Scalia is dead

[Squirrel]

The reason for 5 is that it would show a greater willingness to compromise.  I would rather have the Republicans have to argue that 5 people are bad than 1 person is bad.  On reflection, I might even go with 10, with a focus on candidates who are not registered with either party.

 

A more creative solution would be to persuade Ginsberg to retire, with a deal in place to replace Scalia with a moderate right wing justice who is at least 70 years old to continue Scalia's legacy and Ginsberg with a moderate liberal who is 50 years old and in perfect health.  This would be a compromise that would hedge the risk for both sides as to what will happen after November.

 

I'm not understanding why this would be a good thing. I think your original suggestion is the best. Make 5 moderate nominations, and let the Senate deal with it, or not. Their jobs would be on the line and I don't think them blocking nomination after nomination would reflect well on them.

[Squirrel]

I have heard some rumblings about nominating Obama as a Supreme Court justice(down the road)

I am a big Obama fan, but am I wrong to think this is a little odd? He obviously hasn't been a judge, and hasn't dedicated his life to law etc

As much as I think he would be a "fair voice" I sorta think it would be odd to give him

A job where he has never been a judge before.

Thoughts?

I think he has the potential to make a great judge. But I don't think he'd do it. And certainly not so soon after being president.

[glunn]

 

I have heard some rumblings about nominating Obama as a Supreme Court justice(down the road)

I am a big Obama fan, but am I wrong to think this is a little odd? He obviously hasn't been a judge, and hasn't dedicated his life to law etc

As much as I think he would be a "fair voice" I sorta think it would be odd to give him
A job where he has never been a judge before.

Thoughts?

The Republicans did this with Taft.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft

 

I also think that it should not make a difference whether he was a judge before.  He got a quality law education and is respected by many as a constitutional scholar.

[glunn]

 

I'm not understanding why this would be a good thing. I think your original suggestion is the best. Make 5 moderate nominations, and let the Senate deal with it, or not. Their jobs would be on the line and I don't think them blocking nomination after nomination would reflect well on them.

The Republicans could stall the first nomination so long that he might not even get to a second nomination.  We would hear a lot of bull about this is important and they need to take their time.  My way they have to reject 5 or 10 moderate candidates, which I think would make them look a lot worse.

[Squirrel]

The Republicans could stall the first nomination so long that he might not even get to a second nomination.  We would hear a lot of bull about this is important and they need to take their time.  My way they have to reject 5 or 10 moderate candidates, which I think would make them look a lot worse.

Yeah, that's the idea I like and think would be effective. I wasn't understanding the suggestion of working a deal where you force Ginsberg to retire promising to replace each Justice with a like-minded justice. I don't think that does anything.

[Squirrel]

The Republicans did this with Taft.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft

 

I also think that it should not make a difference whether he was a judge before.  He got a quality law education and is respected by many as a constitutional scholar.

Yeah, I think he has potential to be a really good Justice, I just don't see him wanting the job after his years as president.

[glunn]

 

Yeah, that's the idea I like and think would be effective. I wasn't understanding the suggestion of working a deal where you force Ginsberg to retire promising to replace each Justice with a like-minded justice. I don't think that does anything.

The idea involving Ginsberg would not do much, except reduce the risk to Democrats that Ginsberg (who is frail) will die and get a conservative who is more moderate than Scalia.

[stringer bell]

Let us not forget the human factor--IMHO Obama will have a hard time coming up with one candidate willing to be nominated (vetted, interviewed and most likely resigning from their current position) as a sacrificial lamb. Republicans would (rightly) call a list of candidates a "political trick" or some such. Obama's duty is to nominate someone qualified and put the onus on the Senate. Personally, I'd love to see him nominate Alan Page, although Justice Page is a bit long in the tooth.

[Squirrel]

The idea involving Ginsberg would not do much, except reduce the risk to Democrats that Ginsberg (who is frail) will die and get a conservative who is more moderate than Scalia.

This all goes back to what a few of us have been saying for a while how having a Dem in the White House is so vital for Court appointments.

[Squirrel]

Let us not forget the human factor--IMHO Obama will have a hard time coming up with one candidate willing to be nominated (vetted, interviewed and most likely resigning from their current position) as a sacrificial lamb. Republicans would (rightly) call a list of candidates a "political trick" or some such. Obama's duty is to nominate someone qualified and put the onus on the Senate. Personally, I'd love to see him nominate Alan Page, although Justice Page is a bit long in the tooth.

This is why this whole situation is so flabbergasting for me ... never has this been so ... interesting and impactful. That's why my initial reaction was OMG!!! because this is so ... OMG!

[glunn]

 

Let us not forget the human factor--IMHO Obama will have a hard time coming up with one candidate willing to be nominated (vetted, interviewed and most likely resigning from their current position) as a sacrificial lamb. Republicans would (rightly) call a list of candidates a "political trick" or some such. Obama's duty is to nominate someone qualified and put the onus on the Senate. Personally, I'd love to see him nominate Alan Page, although Justice Page is a bit long in the tooth.

I don't see why a candidate would need to resign his or her current position.  I like your metaphor, but think that the Republicans will look worse if they have to sacrifice multiple lambs.  And maybe there is precedent for offering a list -- I am sure that people will be looking for precedents on both sides.

[PseudoSABR]

Look who's being floated:

Amy Klobuchar would be an unusual pick. The senior senator from Minnesota, she was a prosecutor in Minneapolis before entering politics. She is on the Senate Judiciary panel, which could give her some personal connections that would help.

 

 

[stringer bell]

I've heard Klobuchar's name before. Because she's been a colleague of the Senators, she might have a chance of being confirmed. She seems relatively popular with her fellow Senators, or at least hasn't made any waves. They probably wouldn't like to reject her and then have to work with her for many years in the Senate. She is young-ish and female, which again would add to Obama's Supreme Court legacy

[glunn]

 

Look who's being floated:

 

This is an interesting link.

 

I like the idea of someone who the Republicans previously approved for a Circuit Court position.  It would look bad for a Senator to vote against someone who he/she previously approved.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm not. Just observing what is true, and than calling you out for it.

No, you're observing aomething, adding your personal twist, and then "calling her out".

 

Exclamation points do not only convey positive excitement.

[Brock Beauchamp]

As for Scalia, he wasn't the guy I most wanted off the court. That's easily Thomas. Scalia was a jerk but he was a smart and funny jerk. Thomas is mostly (entirely) useless.

[gunnarthor]

My guess on how this plays out - in three months, the GOP will have a better idea of the general election match-up.  If they have a match-up they like, say Kasich v. Sanders, they simply won't let Obama pick the next Court member. 

 

If it's a match--up they don't like or eventually know they'll lose, they'll float something to Obama that they'll approve a moderate - not liberal - justice under him.  Unless Obama wanted to give Clinton the honor of picking the justice - pretty unlikely - he'd probably do that.

[biggentleben]

I've heard Klobuchar's name before. Because she's been a colleague of the Senators, she might have a chance of being confirmed. She seems relatively popular with her fellow Senators, or at least hasn't made any waves. They probably wouldn't like to reject her and then have to work with her for many years in the Senate. She is young-ish and female, which again would add to Obama's Supreme Court legacy

From my interactions with the woman, I'm not sure she truly is as interested in justice as she is in her own press clippings. That's damned scary on the highest bench in the land.

[Shane Wahl]

No way the GOP can delay it that long. No way. It will be transparent and ridiculous.

[ewen21]

 

I'm not. Just observing what is true, and than calling you out for it.

There are a number of people on Twitter who celebrated his death, the doubled down and stated that now they wish Thomas would be next:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/02/13/clarence-thomas-trends-on-twitter-as-users-hope-he-dies-next-n2119313

 

I also think the title had an exclamation point for a reason.  The OP can deny it, but it was to be provocative.  If he's trying to say that exclamation point has no meaning then he should edit it out.

 

Just my opinion.

And by the way, those Twitter posts are outrageous.  The fact that these people can openly celebrate his death, put their name and face next to it and then say they hope Thomas is next?  As you say, it is disgraceful

[mikecgrimes]

It shouldn't have to be said but the explanation in the title of this thread should result in a ban and each and every moderator owes a lot of people an apology for allowing that disgusting title for nearly 24 hours.

[DaveW]

It shouldn't have to be said but the explanation in the title of this thread should result in a ban and each and every moderator owes a lot of people an apology for allowing that disgusting title for nearly 24 hours.

[mikecgrimes]

I think the president needs to wait at least a week after the funeral to make a nomination.  I would say if he does it before the end of February he's in the clear but things start to get messing come March 1st.  Every day  that goes by makes it less bad for Republicans and more bad for Democrats, and then if he gets the nomination wrong it becomes a big problem as his 2nd shot at this would come far to late.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

 

It shouldn't have to be said but the explanation in the title of this thread should result in a ban and each and every moderator owes a lot of people an apology for allowing that disgusting title for nearly 24 hours.

 

 

Just so we are clear it's not me you need to apologize for.  But hey don't worry this will help you all win the next election.  Keep gloating about a death everyone needs to hear it.

[DaveW]

There are a number of people on Twitter who celebrated his death, the doubled down and stated that now they wish Thomas would be next:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/02/13/clarence-thomas-trends-on-twitter-as-users-hope-he-dies-next-n2119313

 

I also think the title had an exclamation point for a reason. The OP can deny it, but it was to be provocative. If he's trying to say that exclamation point has no meaning then he should edit it out.

 

Just my opinion.

And by the way, those Twitter posts are outrageous. The fact that these people can openly celebrate his death, put their name and face next to it and then say they hope Thomas is next? As you say, it is disgraceful

First off OP is a woman.

 

Second off: oh wow, people saying stupid things on Twitter???! Someone alert the press!

 

Third off: while I'm not celebrating his death, I admidt that I think the SCOTUS is in better shape today then it was yesterday.

[jimmer]

 

First off OP is a woman.

 

Not to mention, anyone who pays attention knows CHI wouldn't cheer the death of anyone, nor would she blatantly lie about her meaning in a post. If anyone around here deserves the benefit of the doubt, it's her.  I don't doubt her integrity.

[stringer bell]

An exclamation point can connote more than just joy or jubilation. Shock, horror, or dismay can be conveyed by an exclamation point, This is huge(!) news and an exclamation point may well be merited.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I think the president needs to wait at least a week after the funeral to make a nomination.  I would say if he does it before the end of February he's in the clear but things start to get messing come March 1st.  Every day  that goes by makes it less bad for Republicans and more bad for Democrats, and then if he gets the nomination wrong it becomes a big problem as his 2nd shot at this would come far to late.

I think Obama will handle this carefully and responsibly. I will even predict a final nominee who is different from Sotomayor by race, and opposite of Kagan in gender. That way, "everyone" is happy. The next Supreme Court term begins in early October (before the election) so backwards plan from that date to meet the necessary deadlines and seat the next justice.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Just so we are clear it's not me you need to apologize for.  But hey don't worry this will help you all win the next election.  Keep gloating about a death everyone needs to hear it.

Is there a chance you're reading into this? I mean, maybe just a teensy, weensy, little, itty bit possible that you're wrong about the OP's intent?

 

Looking at it rationally, I think it's clear it's intended to convey a big news and nothing more sinister.

[stringer bell]

There is almost no way that the Republicans with a majority in the Senate will let a nomination by Obama get to a vote, it doesn't matter if the nominee is moderate, conservative or liberal. A conservative would be viewed as a Trojan Horse.

 

This will be about posturing. Republicans will yell loudly that this is "unprecedented" and a "liberal power grab" and more and most will really believe it. I think the Democrats will have the superior case and it wasn't some nefarious way that they got Scalia out of his seat. I was listening to Barrero on the radio and his legal guy says that this will now become the biggest issue in the campaign. I think I agree.