial branch to one side.
Reply
Robert Medina
3/25/2016 12:10:18 pm
Looking at this, I agree it is a stubborn move for the senate to not approve of a candidate let alone hear a candidate. In a day and age when we want cooperation, you risk losing elections by not cooperating. Especially when the majority of Americans say to hear the justice, your constituents will vote you out and you'll be replaced. The goal of republicans is to stop the democratic power from gaining in one branch but the irony is that they risk losing power in all 3 come election time as that would mean the president could be democrat and the senate also democrat which would permit the Supreme Court to be democrat as well. Ironic I think.
Reply
Nina Almase
3/28/2016 05:16:15 pm
I do find this whole situation ironic as well, Robert. I do think that Congress is playing this game because well, they are Republicans and Obama is not, but I think that if karma is real, their game will come to a loss and they will have no power in any of the branches.
Payson
3/23/2016 11:28:15 pm
I think that the Senate should not approve any of Obama's nominees, not because Obama has no right to do so like some people may suggest, but because it is the tactically smart thing to do for the Republican Party. I admit that Mr. Garland deserves to be the new justice because his party has a president in office when a justice died, but life's not fair and I believe it would be advantageous to the Republican Party and our nation as a whole if they wait to see if a Republican will become President and let him appoint a justice.
Reply
Payson
3/23/2016 11:40:24 pm
I agree with everything you said. I would just add that there is a danger in refusing Mr. Garland because if a Democrat gets elected then the nominee will be worse, but our country will be ruined anyways if one of the democratic candidates gets elected this year so there really isn't much risk.
Reply
Jacqueline Fonseca
3/24/2016 02:40:55 pm
I do agree with you saying that for the Republican Party it would be safe for the Senate to vote on Mr. Garland due to the chance of having a Democrate being elected. But I would also think they should vote because of President Obama's right for nominating a new justice.
Jacqueline Fonseca
3/24/2016 02:35:40 pm
This nomination for a new Supreme Court justice should be voted on by the Senate. First of all because of the rights that President Obama does have for nominating Mr. Garland. Also if they vote than they could vote no for appointing him. I believe though that waiting for the "new" president could be dangerous because we do not know who that will be and do not know why they would want to nominate for the justice position. I also think that the position should be filled so that the Supreme Court can be whole again.
Reply
3/24/2016 05:01:55 pm
I agree with you, as right now there is nothing getting done. I don't think that in our current situation that even if the Senate approved Garland, that things would get done. However, waiting for the next president is damaging the public image of the Senate, and just from the standard idea of "saving face" it'd be better to go with the safe choice for them rather then hope that the next president will be of their party.
Reply
Yvette Gagum
3/24/2016 07:03:29 pm
You make a good point. The senate doesn't have to Garland in, they could vote and just not appoint him. I think its better to just vote in general though and respect the President's powers.
Reply
Imelda
3/25/2016 12:05:15 am
I agree that a big reason the senate should follow through with Garland as the nominee is that it is President Obama's duty to nominate someone and if this is who he has chosen, that should be respected and treated fairly.
Reply
3/24/2016 04:54:27 pm
I believe that the Senate should go ahead and proceed with Garland's nomination. Now, bias aside, I can understand the benefits to both sides for the respective parties. What I mean is if the Republican party waits and a Republican nominee becomes president, then the new nominated judge would definitely be conservative and would be accepted readily. On the other side, if someone such as Sanders becomes president, then the new nominee will most likely be a definite Democratic progressive, or whatever party they identify under but they'll be definitely be left-sided. Also to that, then the Republicans lose the "wait till next president" plan. I, however, believe they should just go ahead with the nomination because, and I'll try to show no bias in this, but it will only damage relations and image more if they continue to do so. The Republican party already looks "bad" considering all the media is showing on them is Trump and his ideals, and now they are trying to get a conservative leaning judge but because of this everything has become stagnate. Yes, choosing now would mean they lose the Republican judge chance, but it is honestly a safer choice to do so as soon they will lose the excuse of waiting for the next president and if that president happens to be a Democrat, then they will probably nominate someone who is much less moderate than Garland.
Reply
Yvette Gagum
3/24/2016 06:59:48 pm
I totally agree, and like you said bias aside, it just seems like a safe choice. The horserace election that's going on now doesn't provide a clear winner till at least October, and waiting that long just to decide that Garland would be the best choice would be a bad move on the Senate.
Reply
Laura Jackson
3/25/2016 07:57:33 am
I agree, particularly with what you said regarding Republicans and the Media. Its been a decidedly tough year for conservatives with the Trump candidacy and I believe they need to make compromises if they want to start winning good media and good will. Thinking long-term is the best way to do that; While this may be a concession, they'll be better off in later elections if they start to shape up their public image in office.
Reply
Deanna Strayer
3/25/2016 08:59:04 am
That's definitely a good point about the media towards Republicans, not considering the nomination would just add on to the pile of crap that the Republicans have found themselves in recently, especially regarding Trump. Nobody knows who's going to win the presidency later this year, but either way it's not looking good.
Reply
Ryan Schwarz
3/25/2016 10:37:42 am
And if the republicans let this happen they can be like "don't say we didn't ever do anything good for you"
Kynzie W
3/24/2016 11:56:17 pm
It is a gamble for both parties, especially the Republican party. A liberal justice would never be accepted with the Republicans in control of Congress but President Obama would not appoint a conservative justice. The best option would be to allow Garland to be appointed. It would be risky to both parties to see which justice the president who is elected in November will choose, but the reward could be positive for the Republicans. If a Republican was elected they could gain a conservative justice therefore tipping the court to the right. That is purely hypothetical and hard to predict due to the ever changing status of the election. The Republicans also risk losing their chance to elect a justice who is approved by their party because of the possibility of a party control switch in congress. If the Democrats were to takeover it could switch the hypotheticals altogether. Clearly there is a lot of possibilities and it will be interesting to see how this goes down.
Reply
Imelda
3/25/2016 12:03:34 am
I think that the Senate should proceed with the nomination process for judge Garland because even though Republicans are currently saying they will only oppose whatever nomination President Obama makes, it is clear that this may not be the case. Already some Republicans are warming up to the idea of favoring Obama's nomination as the lesser of two evils because they fear who the future president might nominate. Instead of creating more conflict and wasting time they should proceed with this nomination.
Reply
Laura Jackson
3/25/2016 07:52:01 am
I agree! I think the Senate has made their point and expressed a valid opinion - and as a result the nominee is a moderate instead of the leftist judge they feared. While I don't think this compromise should have had to been made, I think it'll do well in cooling down Republicans who've been campaigning against the nomination. In addition, I think a moderate judge gives Republican senators an "easy way" out of this mess; they'll compromise without giving up party appearances but still solve the problem.
Reply
Ryan Schwarz
3/25/2016 10:36:14 am
It can also be said a centralist judge can be beneficial to the balance of the Supreme Court itself making it seem less political in general
Deanna Strayer
3/25/2016 08:57:01 am
I agree that many might warm up to the idea and it might go through . Many Republicans are just being obstinate and saying they won't allow anybody through from Obama simply because it's Obama. They're not rationally thinking out the consequences.
Reply
Laura Jackson
3/25/2016 07:46:33 am
I think the Senate should proceed with the nomination because if they continue to challenge it a dangerous precedent is set. If they succeed then where does it stop? The Legislation and party in power will throw these tantrums whenever they disagree with the Executive. Constitutionally, it's wrong. The president is in power for four years - not three - and should be able to exercise their power any time during that frame. By denying this nomination the Senate is allowing political bias and sensationalism to dictate the government. Whether they agree or not, it is their duty to uphold the constitution and should know better than to protest on something unbased. This interferenc between branches is only creating more disallutionment among the people; hopefully the Senate will see that and accept the nomination.
Reply
Deanna Strayer
3/25/2016 08:54:51 am
I really think the Senate should very strongly consider proceeding with the nomination. For one, it's looking like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be our next president as of the moment. The Senate will be screwed if they wait and Hillary gets to decide because there's a larger chance that she won't nomimate someone with as much Republican appeal. Also, who in their right mind would allow Donald Trump to choose a Supreme Court Justice? The man, while admittedly smart in a certain kind of way since he is in the running, is an idiot in regards to how to run a country. And the things that come out of his mouth make me think it's an awful idea to allow him to nominate one of the most powerful positions in government. Obama chose somebody that while still a part of his party, has "proven" Republican appeal, and I really think that's the best case scenario right now.
Reply
Jacob Acuna
3/29/2016 07:55:16 am
That would be the scariest thing if Trump was elected and you bring up a very important point that if Hillary is indeed elected, then she will nominate a very very progressive candidate.
Reply
Ryan Schwarz
3/25/2016 10:34:16 am
I think the republicans should definitely accept the nomination of Supreme Court judge nominee Garland, considering for one waiting for a new president would cause the Supreme Court to have only 8 members for almost a year is one problem, another is the view that they might lose the presidency and cause and even more democratic judge to be nominated, on top of that is the fact that Obama is still president and it is his right to elect judges
Reply
Robert Medina
3/25/2016 12:01:19 pm
I feel as though this issue is largely centered around politics. It is blatant yes, however, if we looked back we could see unanimous approval of justices and they did fulfil their constitutional obligation. My next question is a question posed in the article, What happens if trump wins? Who will he then nominate? Right now they could compromise with a moderate and swallow their pride or risk having the senate changed and possibly the presidential seat, ultimately screwing themselves over and getting someone who is more liberal. Although party leadership says to do something, I think the part is so weakened that you have to provide for your constituents as they overwhelmingly say to approve this justice!
Reply
Andie Stockwell
3/27/2016 10:27:23 pm
I agree that the issue is political, or just a bit of a stalemate between parties. It is still the president's constitutional right to appoint judges regardless of how that will split the vote.
Reply
Jacob Acuna
3/29/2016 07:53:52 am
I agree, and even if the President is in his lame-duck stage he still has responsibilities to fulfill.
Jerbear
3/29/2016 08:02:29 am
Here is a thought that i want everyone to think about. If a Republican president gets into office and then nominates someone that gets approved the balance between conservative and liberal points of view, is restored to what it once was, because there were 4 justices to the right and 4 to the left and then one swing vote on the court. Even if the justice nominated is a "Moderate" then you still have 4 very liberal justices, 3 conservative and 2 "swings". The court is almost always going to vote one way. But if there is a balance, both points of view are equally represented and preventing the Supreme court from becoming an oppressive body, because they too are a political machine in the government. I think i would rather have a balanced court than a court where most cases come through and are entirely voted on one way. I think that this balance makes the Court fair to both sides and keeps the court in line with what the constitution says because no one party controls the Court.
Andie Stockwell
3/27/2016 10:24:26 pm
The senate should proceed with the nomination of judge Garland. Not only does Obama have the right to nominate judges as president, but there seems to be only political pride standing in the way of appointing a judge who both parties can endorse. It is a bit ridiculous that there seems to be such a fight as to whether the president even has the right to nominate a judge even though it is his constitutional duty. The presidency is a four year term, not three. Though it is understandable the the Republican party would be upset with this, considering Scalia was a conservative judge and a Democratic nominee would be against their best interests, judge Garland is a very moderate judge.
Reply
Nina Almase
3/28/2016 05:22:41 pm
I personally think this is a perfect example of how Obama gets blamed for not doing anything during his 2 terms but how it truly is the Senate blocking his power any chance he gets. This is supposed to be apart of his executive power. The fact that they won't take Garland as a judge seems so petty and and ridiculous. Like everyone else has said, this is a moderate judge that the Republicans have before agreed they approved of, the fact that they are weighing out the chance to wait just makes me hope that we do have a Democratic president come November and that they pick the most liberal socialist person they can.
Reply
Jerbear
3/29/2016 07:47:12 am
I think that the Senate should wait to approve Judge Garland. This is because as much of a right as President Obama has to nominate the senate has a right to choose when the nomination process will be furthered. More importantly than that I believe that if we were to wait till after the next president is elected i think that the will of the people woulld be much more accurately reflected within the decision. The Republican party may be able to put off an approval of a justice until after the election but If Hilary were to get elected they would not be able to put it off for five years (this year + Hilary's 4 yr term).
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
3/29/2016 08:06:41 am
I agree that Obama is no longer the "will of the people" necessarily, but you have to keep in mind that the founding fathers didn't want the SC to be politicized at all. So the SC shouldn't reflect the people. The SC should reflect the law and this nomination is lawful and totally justified and he, Garland, was approved in the past and has only improved his resume in time.The republicans are being beaches.
Reply
Jacob Acuna
3/29/2016 07:52:20 am
I think that it's ridiculous that the Republican party will refuse to allow at least a hearing of President Obama"s Supreme Court Nomination. However, it gives me some comfort that there are at least a few Republicans reasonable enough that will "break ranks" in order to carry out the Constitutional responsibility of both the Executive and Legislative branches. I think that President Obama should be allowed to exercise his responsibilities to the fullest and not be blockaded by a nonsense argument. President Obama was elected by the people who entrusted their voices to be heard through him and, with that being said, the argument the Republicans have built is absurd since the voice of the people has spoken through President Obama's nomination. 'Nuff said.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
3/29/2016 08:00:19 am
This is a fairly good argument that goes with the idea of a mandate, loosely. Obama did win the election, but that was 3 years ago and this isn't his honeymoon period anymore. I think that's what the Senate republicans are saying. But I totally agree that they need to let him fulfill his responsibilities.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
3/29/2016 07:56:53 am
This is more school-yard antics that are overwhelming our politics. Garland is a judge that the republican party as approved of in the past, him being moderate, yet they continue to say they won't even meet with him. Shout out to Jeff Flake for not being a baby. It's ironic that the man they are replacing was so word by word, detailed constitution, what it says is what it means, and yet the conservatives are denying Obama is powers and duties. there no lame-duck clause. It's a risk that the republicans are making and it's not one that I advise. Looking at who is leading in the nominations, none of these people are who Republicans want, everybody hates Cruz and what the hell does Trump know about anything? It's bad news even if they do win the presidency. The leadership needs to stop being so proud and just do their job.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |