stringer bell

I have predicted this as soon as the club announced that Sano was going to the outfield. They aren't going to move him around (2 games at third, two in right, a game at DH and another at first or some such), he's going to play outfield and perhaps DH occasionally. Once a guy is ensconced as a regular he doesn't move around in Twins Territory, but really almost everywhere. How much will Escobar play other positions? I assume if Dozier gets a day off DanSan or Nuñez will take his place. If Plouffe has a day off, maybe they move Esco over and put Santana at short (as they did last year) or more likely they try to make Santana a third baseman.

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.

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

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.

Great minds Bri.

As recently as 2014, Dozier was a good option as a lead-off guy. His OBP was .345 and he saw plenty of pitches (almost 90 walks). IIRC, his OBP was pretty much the same for the first half and second half of that year. Maybe I'm old school, but I'd also like a leadoff hitter who at least keeps the attention of the other team as far as base stealing (which Dozier does). I think that the Twins' lineup leans a bit too much right, but more that they have too many guys who get respectable OPS from power numbers and don't have enough OBP guys. A Mauer comeback would help both problems appreciably, as would finding at-bats for Max Kepler.

From nomination to conclusion has never taken more than 135 days IIRC. There certainly is enough time. The argument for the GOP has been some "80 year tradition" which is pretty much ridiculous on it's face and that Democrats (Schumer and Biden) have said publicly that a Republican president shouldn't make a nomination in an election year so Obama should forgo making a selection so late in his term. "Bork-Ginsburg-Kennedy" was three separate nominations. Obama likely would get one chance, but there is plenty of time to act on who he nominates. Certainly, most Republicans don't want another Obama appointee on the bench, but it is going to be hard for many of them to say no if the person is truly qualified.

If Bernie's running mate were Corey Booker, I think he would bring out the black vote. I've always viewed Hill as more electable than Bernie, although polls right now disagree. IMHO, most of the reason that Clinton polls so poorly against Republicans is that she is so well-known and that she's been the presumptive nominee since Obama was elected in 2012, and has been attacked on Benghazi and her e-mails relentlessly. While I would prefer someone less comfortable with the status quo on Wall Street and surveillance/drone warfare, the difference between Clinton and any of the remaining Republicans is enough that I'll gladly vote for her. The Supreme Court issue alone would guarantee my vote for a Democrat. Finally, and most importantly, of the five remaining serious candidates for the White House, the one I think that would be the best president, not the best campaigner, is Hillary Clinton.

Good stuff, ladies and gentlemen. There, however, is a glaring lack of exclamation points in the byplay.

Nope. Not gonna happen. Obama will submit a nominee and he or she will be rejected, either in committee or on a vote by the entire Senate. Most Republicans see it as more important to stop the court from leaning liberal so that they will reject any prospective justice who is less conservative than the two remaining far right Justices--Alito and Thomas. Somehow conservatives like Kennedy and Roberts have become moderates and real moderates like Sotomayor and Kagan are liberals.

I agree Brock. I think there are plenty of qualified judges that the president could nominate. I remain convinced that the Senate will not approve anyone Obama nominates,but I think it will be their undoing in November.

In regard to almost everything Republican candidates are proposing: "It's all about that base".

Going into camp, that is the 25 men I see opening the season. I am not 100% confident that Buxton will be deemed ready, but he is a top prospect who already has spent time with the club. On the pitching side, I think Pressly is probably a better option than Tonkin, but he has an option remaining while Tonkin must be kept with the team or be exposed to a DFA.

The Fortas/Blackmun interlude is because Nixon submitted Haynesworth and Carswell in between. Blackmun was nominated only a month before he was confirmed. The Fortas nomination is probably the beginning of the modern era of contentiousness over Supreme Court nominations. It is entirely possible that Democrats were reacting to the Fortas case when they refused to confirm either of Nixon's nominees. From nomination to confirmation vote shouldn't take more than a few months regardless.

I just finished Season 1 of Daredevil. Liked it better than Jessica, which is a complement.

Ok, let me take a stab here. Republicans are saying that Obama shouldn't even bother submitting a nominee. Why? It is too close to the election. If he heeded their advise, we would conclude the current Supreme Court session and the October session with only eight justices. This would be the longest Supreme Court vacancy on record by a lot. If the Republicans want to oppose the nominee that will be put forward, it should be on the relative merits of the candidate. If they can (with a straight face) say that the nominee is unqualified or out of the mainstream, then vote him or her down. Obama has every right to submit a nominee, in fact I believe you could say it is his duty. As for the prospect of a filibuster, if the rules say they can, they can do so at their peril. I have thought since Scalia's death was reported that Republicans would filibuster any nominee but they will have to take the heat for "refusing to do their constitutional duty" and "unprecedented partisanship", two charges leveled at Obama in the recent past.

OK. It is interesting to read the eulogies for Scalia on Facebook. Most of the anti-Scalia comments preface their rhetoric with a comment about personal loss or "Ive been told never to speak ill of the dead, but". Conservatives take offense to criticism before his body is even cold. Good point. Liberals point out that his record is there and the effects of his death are immediate and crucial. Also a good point. It truly seems to come down to "whose ox is gored".

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.

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.

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

If Perkins and Abad have reverse splits, it seems all the more important to get a LH reliever who is good against LH hitters. I'd prefer someone like Rogers as opposed to a pure LOOGy like O'Rourke. As far as the bullpen composition goes, I think ultimate success or failure will depend on the young guys. I doubt all four of Fien, May, Jepsen and Perkins are both effective and injury-free. At some point, someone will have to emerge. The Twins have a lot of candidates, but many of them were thought ready to help last year.

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.

Very influential and very conservative. As mentioned above, Obama can nominate a moderate and the calculus of the court will still be changed dramatically. Seriously, I don't think there is a single person who Obama could nominate who could win over all the Democrats and 14 Republicans. Make no mistake, Scalia's death is a major blow to Republicans. They will be on the spot for Obama's nominee, plus no person alive can come on the court and be as influential and conservative as Scalia was. His influence was more than one conservative vote on issues.

One man's passing will make a huge impact on the coming election. Both bases will want one of their own. For Republicans, that would mean stonewalling any Obama choice and then winning the presidential election.

Among the partial solutions to gun violence are an Assault Weapons Ban, limiting magazine sizes and closing the "gun show loophole". All of these proposals, to me, help in dealing with the most extreme gun crimes. The long game of changing the culture is the tougher part of the equation, but it is where the battle with gun violence will eventually be decided. To restate, there isn't one single solution, but many pieces can be enacted without restricting gun ownership for law-abiding citizens.