Slashdot Mirror
Obama Nominates Merrick Garland For Supreme Court (usatoday.com)
According to the New York Times, President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick B. Garland as the nation's 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appeals court judge for the lifetime appointment and daring Republican senators to refuse consideration of a jurist who is highly regarded throughout Washington. Like Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Garland comes from the powerful D.C. Circuit court. The president said Judge Garland is "widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence. The qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration from leaders from both sides of the aisle." Mr. Obama said it is tempting to make the confirmation process "an extension of our divided politics." But he warned that "to go down that path would be wrong." Mr. Obama demanded a fair hearing for Judge Garland and said that refusing to even consider his nomination would provoke "an endless cycle of more tit for tat" that would undermine the democratic process for years to come. Merrick B. Garland will serve in the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in his sleep while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas.
We do have a say in the matter. We elect both the person who nominates the judge as well as the people who approve it. I don't know how much better you're expecting.
But does he use Linux!?
Yes, that's exactly what they did three years ago. The American people elected Obama for four years, not three years + one year of Congress ignoring their constitutional duties.
He'll be a difficult nominee to dismiss out of hand, and I suppose that's the point.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The most popular /. stories aren't always about technology https://slashdot.org/hof.shtml ... You can go to CNN or Reddit but you won't get the same level of discussion
There is no constitutional duty to for the Senate to act either way regarding the President's nominee. In fact, speaking constitutionally, Congress could, tomorrow, set the number of justices at 8.
Jonathan Adler, in The Volokh Conspiracy discusses this very issue.
The President nominates, with the advice AND consent of the Senate someone to be a justice. The Senate can then consent, not consent or decline to bring the matter to a vote. The Senate sets their rules and determines how Senate business is conducted. Those calling for hearings in order to fulfill constitutional duties are even more off-base; there were no hearings for Supreme Court justices before 1916.
The President and Congress are co-equal branches of the government. It's not too far fetched an argument that the voters knew exactly what they were doing when they gave the presidency to the Democrats and Congress to the Republicans. There might be perfectly rational reasons for the voters to impose forced cooperation or gridlock rather than a single party running away with their own interests.
There may be policy and political reasons that the Senate should act but there are no constitutional duties imposed on the Senate to act.
You can go to CNN or Reddit but you won't get the same level of discussion
Exactly! I don't come here to read the news, but to read what Geeks and Nerds think of the news. I wouldn't mind if a story was posted about Kim Kardashian's butt. Someone would post that he is completing his Ph.D. in the theoretical geometry of feminine butts. Another would post that he is with a CSI unit as a Crackology expert.
Slashdot has an incredible wealth of expert knowledge . . . and I will read just about anything the folks here want to say about anything.
"Nudes for Nerds", indeed.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
The Supreme Court could have a pretty large impact on technology, privacy, encryption, etc. It's one story on the front page about a huge political event that could affect technology significantly. You're welcome to scroll past it onto the other 30 specifically tech focused stories.
I think they want to have the seats voted for like all the other positions. I'd be a colder day in hell before any sitting justice would allow that. I also think it is stupid as hell. Them not having to run for office and get to their positions by more merit than the elected officials, removes a lot of the pissing match in their branch that others have. Keep it that way.
The people elect representatives that would hopefully know better than them, so that the people can handle their own lives, and the elected people can focus on doing their end. Those elected people in turn elect justices, so we do get a say, just a derivative vote. If the person really wants to have a say in the matter, then they better as hell start sending letters and phone calls to their representative. If that person doesn't listen, then don't vote for them next time. If that person still stays in office, well your voice and those with your opinion aren't as important as the voices of others.
If we wanted to read about political shenanigans like those that this submission is about, we'd go to CNN, or Reddit, or some other non-Slashdot site.
When you say we, you're exaggerating your representation of the lot of us.
If I hear about something political or tragic, I look to this site for the most insightful discussion. Sure, sometimes that is not as instantaneous as the 24 hr media coverage, but I'm looking for balanced careful reflection and response.
You can't get that anywhere else as consistently as you do here.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
They're not ignoring their constitutional duties. It is in their set of powers to get to decide when to hold hearings or even *if* to hold hearings. The Constitution makes no reference to a time limit or timetable for getting these things done.
Now, I am *not* saying that it is the right thing to do, but it is a valid political decision. And by handing the advice and consent to the Senate, the authors quite consciously handed them discretion over that political choice. They certainly knew how to be specific if they wanted to be. They actually defined the crime of treason in the document, down to the number of eyewitnesses that were required. If they wanted the Senate to act in a certain time, they certainly could have written it in there.
Having said all of that, given that the next president is probably Clinton, and the second choices are Trump or Sanders, there is no freaking way the GOP is getting a better candidate out of the next president unless God smites all of them with individual bolts of lightning. I suppose they are pinning their hopes on Cruz now, who I admit is most likely to carry out a ritual sacrifice so he can resurrect Scalia and put him back on the bench. But, Cruz just isn't someone who is getting elected in a general campaign. He'd be lucky to get as close as Romney or McCain did.
So... they need to stop pretending that somehow the next president will magically be better than Obama. They should seriously take the practical victory that Obama gave them by not nominating an arch-liberal to the court and go with the moderate.
It is appropriate to refer to a person in print in the first instance by their full title, but afterwards as Mr. or Ms. X.
Just like if you met Queen Elizabeth and had more than a few words with her, you'd start with "Your Majesty", but afterwards you'd just refer to her as "Ma'am". Trundling out the whole honorific is just a waste of print/breath after that point.
So Republicans are manning the shit-cannons against a judge they themselves admit is perfectly well-qualified for the position, a judge they themselves praised and recommended, and they can't even explain why they are doing it... and their irrational behavior is somehow Obama's fault. Doesn't Obama know only white presidents get to nominate supreme court justices?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Pillow over the head is a terrible way to kill someone, trust me.
What methods have you had success with? Let's swap technique hints and tips.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Obama should have nominated a gun to fill the vacancy.
Scalia died in Texas, while on a hunting trip - yet the government STILL hasn't told us where Dick Cheney was during that time period.
I strongly suspect he's finally optimized his killing technique.
#DeleteChrome
Scalia was killed by Colonel Mustard, in the library, with a bad manicotti.
You are welcome on my lawn.
As a resident of North Carolina, we didn't give congress to the republican's, our say-so was ripped from our hands forcefully and given to the republicans against the will of the people of North Carolina due to gerrymandering.
With a 50/50 split in the popular vote, the seats are split 3/10 in favor of the republicans. The previous election, the democrats won the popular vote and the seats were split 4/9 in favor of the republicans.
At this point, the democrats stay home here many times rather than vote as their vote quite literally does not count. It would take about 80% of the popular vote for the democrats to get close to 50% of the seats.
We are a state that is red in name only as we are purple by voting method due to disenfranchised voters staying home and firmly blue by will of the people.
You refer to him as President Obama the first time and Mr Obama after that, what's the problem?
That's standard editorial practice. The Economist style guide says that you provide the title once, and then it's Ms/r/rs So-and-so for the rest of the piece. In my newspaper, that's the way it works as well.
I know that last sentence was purely gratuitous. I just get a kick of out of saying, 'in my newspaper....' :-)
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
You mean Robert Bork of the Saturday Night Massacre? Firing Nixon's prosecutor in exchange for a seat on the Supreme Court? Wow, you and I have different ideas about what "eminantly qualified" means.
You really have to stop making excuses for the bad behavior of a party. I usually vote Democrat, but if they put forth an incompetent candidate I won't vote for him/her. You on the other hand would say "well the other party also has incompetent candidates at times".
This is exactly how we ended up in this mess. People started voting on the basis of political lines, instead of the actual facts, wherever they might lead you to.
Actually I know the answer to this one. The formal etiquette forms of address technically apply only to communications addressed to the person in question. You follow them if your are speaking or writing to that person. If you are writing about them you follow the rules prescribed by the publication's style guide, which are chosen for both clarity and to establish a consistent in-house feel.
For example, if you look at Associated Press articles on the current US president, the first reference in the article will use the president's full name ("President Barack Obama addressed the UN..."). Subsequent references to the president will simply use the president's last name ("Obama said...). The submitter uses the house style of the New York Times (and many other papers): First reference is "President Barack Obama" (or sometimes "President Obama") and subsequent references are to "Mr. Obama". This style only applies to news at the Times; opinion pieces sometimes affect different styles to show different levels of deference and formality.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is a perfect example of a purely-political submission that should not have been promoted to the front page.
It doesn't even have a damn thing to do about technology, science, math, computing, software, or anything relating at all to what Slashdot submissions should be about.
The Supreme Court will making decisions that will shape our society for generations to come. The geek will not escape unscathed.
Just because congress doesn't march in lockstep with the president doesn't mean they aren't doing their jobs.
It's their duty to do their Job just like it's my duty to go to work tomorrow. Do I have to go to work tomorrow? Technically, no. I could even call in sick tomorrow and no one would ever know I was faking it and I would get to keep my job. Will I do that? No, it's my duty to go to work unless I really can't.
Likewise, sure, technically congress is acting within the rules by just not bringing the issue up for consideration but the fact is that it is their duty to particpate in this processes and by chosing not to do so they are neglecting their duty. In doing so they stunt one of our three main branches of government creating potentially destabilizing problems for it. What if this presidential election needs to go to the supreme court like the Bush/Gore race? What if the court ties? I realize there are contingencies for that happening but do you think it would go well going with a lower courts call on such a massive issue?
The fact is they're threatening the stability of our government by stunting one of its three main branches just so they can possibly score a "win" if a Republican gets the presidency. Many senior Republicans in congress even have quotes from years past talking about how important it is not to let the court nomination process come to this.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Yes. You had one in 2012 and it's in effect until next January.
Vim or Emacs?
Nope, no sig
You are right, the founders didn't require Congress to act. They didn't think they needed to for rather obvious reasons. There is also no constitutional obligation that the President defend the country or that congress people actually go to Washington or any other myriad things because they didn't think they needed to spell out explicitly that when someone was elected to congress or any other elected position that they were supposed to follow through on that job.
You might as well argue that because there is no obligation for the President to actually defend the US that it would be OK for him to let China invade and forbid the military to take action. Because quite frankly it's just as stupid. If the founders had wrote the Constitution to spell out every damn thing elected officials "were obligated" to do it would be a 500 page novel. Your argument is a straw man.
The nation wasn't designed to have senators directly elected by the people. The senators were supposed to represent the states. Thanks the the idiotic 17th amendment we now have basically two houses of Representatives with different constitutional duties. And the states have no representation. That's why the SC nomination process is so fucked up.
The author of that article, chief legal counsel of the right-wing Judical Crisis Network, is basing her argument against Garland on two cases:
1. NRA v Reno
The Brady Bill directs the feds to run criminal background checks on would-be gun purchasers. To avoid a de-facto national gun registry, though, the checks need to be destroyed after the sale completes. They were originally destroyed immediately after the sale finalized, but Janet Reno changed the rules to retain the checks for 6 months, ostensibly for two reasons: to police the government (so that unauthorized checks against random non gun-purchasers by corrupt officials could be caught) and to guard against gun purchases made under stolen identities.
Garland’s opinion was that if the law required the records destroyed immediately, Congress would have specified a timeframe. Given the ambiguity of the law, had Garland imposed a timeframe on the government he would have been legislating from the bench. So his ruling was the conservative one. After the case, Congress always had the chance to specify a timeframe for destroying the checks but never did. When Ashcroft came in, he canceled the 6 month thing.
2. Heller v DC
This was a challenge to a DC handgun ban. First, a three-judge panel declared the ban illegal due to the 2nd Amendment, upending more than 200 years of jurisprudence. Given the weight of the ruling, Garland, along with three other judges including arch-conservative A. Raymond Randolph and uber-liberal David Tatel, voted for a rehearing with the entire DC circuit weighing in instead of just this 3 judge panel. In a 6-4 vote, a majority of the circuit decided to not rehear the case, and so the panel’s judgement stood. Garland never gave an opinion on the case, he only voted for the entire circuit to rehear it. So did Randolph, but the Judicial Crisis Network lawyer conveniently leaves out this fact. According to the JCN author, one of the three other justices was a liberal, Tatel, and that's all the proof she needs to brand Garland as an anti-gun nut.
So that’s the extent of all this chatter about the 2nd Amendment: how long the government is allowed to hold onto criminal background checks in the absence of clarity from Congress, and Garland's vote that the full circuit and not a 3-judge panel should hear a case with far-flung consequences. All the 2nd Amendment talk is nothing but hyperbole and spin, but what else would you expect from National Review?
BTW, uber-Republican Orrin Hatch advocated for a Garland nomination to the Supreme Court in 2010. Here's what he said just last week:
“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 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.”
So even in the words of dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, Garland is a moderate.
National Review is a right wing rag. Obama could have nominated Hitler and NR would have said he was soft on the death penalty.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
Oh, you're right.
The decision was to give control of the Senate to the Republicans.
If Obama was playing just for the election he'd nominate a liberal minority for the Republicans to reject (or ignore) and build up extra Democratic support among that minority.
And if he was going for legacy he'd nominate a younger liberal.
Instead Garland is white, male, old, and relatively moderate. His impact will be far shorter and far less liberal than anyone else a Democratic president is likely to nominate. If you're a Republican it's easy to weasel out of the election year thing by saying that you forced Obama to nominate a compromise candidate. But if you keep it up and ignore the nomination you probably end up with President Hillary Clinton who nominates someone 15 years younger and more liberal.
I stole this Sig
But he's not as pointed out earlier in this discussion...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
It would be an atrociously stupid idea anyway. That's why the founding fathers rejected it for the federal courts. Several states do have judges chosen with elections - and it's a disaster across the board.
Good judges are rarely good campaigners - these are skillsets that require almost exactly opposite ways of thinking, and are very few people are good at both.
Many a very good judge has lost his job to a horrifyingly bad one who was good at campaigning (and well-funded by some wealthy third-party who had a problem with the sitting judge, like an upcoming trial where they wanted a less tort-friendly judge perhaps).
Many a terrible judge has had the job for years because they are running uncontested.
Sane legal systems throughout the world have the very senior judges appointed by the head of state, and all other positions appointed by other judges. Many systems have something like a judiciary council and judges who serve there vet and appoint judges to various courts to fill openings.
There is a great deal of sense in having candidates for an extremely specialist job like that of a judge vetted by people who are highly familiar with the field. It's the same reason programmers tend to prefer job interviews by people who are themselves (or at least used to be) programmers. What coder expects a fair assessment from somebody who can't understand half the words in your resume ? In the case of a judge, it's more like 75% of the words in there that make absolutely no sense to somebody who hasn't had the same training.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The US Supreme Court ruled in Hurst v Florida (Jan 2016) that juries, not judges must determine a sentence of death. It is no longer legal in any jurisdiction of the US for a judge to sentence someone to death.