Thursday, May 12, 2016

Does Judge Garland Have Something To Hide?

by JASmius

Does it matter?  Not really.  Either (1) the Senate GOP blockade against Garland will hold, his nomination will lapse, and President Rodham will appoint somebody else next year; (2) the Senate GOP blockade will hold, he will be renominated by President Rodham next year, and the Democrat Senate will ignore Garland's omission and confirm him anyway; (3) the Senate GOP blockade will not hold and they'll ignore Garland's omissioon and confirm him, reasoning that he's better than even worse choices that President Rodham might nominate next year; or, and the least likely option, (4) the Senate GOP blockade will hold, and President Trump will appoint his radical pro-abortion sister instead.

Consequently, there is no scenario in which Merrick Garland somehow managing to omit his financial disclosure form from his Senate confirmation questionnaire will make one leaf off the fig tree's difference to anything, other than the idle curiosity of whether it was an oversight or deliberate:

When Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland completed the standard nomination questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee, he did not include a financial net worth statement as requested in Question #23, according to Roll Call.

Garland's questionnaire and related documents was submitted Tuesday and totaled some 2,200 pages. Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley, R-IA, did not request the filing, and has said he would not hold hearings for Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the high court.

White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said Garland would supply the information if Grassley asked for it, adding that he "stands ready to provide that additional information promptly," Hoffine said in an email.

Judiciary Committee staff labeled Garland's questionnaire "incomplete" on the committee website.

I don't know if there's any reason to suspect that Judge Garland has any deep, dark financial secret to conceal, as Donald Trump does for not releasing his dozen years of tax returns.  But it's worth noting that O's other two SCOTUS appointments, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, didn't leave out their financial disclosure forms from their Senate confirmation questionnaires.  Of course, the Democrats controlled the Senate in both their confirmation hearings, so that any such anomalies wouldn't have mattered anyway.  With Judge Garland?  Who knows?

My guess is that the White House instructed Garland to withhold his financial information in order to whet the appetite of Senate 'Pubbies to "nail" him in order to tempt them to schedule hearings after all, after which he would "provide that additional information promptly" and it would turn out to be entirely and humiliatingly innocuous.  And Justice Garland would, most likely, take his place on the SCOTUS.

Eh, it was worth a try, from their point of view, even if only as an exercise in self-amusement.

No comments: