Gordon Campbell on how Obama’s Supreme Court choice says everything (bad) about his presidency

17.3.16

Gordon Campbell on how Obama’s Supreme Court choice says everything (bad) about his presidency: But that’s Obama for you. Given the chance to promote liberal to left agendas, and he’ll take the centrist, moderate path of appeasement every time, even in the face of consistent evidence that the Republicans will treat any and all of his Supreme Court nominees as if they were card-carrying members of the Communist Party, regardless. Which is, of course, the political point that Obama is trying to make via the Garland appointment – that Republicans are reliably, pig headedly unreasonable. Wow. Who knew?

As US commentator/analyst Matthew Yglesias commented on the Garland pick: “Open with a low bid to make Republicans look unreasonable when they say no is Obama’s game and I guess he’s sticking with it.” Back in 2010 when Obama was shopping around for a Supreme Court replacement for an outstanding liberal Justice (ie, John Paul Stevens) and he ended up making the disappointing Kagan nomination, the Republicans were saying at the time that he should have picked someone else …namely, Merrick Garland. Here’s a telling example of the Republican enthusiasm for Garland:

Judge Garland “is a profoundly serious guy who really should be the kind of person you want to have on the Supreme Court,” said Joseph E. diGenova, a Republican and a United States attorney in the Reagan administration. “If Obama wants to get a fantastic judge on the court, he’s got one ready to go in Merrick Garland.”