This is all well and good if one accepts the view that capital punishment is
fine, if only at the federal level. That is what "justice" was for Timothy
McVey.
Miriam
Isquith writes: "The first and most important thing to say about President
Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court is that it might
not work. Not in the sense that Garland won't receive the
Republican-controlled Senate's approval - that goes without saying, at least
until November - but in the sense that Obama's 'Godfather' move might not be
the political checkmate that the White House hopes it will be."
President Obama's Supreme Court nominee spoke at the White House on
Wednesday. (photo: AP)
Obama's Nomination of Merrick Garland Is a Lot More Ruthless Than It Looks
By Elias Isquith, Salon
20 March 16
The president's nomination of an alleged moderate has some liberals
scratching their heads. They shouldn't
The first and most important thing to say about President Obama's nomination
of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court is that it might not work.
Not in the sense that Garland won't receive the Republican-controlled
Senate's approval - that goes without saying, at least until November - but
in the sense that Obama's "Godfather" move might not be the political
checkmate that the White House hopes it will be.
It's possible that less-engaged #NeverTrump Republicans, right-leaning
independents, and establishment media centrist pundits will see the GOP's
refusal to even go through the motions with Garland as yet more proof that
the party is unserious. And it's possible that they'll be so disgusted with
Republican obstructionism that they'll either vote for Hillary Clinton or
skip 2016 altogether. That could happen, for sure.
But it's just as likely that the political ramifications of Garland's
snubbing will be minimal, and that the president's efforts to cast himself
as The Only Adult in the Room will, once again, fail for succeeding. He and
his proxy, Hillary Clinton, will be seen as stolid and reasonable - and as a
result they'll gain roughly zero votes that they didn't have already. This
could be a lesser repeat of the Grand Bargain fiasco of 2011, it's true.
Either way, though, it would be a mistake to interpret the president's
nominating Garland - rather than a more unapologetically liberal or
demographically atypical candidate - as a sign that Obama still can't
recognize the GOP's bad faith. He recognizes it plenty. It's the main
reason, in fact, that Obama is trying to camouflage his offer as an open
hand when it's really more of an iron fist.
"Iron fist" is a bit much, I admit. Even at his most ruthless, that's not
really Obama's style. As a former National Security Council official once
said, the president is a "gambler"; and like any good gambler, he prefers to
make bets that are as close as possible to a win-win. Garland fits that
mold, because even if Republicans do accept Obama's offer, Garland still
propels the median vote of the Supreme Court well to the left of where it
was just a few months ago.
But if Senate Republicans still refuse to even hold hearings for Garland,
much less give him an up-or-down vote, then the steeliness that undergirds
Obama's plan will start to become more obvious. According to the New York
Times, for example, the White House has reassembled much of the team that
helped Obama win in 2008 and 2012. And they're planning one last national
campaign to punish GOP intransigence.
The Times piece is vague with regard to how hard-hitting this mini-campaign
will be, but there's no doubt that a significant portion of its funding, at
the very least, will be devoted to attacking Republicans. If Obama's speech
announcing Garland's nomination is anything to go by, it doesn't seem like
all of those attacks will be from the left, either. And this is where
Garland's reputation for "moderation" comes in handy.
[Garland's] sterling record as a prosecutor led him to the Justice
Department, where he oversaw some of the most significant prosecutions in
the 1990s, including overseeing every aspect of the federal response to the
Oklahoma City bombing. In the aftermath of that act of terror, when 168
people, many of them small children, were murdered, Merrick had one evening
to say goodbye to his own young daughters before he boarded a plane to
Oklahoma City, and he would remain there for weeks. He worked side by side
with first responders, rescue workers, local and federal law enforcement. He
led the investigation and supervised the prosecution that brought Timothy
McVeigh to justice.
But perhaps most important is the way he did it. Throughout the process,
Merrick took pains to do everything by the book. When people offered to turn
over evidence voluntarily, he refused, taking the harder route of obtaining
the proper subpoenas instead, because Merrick would take no chances that
someone who murdered innocent Americans might go free on a technicality.
Such "law and order" rhetoric makes lefties nervous (MSNBC's Chris Hayes
described it as "reactionary garbage"); but it makes conservatives - the
smart ones, at least - downright scared. Why? Not just because they think
it'll make stopping Garland harder, but because they know a wedge issue when
they see one. And they know that Obama will answer their obstruction by
driving that wedge as deep into the GOP coalition as he can.
In this scenario, it's hard to see how Obama loses. If ratcheting up the
pressure causes the GOP to cry uncle, then Garland ends up on the Supreme
Court, giving liberals the majority for the first time in a generation. And
if that pressure isn't enough to get Garland a vote, it's still going to
cause the GOP even more internal strife than it's experiencing already -
which makes a Clinton victory more likely, too.
And if Clinton wins, then Obama has a few options. He can try to get Garland
confirmed in a "lame-duck" session; or he can punish Republicans even
further, as many liberals will no doubt advocate, by withdrawing Garland and
letting Clinton pick an even more liberal nominee herself. Either way, the
Supreme Court just got a lot more liberal; and the Republican Party just got
a lot more demoralized and divided.
As noted in the beginning of the piece, it's eminently possible that this
doesn't work. Republicans may prove just smart enough to take what Obama's
giving. But even if that happens, it wouldn't change the subtly ruthless
nature of the president's gambit. You may disagree with the strategy - you
may prefer firing up liberals to splitting Republicans - but there should be
no question that Obama knows what he's doing.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
President Obama's Supreme Court nominee spoke at the White House on
Wednesday. (photo: AP)
/SRCURLONE/SRCURLONE
Obama's Nomination of Merrick Garland Is a Lot More Ruthless Than It Looks
By Elias Isquith, Salon
20 March 16
The president's nomination of an alleged moderate has some liberals
scratching their heads. They shouldn't
he first and most important thing to say about President Obama's nomination
of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court is that it might not work.
Not in the sense that Garland won't receive the Republican-controlled
Senate's approval - that goes without saying, at least until November - but
in the sense that Obama's "Godfather" move might not be the political
checkmate that the White House hopes it will be.
It's possible that less-engaged #NeverTrump Republicans, right-leaning
independents, and establishment media centrist pundits will see the GOP's
refusal to even go through the motions with Garland as yet more proof that
the party is unserious. And it's possible that they'll be so disgusted with
Republican obstructionism that they'll either vote for Hillary Clinton or
skip 2016 altogether. That could happen, for sure.
But it's just as likely that the political ramifications of Garland's
snubbing will be minimal, and that the president's efforts to cast himself
as The Only Adult in the Room will, once again, fail for succeeding. He and
his proxy, Hillary Clinton, will be seen as stolid and reasonable - and as a
result they'll gain roughly zero votes that they didn't have already. This
could be a lesser repeat of the Grand Bargain fiasco of 2011, it's true.
Either way, though, it would be a mistake to interpret the president's
nominating Garland - rather than a more unapologetically liberal or
demographically atypical candidate - as a sign that Obama still can't
recognize the GOP's bad faith. He recognizes it plenty. It's the main
reason, in fact, that Obama is trying to camouflage his offer as an open
hand when it's really more of an iron fist.
"Iron fist" is a bit much, I admit. Even at his most ruthless, that's not
really Obama's style. As a former National Security Council official once
said, the president is a "gambler"; and like any good gambler, he prefers to
make bets that are as close as possible to a win-win. Garland fits that
mold, because even if Republicans do accept Obama's offer, Garland still
propels the median vote of the Supreme Court well to the left of where it
was just a few months ago.
But if Senate Republicans still refuse to even hold hearings for Garland,
much less give him an up-or-down vote, then the steeliness that undergirds
Obama's plan will start to become more obvious. According to the New York
Times, for example, the White House has reassembled much of the team that
helped Obama win in 2008 and 2012. And they're planning one last national
campaign to punish GOP intransigence.
The Times piece is vague with regard to how hard-hitting this mini-campaign
will be, but there's no doubt that a significant portion of its funding, at
the very least, will be devoted to attacking Republicans. If Obama's speech
announcing Garland's nomination is anything to go by, it doesn't seem like
all of those attacks will be from the left, either. And this is where
Garland's reputation for "moderation" comes in handy.
[Garland's] sterling record as a prosecutor led him to the Justice
Department, where he oversaw some of the most significant prosecutions in
the 1990s, including overseeing every aspect of the federal response to the
Oklahoma City bombing. In the aftermath of that act of terror, when 168
people, many of them small children, were murdered, Merrick had one evening
to say goodbye to his own young daughters before he boarded a plane to
Oklahoma City, and he would remain there for weeks. He worked side by side
with first responders, rescue workers, local and federal law enforcement. He
led the investigation and supervised the prosecution that brought Timothy
McVeigh to justice.
But perhaps most important is the way he did it. Throughout the process,
Merrick took pains to do everything by the book. When people offered to turn
over evidence voluntarily, he refused, taking the harder route of obtaining
the proper subpoenas instead, because Merrick would take no chances that
someone who murdered innocent Americans might go free on a technicality.
Such "law and order" rhetoric makes lefties nervous (MSNBC's Chris Hayes
described it as "reactionary garbage"); but it makes conservatives - the
smart ones, at least - downright scared. Why? Not just because they think
it'll make stopping Garland harder, but because they know a wedge issue when
they see one. And they know that Obama will answer their obstruction by
driving that wedge as deep into the GOP coalition as he can.
In this scenario, it's hard to see how Obama loses. If ratcheting up the
pressure causes the GOP to cry uncle, then Garland ends up on the Supreme
Court, giving liberals the majority for the first time in a generation. And
if that pressure isn't enough to get Garland a vote, it's still going to
cause the GOP even more internal strife than it's experiencing already -
which makes a Clinton victory more likely, too.
And if Clinton wins, then Obama has a few options. He can try to get Garland
confirmed in a "lame-duck" session; or he can punish Republicans even
further, as many liberals will no doubt advocate, by withdrawing Garland and
letting Clinton pick an even more liberal nominee herself. Either way, the
Supreme Court just got a lot more liberal; and the Republican Party just got
a lot more demoralized and divided.
As noted in the beginning of the piece, it's eminently possible that this
doesn't work. Republicans may prove just smart enough to take what Obama's
giving. But even if that happens, it wouldn't change the subtly ruthless
nature of the president's gambit. You may disagree with the strategy - you
may prefer firing up liberals to splitting Republicans - but there should be
no question that Obama knows what he's doing.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
