Schumer: Trump should pick Merrick Garland to replace Justice Kennedy, and also unicorns
Poor Merrick Garland, he’s now a trading card. And Chuck Schumer just played him.
As the July 9 date for Trump to announce his pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy nears, there is a vicious multi-front war evolving.
Of course, Democrats are attacking every likely nominee, with the anti-Catholic bigotry against Amy Coney Barrett the most prominent. Barrett would be the most finger-in-the-liberals-eye pick, and not just because of her Catholicism. She has seven (7) children — that is a provocation in the minds of liberal feminists and the people who love them that cannot be abided.
There also is major league sniping within conservative circles against various nominees, particularly Brett Kavanaugh.
Against that backdrop comes one Chuck Schumer, playing peacemaker.
Schumer reportedly urged Trump to pick Merrick Garland to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy as a way of uniting the country.
WaPo reported:
Democrats, meanwhile, prepared for the political war over the high court that could dominate the summer, with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) making his own suggestion for Trump.
Schumer privately urged the president in a phone call earlier this week to nominate federal judge Merrick B. Garland, who was Obama’s third nominee to the Supreme Court and was summarily shunned by Senate Republicans in 2016.
Trump called Schumer on Tuesday afternoon for a Supreme Court-centered conversation that lasted less than five minutes, according to a person familiar with the call. Schumer, the person said, pressed the president to name Garland to succeed Kennedy, arguing that doing so would help unite the country.
Yeah, that should work.
But it has spawned some speculative dealmaking prospects.
Varad Mehta suggested:
Trump should respond that if Schumer can convince Stephen Breyer to retire, he’ll be happy to nominate Merrick Garland to replace him.
James Taranto wants a better trade:
no, hold out for sotomayor!
Poor Merrick Garland, he’s now a trading card. And Chuck Schumer just played him.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Remember the days when the democrats ‘suggested’ things for the rats of GOPe to do – and the GOPe rats did them?
What a difference Donald Trump makes.
What has Scumer been smoking?
Given how far left the Dems have gone lately, maybe he thinks he can fool people into thinking that Garland is center -right.
He is in the center, more or less. He’s about as reasonable a nominee as one could ever expect — from a D president. Had he been nominated a year or two earlier he’d have sailed through; but he’d never have been nominated a year or two earlier, because they would have wanted someone firmly on the left and with more years in her.
Absolutely. Garland was nothing more than a place holder. Shrillary would have nominated a far left prog had she won, as Obama would have had it come earlier.
They don’t call him “Chuckie – Bride of Hillary” for nuthin’…
Actually, from what I’ve read Schumer doesn’t really like Hillary. Oh, he agrees with her politically, but as the Senior Senator from NY he was a bit miffed that she didn’t “know her place” as the junior Senator. Her past corruption history he didn’t mind so much, this IS NY, arguably one of the most corrupt states in the union. She kept trying to upstage him in the press – and I don’t know if you recall her initial planned NY office was to include an actual amphitheater to hold all the press conferences she was planning.
Merrick Garland should clerk for one of those Ken Burns propaganda movies.
Trump should tweet that he is also thinking of nominating one of the Obamas or Clintons just to razz liberals.
http://stiltonsplace.blogspot.com/2018/06/supreme-irony.html
Already been offered…..
I really can’t fathom what that silly weasel Schumer thinks the definition of the word “unite” could be. He seems to think it means “abject surrender”. They used to say “compromise” when they meant that, but I suppose times and fashions change.
In any event, Garland for Sotomayor would be a hell of a deal, wouldn’t it?
In 1940, Germany wanted Europe to “unite” with them. Surprisingly, almost everyone in Europe did, except for Great Britain, and that only because Churchill was such an angry extremist who didn’t believe in “compromise” at all.
Trump should do his Supreme Court pick like how HS athletes pick their college. He should get some hats with their names on them and then at the reveal put on the hat with the nominee of his choice. Include Garland in the hats just to troll the Dems.
On more than one occasion Breyer sometimes makes sense; and to boot he has little bit of personal decency. Sotomayer NEVER makes sense and has NO decency.
On the plus side, none of her “opinions” will carry much weight – as they are never based on the Law.
Bonus: She has serious health issues, and is unlikely to serve anywhere near as long as Obama hoped. Trump has commented, more than once, that he thinks he’ll get to pick her replacement.
I say we do the Merrick Garland trade for Breyer….then we whisk him away and replace Garland with Professor Jacobson.
It would be glorious!
Trump should counter offer Schumer to replace Ginsburg with Garland.
Schumer’s voice alone should disqualify him from holding any elected office.
Once we negotiate that I guess we can move on to his stupid ideas.
LOL
Uncle Chuckles is way funnier than Amy Schumer!
The Senator from New York seems to have forgotten Obama’s famous reply when question arose about why he chose to do something: “Because we won the election.”
Schumer should spend his time convincing his party to be a bit more thoughtful about who they nominate for President, like maybe someone who can actually win an election. Then they could get to choose the judges.
“Schumer, the person said, pressed the president to name Garland to succeed Kennedy”
Schumer seems to actually believe Trump is an imbecile. Why else would he try to get Trump to nominate someone no more than 3 Republicans will vote for?
Elections have consequences. This is one of them.
I can’t help but think that Schumer’s absolute premier choice would be …..Schumer!!!
Garland was always a trading card. Remember, 0bama never intended to appoint him. He’s far too moderate, and too old. He nominated him in order to troll the Republicans. McConnell had already announced that they were going to keep the seat open, so he nominated someone reasonable, someone whom the Rs would absolutely have confirmed a year or two earlier, just to make them look bad. Had they called his bluff I think he’d have pulled the nomination.
Now Schumer is doing the same thing. He knows very well that there’s no way Trump will nominate Garland; he made the suggestion for two reasons: If Trump did nominate Garland it would be a public statement that what McConnell and the Rs did was wrong, that they’d stolen a seat that was “rightfully” Garland’s, and that Trump was now righting the wrong. Of course Trump isn’t going to do that, but publicly making the suggestion perpetuates the same libel in people’s minds.
The second reason is to put the meme in people’s minds that the Ds are not being rejectionist and inflexible, not like the Rs were; they’ve made a reasonable offer, after all, which Trump rejected in favor of foisting on the nation some far-right monster, so when they fight tooth and nail against that person they will look saner. In addition, if the nominee is someone Ds had voted for in the past they can point at Garland, who got R support for his lower court position but not for the Supreme Court, and say they’re just doing the same thing.
But the deal is— the sitting President gets to pick the judges. The Senate confirms, or not, whoever is put before them.
Chuckie wants his team to vote against any and all that DJT puts up for no other reason that Chuckie does not want to be further marginalized. RvW is just a dog whistle for the left: If it did get overturned all that would happen is the matter would revert to the individual states; availability of abortion would be, at worst, a bus ride away.
One, I absolutely agree with Milhouse, that’s my recollection too: a troll pick because the left would have attacked Obama mercilessly if he’d meant such a pick seriously. That’s fine. That’s simply politics.
But, two… …the more I think about it, the more “also, unicorns” is essentially the theme of this current political moment. It is emotion given form with a complete abandonment of basic ideas of civil life, like legislators actually legislating and an expectation that employees of the executive branch will, broadly speaking, enforce the laws passed by Congress, even if the individuals thereof doubt the wisdom of a particular statute.
So unicorns it is, and unicorns it shall be for some time.
I’m starting to feel sorry for Merrick Garland.
As far as I can tell, he’s a reasonable jurist, for a Democrat.
And now, again, he’s thrust into the national spotlight, like a bloody shirt or a mascot, with hypocritical praise from politicians who would never have supported him when he could have gotten confirmed. He’s being made into the butt of a national joke, just so that the Dems can simultaneously stoke the rage of their base and posture as reasonable moderates to the middle.
It’s smart politics from Schumer, but still, you have to feel sorry for Judge Garland.
I can’t think of what Schumer might gain by this proposal.
That “unite the country” crap is just that, crap. Schumer isn’t interested in uniting anything. And even if he was, this nomination wouldn’t do it. The R’s don’t want Garland, and the D’s don’t either; they’re only pretending that they do because Obama pretended that he did.
And it’s certainly not to appear “reasonable”. Not even the most rabid partisan would ever think that asking a Republican to make a Dem selection—even a Dem-lite selection—is reasonable. And it could be seen as setting a precedent, one the Dems definitely don’t want.
I am wondering if any of the democrats have figured out that they are paying dearly for alienating Trump?
You know, with Trump, for the first time “the beatings will continue until morale improves” not only makes sense, but seems to be his strategy. In this case, the beatings simply consists of saying “no,” and while it may not improve attitudes among the dems, it has made the sky around me a much more beautiful shade of blue. The best part of these beat downs is that it really is pointing out the irrelevance of many politicians. I wonder how donations to the Klinton Foundation are going these days, and whether any people have requested a refund.
Good old Chuckles the Clown. I am so tired of hearing anything from him, as he has zero intentions of bridging any gaps in politics. This stupid commentary was simply for the clueless Democrat base who follow their leaders in lockstep.
I miss the days when we had reasonable citizens who could see through nonsense like this.
Chuckles the Effing Clown ,does anything that falls from his mouth have any validity in the real world.
I rather thought he was a part of his nieces act and he’s not funny but then neither is she.
Of course President Trump should give away what his base gave him with their votes. Isn’t that what Barack Obola and Harry Reid did; give the Republicans everything they wanted as though the opposition party had won the election?
Just wait till the Red Wave rolls over the Blue Undertow this November for a reality check you stupid freaking Liberals; you haven’t seen anything yet.
Dems 2 years ago:
“Trump/Pence rule will be a theocracy.”
Dems 2 weeks ago:
“Christian values say keep immigrants.”
Dems today:
“Keep Christian values out of SCOTUS”
Actually, the country IS uniting, just not to the Schumer’s liking ( or other Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Marxists, Progressives aka “liberal Lefties), as the antics and violence perpetrated that can be traced indirectly to the Democrats, and the liberal Left generally, are beginning to unite the country behind Trump. Even a NY assemblyman who has been a lifelong Democrat has openly told Schumer that, until the Democrats start acting civilized and responsible (highly compressed interpretation), he’ll vote with the Republicans, which may be the swing vote that Trump needs to get his SCOTUS nominee confirmed.
Um, how does a NY assemblyman get to vote on SCOTUS nominees?