PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HIS SUPPORTERS, WHICH ARE ALMOST ALL
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS AND PROGRESSIVE GROUPS IN WASHINGTON
TELL US THEY SHOULD ALL GO ALONG WITH MERRICK GARLAND.
I THOUGHT
THE WHOLE POINT OF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT WAS TO MAKE SURE WE
HAD A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WHO DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE
REPUBLICANS.
I DON'T FIND IT TO BE CLEVER AND INTERESTING.
THERE
HAS BEEN SO MUCH PRESS AROUND THAT NOW THAT THE REPUBLICANS
ARE BACKPEDALING BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO.
ORRIN HATCH HAD SAID HE
IS THE BEST NOMINEE THAT THE REPUBLICANS COULD HOPE FOR FROM
A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.
THAT IS PRETTY STRONG LANGUAGE.
NOW
ORRIN HATCH IS SAYING WE WON'T EVEN GIVE HIM A HEARING.
I KNOW
THAT IS THE OBAMA STRATEGY, WE WILL MAKE THE REPUBLICANS LOOK
BAD.
BUT WHAT IF THEY CALL YOUR BLUFF AND THEY SAY THANKS FOR
GIVING US A LARGELY CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, WE WILL
TAKE IT?
FOR THE MOMENT THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT, AND I WILL SHOW
YOU HOW CONSERVATIVE GARLAND IS IN A MINUTE.
BUT MITCH MCCONNELL
SAYS --
OH, WOULD HE?
THEY ASKED JOHN KASICH, A REPUBLICAN RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT, WHETHER HE WOULD NOT ONLY MEET WITH GARLAND IF HE WAS
A SENATOR BUT WOULD HE NOMINATE HIM?
HE'S A REPUBLICAN, HE'S NOT
GOING TO NOMINATE OBAMA'S PICK.
OR IS HE?
ON THE SUPREME COURT PICK, MERRICK GARLAND, SHOULD THE
SENATE AT LEAST HOLD HEARINGS?
THE FACT IS I NEVER THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE SENT
IT UP, I THINK THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND HAVE A MEETING WITH HIM.
DISSENTERS CAN MEET WITH THIS GENTLEMAN, AND MAYBE ULTIMATELY
IF I'M PRESIDENT, WHICH I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD SHOT AT BEING,
MAYBE HE WILL BE UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE SUPREME
COURT.
HE RECEIVED OVERWHELMING SUPPORT I THINK EVEN FROM SENATOR
HATCH, SO OF COURSE WE WOULD THINK ABOUT IT.
HE SAYS HE WOULD THINK ABOUT IT IF HE WERE PRESIDENT.
HE JUST
SAID IT TWICE THIS SUNDAY ON THE TALK SHOWS, THAT HE WOULD
CONSIDER NOMINATING HIM.
A REPUBLICAN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
WOULD CONSIDER THE SAME GUY AS OBAMA.
IS THERE ANY CHANCE HE
WOULD HAVE SAID THAT IF GARLAND WAS ACTUALLY PROGRESSIVE?
ACTUALLY A LIBERAL?
0% CHANCE.
EVEN SO, THEY HAVE ONE POSITION
OF GARLAND'S THAT IS PROGRESSIVE, HE ONCE RULED
AGAINST THE NRA.
SO JOHN KASICH HAD TO BACKPEDAL TODAY, WALK
THOSE COMMENTS BACK.
BUT WHEN YOU CAN ONLY FIND ONE
PROGRESSIVE POSITION, THAT IS A BIT OF A PROBLEM IF THE
PRESIDENT IS STILL PRETENDING TO BE PROGRESSIVE.
LET'S GET YOU
THE DETAILS OF HIS CONSERVATIVE POSITIONS, AND THERE ARE MANY.
I
JUST PICKED THREE HERE RANGING IN SEVERITY.
THE FIRST ONE IS
THE LEAST OFFENSIVE, IT IS HIS VIEW OF MARIJUANA.
MERRICK
GARLAND, AS REASON.COM EXPLAINS --
-- THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY WRITTEN A LITTLE WHILE AGO --
HE THINKS MARIJUANA SHOULD BE
A SCHEDULE ONE DRUG.
TO BE FAIR,
HE DOESN'T.
HE THINKS DEA HAS THE RIGHT TO DECLARE THAT.
SO
THEY EXPLAIN --
THIS IS ONE OF THE MANY CASES HE WINDS UP ON THE SIDE OF
CONSERVATIVES, BUT THEY DO HAVE A GOOD CASE THAT WE DON'T KNOW
WHERE HE STANDS ON MARIJUANA, HE'S JUST SAYING THE GOVERNMENT
HAS ENOUGH DISCRETION THAT THEY CAN CLAIM THAT MARIJUANA HAS NO
MEDICAL PURPOSE AT ALL, AND IT SHOULD BE THE MOST SEVERELY
REGULATED DRUG.
SO WE ARE JUST WARMING UP.
NOW THE MOST
IMPORTANT ISSUE, CITIZENS UNITED, UNLIMITED MONEY IN
POLITICS.
BERNIE SANDERS SAYS IT WOULD BE A LITMUS TEST FOR HIM,
APPARENTLY IT ISN'T FOR BARACK OBAMA.
WE WILL HAVE A DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT WHO PICKS A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WHO WILL ALLOW
MORE MONEY INTO POLITICS?
APPARENTLY THE ANSWER IS YES.
SO
ON BILLMOYERS.COM, JOHN LIGHT WROTE THIS --
--
JOY --
SO AGREE WITH CITIZENS UNITED AND HE ACTUALLY PUT IT ON
STEROIDS A LITTLE BIT BY SAYING YOU CAN GIVE UNLIMITED MONEY TO
SUPER PACS.
AND THE APOLOGISTS COME IN AND GO HE SEEMS TO HAVE
VOTED HORRIFICALLY IN THAT CASE BUT HE HAD NO CHOICE.
CITIZENS
UNITED WAS ALREADY DECIDED IN 2010, HE HAD TO FOLLOW
PRECEDENT.
BY THE WAY, IF HE IS ON THE COURT, HOW DO YOU KNOW HE
WON'T USE THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT?
I HAVE TO FOLLOW
PRECEDENT, THAT'S WHAT I'VE ALWAYS DONE.
IN FACT, YOU GUYS
SAID THAT I FOLLOW PRECEDENT, I'M DOING IT HERE, I WILL FOLLOW
CITIZENS UNITED.
HOW DO YOU KNOW HE'S NOT GOING TO DO THAT?
HE'S
LIKELY TO, BASED ON HIS RECORD.
BUT THEY SAID HE HAD NO CHOICE.
REALLY?
WAS THERE NO OTHER SIDE TO THIS CASE?
DID THE GOVERNMENT
NOT PRESENT A CASE?
I LOOKED INTO IT, IT TURNS OUT THEY DID.
AND HERE WE GO TO DAMON ROOT AT REASON.COM, HE SAYS --
SO IN CITIZENS UNITED THEY SAID HEY, THESE PACS CAN SPEND
AS MUCH AS THEY LIKE.
THEY DIDN'T SAY THEY COULD RAISE AS
MUCH AS THEY LIKED.
IN SPEECHNOW, GARLAND VOTES, NO,
THEY CAN ALSO RAISE AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY WANT.
SO WHEN THEY
GO TO SHELDON ADELSON OR THE KOCH BROTHERS OR GEORGE SOROS OR
ANYONE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO SAY I CAN ONLY TAKE 5000 OR 10,000
FROM YOU.
THEY CAN SAY I CAN TAKE AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF
MONEY.
THAT IN SOME WAYS IS MORE PROBLEMATIC.
IT'S NOT LIKE HE
DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE, HE COULD HAVE MADE THAT DISTINCTION.
HE
CHOSE NOT TO.
HE APPARENTLY AGREES THERE ARE NO LIMITS TO
MONEY IN POLITICS.
THIS IS THE GUY THAT LIBERALS WANT ON THE
SUPREME COURT?
MY ANSWER TO THAT IS, HELL NO.
DO I SUPPORT
GARLAND BECAUSE OBAMA PICKED HIM?
NO.
SHOULD YOU SUPPORT HIM?
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU SUPPORT HIM.
IF THE
REPUBLICANS WANT TO DO LIBERALS A FAVOR AND BLOCK HIM, GREAT.
BLOCK HIM.
FANTASTIC, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THAT.
IF THIS GUY MAKES
IT ONTO THE COURT, AND THERE IS AN EXCELLENT CHANCE HE WILL, HE
WILL VOTE WITH THE CONSERVATIVES, AND THEY WILL SAY
NOBODY COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING.
AND AM I GOING TO SHOVE
THIS PARTICULAR VIDEO DOWN THEIR THROAT?
GODDAMN RIGHT I AM.
NOW
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE MAKING THE EXCUSE, IT IS ALL STRATEGY.
YOU
WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND, CENK, HE IS PLAYING THREE-DIMENSIONAL CHESS,
OBAMA.
IT IS JUST FOR POLITICS.
REALLY?
THEN WHY DID OBAMA HAVE
HIM ON THE SHORTLIST OF WAY BACK IN 2010.
I THOUGHT THIS WAS JUST
BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE REPUBLICANS
HOLDING THE SENATE AND THIS IS THE ELECTION YEAR.
NO, OBAMA HAS
ALWAYS LIKED THIS GUY.
PEOPLE CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT -- IS OBAMA
DUMB?
IS HE WEAK?
NO, HE AGREES WITH GARLAND.
NOW EVEN THOUGH
CITIZENS UNITED IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TO THE CONTRARY,
THERE IS ONE DECISION THAT IS EVEN MORE OFFENSIVE.
HOW COULD
IT BE MORE OFFENSIVE?
I WILL SHOW YOU.
FIRST, CHARLIE SAVAGE
WRITES IN THE NEW YORK TIMES GENERALLY --
IT IS REALLY HARD TO FIND THE CASES WHERE HE DID NOT DEFER TO
THE GOVERNMENT.
YOU MIGHT THINK OKAY, HE WAS A PROSECUTOR, HE
DEFERS TO THE GOVERNMENT, NOT A BIG DEAL.
BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO
THE DETAILS YOU REALIZE IT IS A GIANT DEAL.
LET ME EXPLAIN.
THAT
WE GO TO JUST SECURITY --
SO THERE WAS SOME LEGALESE IN THERE, LET ME BREAK IT DOWN.
THE
OTHER DEMOCRATIC APPOINTEES SAID YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO TRANSFER
THE DETAINEES TO A PLACE WHERE THEY COULD BE TORTURED.
GARLAND
DISAGREES, HE SAYS GO AHEAD, TRANSFER THEM TO A PLACE WHERE
THEY MIGHT BE TORTURED.
WHAT DO I CARE?
THAT IS HIS RULING.
APOLOGISTS ARE LIKE, HE HAD NO CHOICE.
HE HAD ALL THE CHOICE OF
THE WORLD, ALL THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC APPOINTEES VOTED THE
OTHER WAY.
HE BROKE WITH OTHER DEMOCRATIC APPOINTEES TO SAY THE
GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
YOU WANT TO
TRANSFER HIM TO HAVE THAT GUY GET HIS, YOU KNOW, ARMS --
WHATEVER, THERE ARE 1000 DIFFERENT TORTURE TACTICS.
GO
AHEAD, HAVE AT IT, HOSS.
WE ARE NOT AT THE WORST ONE YET.
HABEAS
CORPUS, THAT IS A PHILOSOPHY THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE
MAGNA CARTA.
YOU HAVE TO PRESENT THE BODY, THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.
IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS SOMEONE, THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY TRY HIM,
BRING HIM BEFORE A JUDGE.
THEY CAN'T JUST MAKE THEM DISAPPEAR,
BECAUSE IF YOU ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THAT, THAT IS
AS TYRANNICAL AS IT GETS.
HABEAS CORPUS IS THE CORE OF WHAT
PEOPLE CALL WESTERN CIVILIZATION, WHAT I CALL ANY
CIVILIZATION.
HE IS NOT AGAINST HABEAS CORPUS, IS HE?
LET'S FIND
OUT.
AGAIN, DAMON ROOT AT REASON.COM --
THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY CONSERVATIVE, IS
MORE LIBERAL THAN GARLAND IS.
KENNEDY FLIPPED IN THAT
DECISION, IT WAS A 5-4 DECISION, BUT THEY SAID TO THE DETAINEES
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE, HAVE
HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS?
OF COURSE THEY DO.
YOU CAN'T MAKE PEOPLE
DISAPPEAR.
THAT IS TYRANNY.
GARLAND DISAGREED, AND AGAIN,
THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO VOTED ON THE OTHER SIDE.
HE CHOSE NOT TO
JOIN HIM.
HE DECIDED THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IF IT WANTS TO CAN
MAKE ANYBODY DISAPPEAR.
THEY DO NOT HAVE HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS.
AND I'M SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT THIS GUY BECAUSE SOMEBODY WITH A "D"
NEXT TO THEIR NAME SAID THAT WAS THE PARTY LINE?
HELL NO IS NOT
STRONG ENOUGH.
IF HE WAS PROPOSED BY A REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENT I WOULD WANT TO FILIBUSTER HIM.
HE DOESN'T
BELIEVE IN HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS, HE IS FOR MORE MONEY IN
POLITICS, AND YOU CAN HARDLY FIND A LIBERAL POSITION HE HAS,
BUT OBAMA APPOINTED HIM.
DEMOCRATS IN WASHINGTON WANT HIM
APPROVED.
FUCK NO.
FUCK NO, VOTE NO.
ANY REAL LIBERAL OR
PROGRESSIVE WOULDN'T WANT THIS GUY WALKING BY THE SUPREME
COURT, LET ALONE BEING IN THE SUPREME COURT.
YOUNG TURKS.