Scalia is dead

[drjim]

 

Why, it's what the Republican's are saying needs to happen. They are saying that the next president should choose. Or do they only mean the next Republican president should choose?

 

There is no reason for them to block the nomination process itself unless they are trying to say that the President gets to choose, no questions asked. The nomination process is their chance to make their case, they are choosing not to use it.

 

The implication was that if Clinton is elected president that the Republicans won't allow her nominee either, even with what they are now saying. That is certainly possible, but if that is the case it would be the end of the Supreme Court as we know it. Probably the logical conclusion of our system. There is a reason almost all president systems have collapsed.

[drjim]

 

Based on what, do you think I am lying? You just called me a liar, right?

 

and, what does the second line mean? Like, if there is a liberal appointed, the SC will somehow be ruined? 

 

Not a liar, just a partisan.

 

And perhaps I misread your second line - I thought you were implying the Republicans wouldn't confirm a hypothetical Hillary nominee.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Not a liar, just a partisan.

 

And perhaps I misread your second line - I thought you were implying the Republicans wouldn't confirm a hypothetical Hillary nominee.

 

No, you called me a liar. You said you didn't believe what I typed. Let's be clear here.

 

And, I was asking, will the Republicans rubber stamp whomever she chooses, since she won?

[drjim]

 

No, you called me a liar. You said you didn't believe what I typed. Let's be clear here.

 

And, I was asking, will the Republicans rubber stamp whomever she chooses, since she won?

 

I think you doth protest too much.

 

And to the second point, I would say they won't rubber stamp a candidate, but if they don't approve a relatively mainstream candidate it is the end of Supreme Court as we know it. I'm not sure they are that radical - yet.

[Squirrel]

I'm probably not the one to be saying anything here, but I will. Let's please try to keep things in these touchy political threads respectful, no matter what side of the table we sit. Jokes and kidding around can become offensive to some, so remember, before hitting post, play it in reverse and ask yourself ... if this were said about someone/something I support, would it bother me? And, also, those who might find things to be offensive, please consider context and maybe shrug it off a little. And, further, can we please give each other a little benefit of the doubt here? No one has any reason to not believe anything one says about oneself. We don't really know one another, so a little benefit of the doubt goes a long way from getting upset with one another. These are interesting and difficult times we live in ... and while we each are 'just random people from the internet,' maybe try treating one another as if we were next door neighbors.

[TheLeviathan]

I think either party playing BS games like this deserved to be called out. The Dems and Republicans both play this crap. But this has the highest stakes.

[formerly33]

 

I'm probably not the one to be saying anything here, but I will. Let's please try to keep things in these touchy political threads respectful, no matter what side of the table we sit. Jokes and kidding around can become offensive to some, so remember, before hitting post, play it in reverse ... if this were said about someone/something I support, would it bother me? And, also, those who might find things to be offensive, please consider context and maybe shrug it off a little. And, further, can we please give each other a little benefit of the doubt here? No one has any reason to not believe anything one says about oneself. We don't really know one another, so a little benefit of the doubt goes a long way from getting upset with one another. These are interesting and difficult times we live in ... and while we each are 'just random people from the internet,' maybe try treating one another as if we were next door neighbors.

Because, when it boils down to it, we are all just "random people from the internet" made neighbors by the fact that we all live on Twins Daily.

[USAFChief]

If I'm Obama, I nominate the most left wing candidate I can stomach, and watch the Senate Republicans publicly fight each other over a hearing.

 

If I don't get a hearing, They're stalling. I win.

 

If I get a hearing and the Senate doesn't confirm,it looks like they are stalling. I win.

 

If I get a confirmation, I win.

 

All the while, bad press, increasing pressure, and public squabbling. The Republican leadership is gift wrapping this.

[drjim]

If I'm Obama, I nominate the most left wing candidate I can stomach, and watch the Senate Republicans publicly fight each other over a hearing.

 

If I don't get a hearing, They're stalling. I win.

 

If I get a hearing and the Senate doesn't confirm,it looks like they are stalling. I win.

 

If I get a confirmation, I win.

 

All the while, bad press, increasing pressure, and public squabbling. The Republican leadership is gift wrapping this.

This strikes me as a bad idea.

 

Obama has leverage in two areas right now. The first is that there are enough Republicans/conservatives that accept the fact (despite the rhetoric) that the President does get to nominate a judge and that a competent person should be approved. The second area of leverage is that the Republicans face a likely outcome of a Hillary president and perhaps even a flipped Senate. Unless they really want to nuke the Supreme Court via a post-election filibuster that outcome would result in a liberal justice.

 

If Obama follows your plan, he would likely unify the opposition and marginalize the group that would potentially accept a nominee and he would render the second part of his leverage moot.

 

Not getting a liberal justice confirmed is not a win, it is likely a wash between energizing the two bases for the outcoming elections, plus diminishes his personal legacy.

 

Truly splitting the right by nominating a very competent, slightly liberal justice is much more savvy.

[Squirrel]

 

This strikes me as a bad idea.

Obama has leverage in two areas right now. The first is that there are enough Republicans/conservatives that accept the fact (despite the rhetoric) that the President does get to nominate a judge and that a competent person should be approved. The second area of leverage is that the Republicans face a likely outcome of a Hillary president and perhaps even a flipped Senate. Unless they really want to nuke the Supreme Court via a post-election filibuster that outcome would result in a liberal justice.

If Obama follows your plan, he would likely unify the opposition and marginalize the group that would potentially accept a nominee and he would render the second part of his leverage moot.

Not getting a liberal justice confirmed is not a win, it is likely a wash between energizing the two bases for the outcoming elections, plus diminishes his personal legacy.

Truly splitting the right by nominating a very competent, slightly liberal justice is much more savvy.

It's not about getting a liberal justice, it's about pushing the Senate to respond and do their jobs. No matter who Obama appoints the Senate Republicans are going to paint that person as too liberal and unacceptable anyway, so he might as well appoint a liberal. I don't think that will make a difference. The Republican Senator from Illinois, up for re-election, has already broken ranks from the party and has said, publicly, that he supports the President in making a nomination and thinks the Senate should have a hearing and do their jobs. He's up for a very tough re-election bid and he can't afford to be 'lumped' with obstructionists in the current climate of 'fed up with the establishment status quo.' And if Chicago comes out in big numbers, and they likely will, he's going to lose his job. The only chance he has is to not play along with Mitch McConnell. And I'm sure there are a few other Senators in a similar situation.

[drjim]

It's not about getting a liberal justice, it's about pushing the Senate to respond and do their jobs. No matter who Obama appoints the Senate Republicans are going to paint that person as too liberal and unacceptable anyway, so he might as well appoint a liberal. I don't think that will make a difference. The Republican Senator from Illinois, up for re-election, has already broken ranks from the party and has said, publicly, that he supports the President in making a nomination and thinks the Senate should have a hearing and do their jobs. He's up for a very tough re-election bid and he can't afford to be 'lumped' with obstructionists in the current climate of 'fed up with the establishment status quo.' And if Chicago comes out in big numbers, and they likely will, he's going to lose his job. The only chance he has is to not play along with Mitch McConnell. And I'm sure there are a few other Senators in a similar situation.

I agree with your analysis on the Illinois Senator, which is why I think a really liberal nominee would be a mistake. No chance he continues to buck his party to support that, it absolutely unifies the opposition.

 

A more moderate nominee splits the party much more effectively and likely still gets confirmed. That strikes me as an actual win-win for Democrats and Obama.

[Squirrel]

 

I agree with your analysis on the Illinois Senator, which is why I think a really liberal nominee would be a mistake. No chance he continues to buck his party to support that, it absolutely unifies the opposition.

A more moderate nominee splits the party much more effectively and likely still gets confirmed. That strikes me as an actual win-win for Democrats and Obama.

Well, right now the Senate Republicans have said they will refuse to even hold a hearing, so, we'll see. Personally, I just think it's 'bluster,' trying to keep Obama from making a nomination because they know once he does, it will backfire. imo.

[DaveW]

Obama should elect whoever he feels is the best candidate for the job in his opinion, period. He should pick the same one that he would have picked in year 1, year 4, year 5 or 6 of his Presidency.

 

He shouldn't comprise his views to lean "more right" or "more to the middle" then he would otherwise, he should pick who he feels is best and then let the rest play out, more likely then not his choice would be a slightly left but reasonable/solid choice anyways. Then it's in the senate's court at that point anyways.

[USAFChief]

Nope. Obama's been handed a win. He should put his foot on their throats and do a dance.

[drjim]

 

Nope. Obama's been handed a win. He should put his foot on their throats and do a dance.

 

I still fail to see how failing to get a nominee confirmed is a win for him.

[drjim]

 

Well, right now the Senate Republicans have said they will refuse to even hold a hearing, so, we'll see. Personally, I just think it's 'bluster,' trying to keep Obama from making a nomination because they know once he does, it will backfire. imo.

 

I absolutely think it's bluster.

 

Still stand by my initial prediction, Obama nominates a very qualified, moderately liberal nominee and after much weeping and gnashing of teeth the nominee is confirmed without a filibuster.

[drjim]

OK, now that the Nevada results are in, I'll add another thought. Maybe the Republicans will be so terrified of a Trump-Clinton matchup they'll actually do anything Obama wants them to do.

 

Still think Obama goes with a moderate nominee.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I still fail to see how failing to get a nominee confirmed is a win for him.

4 to 4, with no Scalia, is a net win for liberals.  Stalling doesn't really hurt the Democrats only for fear of losing the Presidency.  Sending forward a liberal nominee, would certainly meet rejection (as you suggest), no matter how well qualified, but it will also serve to turn out the vote, ensuring not only the Presidency but also the Senate; Hillary (or Bernie!) could nominate the same liberal justice with the force of a mandate. 

 

Of course there's some risk, but it's not so obvious that Obama shouldn't settle for the single when he could hit something in the gap. 

[stringer bell]

 

4 to 4, with no Scalia, is a net win for liberals.  Stalling doesn't really hurt the Democrats only for fear of losing the Presidency.  Sending forward a liberal nominee, would certainly meet rejection (as you suggest), no matter how well qualified, but it will also serve to turn out the vote, ensuring not only the Presidency but also the Senate; Hillary (or Bernie!) could nominate the same liberal justice with the force of a mandate. 

 

Of course there's some risk, but it's not so obvious that Obama shouldn't settle for the single when he could hit something in the gap. 

I disagree. Appointing a moderate still moves the court a long way to the left and would meet with the approval of the people--the final arbiters in this dispute with an election just months away. A prospective justice viewed as left wing would give the Republicans cover--"Obama's trying to pack the court with liberals." would be the meme.

[Mike Sixel]

I too would appoint someone "just left of center" over someone super liberal.

 

The goal is to get the person confirmed.

A secondary goal is to get the Republican Senate to harm their brand by not holding hearings.

 

But, the main goal should be getting a 9th Justice on the court.

 

2 sessions with only 8 members is not good for the country.

[stringer bell]

 

I too would appoint someone "just left of center" over someone super liberal.

 

The goal is to get the person confirmed.

A secondary goal is to get the Republican Senate to harm their brand by not holding hearings.

 

But, the main goal should be getting a 9th Justice on the court.

 

2 sessions with only 8 members is not good for the country.

"Just right of center" would move the Supreme Court considerably to the left considering where Scalia was on that spectrum.

[Craig Arko]

 

"Just right of center" would move the Supreme Court considerably to the left considering where Scalia was on that spectrum.

Just drawing a breath would likely be enough to accomplish that.

 

     -- some random Internet dude

[Mike Sixel]

 

"Just right of center" would move the Supreme Court considerably to the left considering where Scalia was on that spectrum.

 

My goal isn't to move the court, it is to get the right person on the court. Settling for being "less right wing" is why this country's government has swung right.

[stringer bell]

Some thoughts: Whoever ends up filling the ninth seat on the court, this is a huge story in our history. The composition of the court would go from decidedly conservative to moderate-liberal and many landmark cases that butter the GOP's bread would be in jeopardy, such as Citizens United.

 

With so much on the line, it is easy to see why the Republicans would go to the wall to avoid an Obama appointment. Any nominee from Obama, even a moderate probably undoes a couple of decisions and makes other rulings which hurt the Republicans as presently constituted.

 

"Unprecedented" is a word thrown around a lot between politicians, but a wait of over a year before even considering a replacement for Scalia is that. No president has ever been denied at least a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee and the Republicans in the Senate are posturing that they won't even meet with someone the duly elected president of the United States is naming for the highest court in the land.

 

It would be bad form for a president to get a resignation from the Supreme Court and then name a replacement right in front of the election, which is exactly what Joe Biden was talking about in his speech 20+ years ago. However, this isn't the case in 2016. There is a vacancy on the court because a Justice died. It is the president's duty to name a replacement. There isn't much history at all about filling Supreme Court vacancies in an election year simply because it would only happen if someone died.

 

If the Republicans are really serious about not even holding hearings with Obama's nominee, perhaps a recess appointment would come into play. I'm sure the GOP would work up some outrage about circumventing the system, but if they don't give the president a legitimate opportunity to fill the vacancy, their complaints would ring pretty hollow.

[jimmer]

Seems The President is considering Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval. A Rebublican.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Seems The President is considering Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval. A Rebublican.

I think that's just being floated to demonstrate the Republicans obstructionism - as many Republican Senators have already reacted to questions asking if they would meet or consider Sandoval; to which they've responded with the same refusal.

 

For my part, I'd be deeply disappointed if Obama nominated Sandoval and he was approved. (He's socially liberal (pro choice) but is said to be anti-labor.)

 

Edit: Sandoval withdrew his name from consideration, evidently. 

 

[Craig Arko]

Well this might be worth an exclamation point.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/29/468576931/clarence-thomas-asks-1st-question-from-supreme-court-bench-in-10-years

[Mike Sixel]

WOW!

[nicksaviking]

Well this might be worth an exclamation point.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/29/468576931/clarence-thomas-asks-1st-question-from-supreme-court-bench-in-10-years

Wow, he must be feeling pressure to pick up Scalia's slack.

 

Not a fan of the implication of his questions. In my city we just lost an officer because my state's backwoods laws allowed a guy convicted of homicide with a firearm to get his guns back after only ten years.

[Craig Arko]

Onionesque!!! Many exclamation points!

 

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-wiles-obama-killed-scalia-pagan-human-sacrifice