I’ll take that bet. I would love to see a recess a appointment. I think it would be upheld. But Obama would see it as tarnish on an otherwise polished record.
Thanks! That’s three.
I have no idea who will be right, so I’m not betting. But I do wonder if you plan on doing the bet even if you don’t get all $100. With three takers, you’re up to $60 now. Will you still do $60? Or must you get to $100 before the bet is on?
As I wrote, “I’ll bet $20 with the first five Dopers who say otherwise.”
Hillary was on the Rachel Maddow show last night, and this possibility came up. Maddow asked about the possibility of indefinite, open-ended obstruction of SCOTUS picks if Clinton or Sanders wins and the GOP holds the Senate; she also suggested that the GOP might just decide that, from here on out, Democratic presidents don’t get to fill Supreme Court vacancies. Clinton didn’t respond to the specifics of Maddow’s question, but emphasized how important it is for the Dems to regain control of the Senate. (Clip is here, and the part I’m citing starts at about 2:05.)
I think this is not only possible, but extremely likely. It’s just a question of what bullshit rationale the GOP rationale for leaving the seat open indefinitely. As for the OP’s bet, I’m not the gambling type, but I believe his wallet will have a $100 dent next February.
Just as I did here, I’ll back Elendil and his Heir if more takers show up. I also see a Justice Garland in the future.
I also highly recommend rereading that 2011 thread I linked. The Trump comments are…amusing.
Hmm. Stuck at three bettors. Let’s see…
The offer I made in the OP will close at noon EST on July 4, 2016.
Aw, hell, why not. I’ll take your bet (though I hope I lose).
Not in bold, as specified in the OP, but I’ll take it. Thanks. That’s four.
Sorry, posted from phone. I’ll take your bet.
Oh, all right, what the hell, let’s finish you off. I’ll take your bet.
Done and done. That’s five - thanks, all! I’ll send PMs shortly.
Senate Dems zing the GOP - why not field an eight-person baseball team?: Senate Dems Demand GOP Play Annual Baseball Game With 8-Person Team As a Nod to SCOTUS
Odds seem to be shortening in favour of Elendil’s Heir:
Dems are looking ahead: Dem senators to Clinton: Stick with Garland.
Would she *have *to fight a Senate controlled by her own party? If the (reasonable) expectation is that the Regressives will filibuster anything she does, just out of spite, then it doesn’t matter who she nominates.
That’s not a reasonable expectation.
Why not? They’ve been doing it for seven and a half years already.
Sorry, read progressives for some reason.
Here’s CNN on the still-in-limbo Garland nomination, and murmurings on Capitol Hill: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-wait/index.html
He has to take his seat before Clinton is sworn in, though. So even if she sticks with him, EH could still lose.