Jump to content

Talk:Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Goldstein redundancy

[edit]

This blog post by Tom Goldstein over at SCOTUSblog ("Tie votes will lead to reargument, not affirmance") is referenced twice in this article: once under "Scholarly and legal counterarguments" and another time in the section immediately following it, "Pending 2016 rulings."

Is there are reason for this redundancy? If not, we should remove the first reference.

Additionally, in the first section, we describe the Goldstein post as "countering" and "responding to concerns raised about the effect of the vacancy left by Scalia resulting in a dysfunctional tied bench" - but the blog post does nothing of the kind. Goldstein never suggests in his post that he is countering or responding to anything in particular; his post was purely informational about past Court practice. Neutralitytalk 22:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since nobody has raised any objections, I will delete the duplicative sentence. Neutralitytalk 05:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mechanism for a President to "withdraw" a Supreme Court nomination

[edit]

There is apparently a widespread misconception that a President (i.e. Obama) can "withdraw" a nomination for person on the Supreme Court. The Constitution doesn't describe such a thing. There are certainly references in history that say a nomination was "withdrawn". Sure, a President can declare that he "withdraws" a nomination, but it is far from certain that this would have the effect of making the Senate unable to later confirm him, despite the apparent wishes of the President. Usually, and perhaps always in history, when a President is said to have "withdrawn" a nomination, that confirmation wasn't going to happen, making it a mere formality. One argument for voting to confirm Garland now is that if Hillary Clinton is elected, she would nominate somebody worse than Garland. Possible, but this doesn't mean that a still-Republican-majority Senate couldn't confirm Garland even if Obama "withdraws" the nomination, or for that matter even after Clinton takes office on January 2017. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor named "Jonathunder" agressively threatened me for a similar comment on the article WP:Merrick Garland today. Another editor weirdly named "Neutrality" tried to back him up. Jonathunder is clearly engaged in an WP:Edit War, trying to keep discussion of the subject of withdrawing a Supreme Court nomination out of Merrick Garland's WP article. I consider few things more atrocious than trying to remove on-topic material from an article Talk page, unless it is clearly and blatantly improper and abusive. Editors that will attempt such a stunt clearly want to short-circuit, and prevent, the development of a genuine consensus. You can't get a real consensus when one (dishonest) side is trying to sabotage the process by erasing on-topic commentary in the Talk page by people who believe differently. WP has a bad reputation for manipulation of content because it seems to allow people like Jonathunder and Neutrality to engaging in edit-bullying. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of an article in which game-playing in regards to withdrawing Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination by Obama is proposed and considered. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/17/how-obama-could-get-last-laugh-in-supreme-court-fight/ The bully-editors of WP should stop pretending that it is not a proper subject for discussion in this article, nor Talk page. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.105.188 (talk)

Biden Rule

[edit]

"Biden Rule" redirects to this article. However, the only mention of Joe Biden is that he was present when the nomination was announced. If "Biden Rule" redirects here, shouldn't there be something in this article about it? SlowJog (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it! Someone used a footnote in this talk page. The format of a talk page makes it look like the footnote is part of the bottom-most section. SlowJog (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that footnote thing. Maybe the redirect should be deleted? There is no such thing as a "Biden Rule". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember following the death of Scalia, that McConnell mentioned the "Biden Rule" when he said he would have the senate not consider accepting a nomination from Obama. SlowJog (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this discussion has closed off. But I think this article should at least mention the "Biden rule" and explain the coinage. Conservative legislators and pundits have used the phrase "biden rule" a lot; people might very well hear the phrase, wonder what it means, and come to Wikipedia to find out. IMO, we should mention how conservatives used the term, and also note that V.P. Biden objects to the coinage. — Narsil (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of page

[edit]

I think the page should be renamed "Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination controversy", as the page mostly talks about the battle about his nomination. ~ TheJoebro64 —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Adding the word "controversy" doesn't improve anything. Also the article is about the nomination and the political fight that ensued, so the title is fine as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations Expire?

[edit]

"Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress."

Shouldn't this be sourced? Why do nominations expire? I can't find this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.69.12 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Antonin Scalia section wording

[edit]

I think there is a possible issue with the way the following about Antonin Scalia's death in this section is worded -"He was the second of three Supreme Court justices to die in office this century; the others were Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2005. Before him, the last incumbent justice to die was Robert H. Jackson in 1954." I think what is meant here is that Scalia was the first Associate Justice to die in office since Jackson, as Rehnquist was Chief Justice, but people unfamiliar with the workings of the US Supreme Court might not understand this distinction and wonder why he is being said to be the first justice to die in office since 1954 when Rehnquist had died in office only a decade or so earlier. I wonder therefore if this could be reworded for clarity, but welcome others' thoughts on the matter. Dunarc (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McConnell misquoted. He said "Biden Rule".

[edit]

The first paragraph of the "Response to Nomination" says that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell "cited what he called 'the Thurmond Rule'". It may very well be properly referred to as "the Thurmond Rule", but that isn't the term McConnell used. The first of the two sources cited quotes McConnell referring to "the Biden Rule." SlowJog (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination&oldid=1243322758"