# Obama must be allowed to nominate the next SCOTUS Justice **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2016, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061 "2016-02-13T23:23:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/181 "2016-02-15T19:51:45Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Getting to the issue at hand, how is this likely to play out. The initial phase is already pretty much declared. Obama will make a nomination soon, and in all likelihood it will be someone fairly moderate (with a left lean) and an impeccable resume. The Republican senate will not allow this nomination to proceed, by whatever means necessary. > > Then what? Any predictions? Not what should happen, but what will happen. There’s no mechanism compelling the Senate to vote on any executive branch nominees. So when they simply refuse to have a hearing on Obama’s selection, Obama will make regular impassioned speeches about it, and you’ll hear various people handwringing about it. I suspect that the Democrats in the Senate will withhold their consent for everything that needs their consent, dragging business in the Senate to a crawl, but that no one who doesn’t follow politics obsessively will notice or care. This will continue until after the next President is seated - and I predict that if the Republicans hold the Senate and we have a Democratic President, they’ll continue to refuse consider anyone whatsoever for at least another two years after that. What threats can anyone hold over Senate Republicans? Personally I think it’s a disgraceful spectacle, but I’m not their target audience, and they’re 100% right that their primary voters will crucify them for putting Obama’s appointee on the bench. You hear grousing about the failure to filibuster Sotomayor and Kagan, and that was when Democrats held the chamber. The only way that this will change is if they were more likely to lose a general election for failing to approve the nominee than to lose a primary for approving the nominee, and that would probably take a few cycles to sort out. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/182 "2016-02-15T20:04:27Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Didn’t they object to his last turkey pardon too? Not as such, but some on the right said his daughters looked like sluts. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/183 "2016-02-15T20:07:34Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Not as such, but some on the right said his daughters looked like sluts. That’s disgusting. That turkey’s poor daughters should be off-limits. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/184 "2016-02-15T20:19:31Z")
Things _might_ change after the GOP presidential nominee is selected. During the primary, though, none of the contenders is going to risk look like he’s helping Obama. At any rate, during the primaries… not a chance. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/185 "2016-02-15T20:30:19Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > I could vaguely agree with ‘is’ the baby of the bunch, but not ‘was’. Kagan was 50 when she assumed office, as was Roberts. The baby of the bunch was Thomas, who was 43. And he still has not grown up… ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/186 "2016-02-15T20:42:16Z")
> [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](#): > > There’s no mechanism compelling the Senate to vote on any executive branch nominees. So when they simply refuse to have a hearing on Obama’s selection, Obama will make regular impassioned speeches about it, and you’ll hear various people handwringing about it. I suspect that the Democrats in the Senate will withhold their consent for everything that needs their consent, dragging business in the Senate to a crawl, but that no one who doesn’t follow politics obsessively will notice or care. This will continue until after the next President is seated - and I predict that if the Republicans hold the Senate and we have a Democratic President, they’ll continue to refuse consider anyone whatsoever for at least another two years after that. > > What threats can anyone hold over Senate Republicans? Personally I think it’s a disgraceful spectacle, but I’m not their target audience, and they’re 100% right that their primary voters will crucify them for putting Obama’s appointee on the bench. You hear grousing about the failure to filibuster Sotomayor and Kagan, and that was when Democrats held the chamber. The only way that this will change is if they were more likely to lose a general election for failing to approve the nominee than to lose a primary for approving the nominee, and that would probably take a few cycles to sort out. Exactly, right now all the Republican nominees are in thrall to the slobbering morons that constitute a large part of the Republican primary voters. Now is the time to really pour it on them, to force them so far to the right that come the general election they’ll have to just about reverse their previous positions to appeal to the indies. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/187 "2016-02-15T20:43:40Z")
The Democrats could stand to listen to their ignorant masses a little more. They’ve only become more elitist over the last few decades. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/188 "2016-02-15T20:52:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The Democrats could stand to listen to their ignorant masses a little more. They’ve only become more elitist over the last few decades. It’s true of the centrists. The progressives, not so much. We’re all about putting bankers in jail when they steal, helping the middle class (and the lower class, but don’t tell anybody … they’re pretty much the same from the veiwpoint of the Washington elite) to thrive and succeed. Y’know, people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. ---
**Author:** ![Philliam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/philliam/32/3011_2.png) [@Philliam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philliam)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/189 "2016-02-15T21:23:02Z")
Why am I suddenly harking back to those simpler times in '74 when we only had to worry about Richard Nixon and his machinations?😕 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/190 "2016-02-15T21:27:32Z")
> [@Philliam](#): > > Why am I suddenly harking back to those simpler times in '74 when we only had to worry about Richard Nixon and his machinations?😕 Yeah, but the clothes man. \*\*\* The clothes!!\*\*\* ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/191 "2016-02-15T21:38:58Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > So has McConnell: > “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President." So Obama wasn’t elected? Hmmm. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/192 "2016-02-15T21:40:15Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The Democrats could stand to listen to their ignorant masses a little more. They’ve only become more elitist over the last few decades. So back to the point of the thread, where the GOP was putting up absurd obstructions instead of doing its job, again. ---
**Author:** ![Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pearl_Clutching_Provocateur)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/193 "2016-02-15T21:42:21Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Not as such, but some on the right said his daughters looked like sluts. Cite? I think some people said Obama’s daughters looked disinterested and bored and resentful for having to attend the ceremony. Hell, I say this about my own child at events we attend. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/194 "2016-02-15T21:47:45Z")
> [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](#): > > Cite? She didn’t actually use the term “slut”, but pretty close: > [@](#): > > Annoyed or not, their appearance and demeanor sparked the ire of one Facebook poster, who caustically exhorted the girls to “try showing a little class. Rise to the occasion. Act like being in the White House matters to you. Dress like you deserve respect, not a spot at the bar.” > > Those words were awfully harsh for two girls of 16 and 13, who were wearing normal adolescent fashions and did nothing remarkable, much less scandalous. There was a little eye-rolling, and when Dad offered the chance to pet the fortunate fowl, Malia quickly replied, “Nah,” but that was all. > > The comments would have passed unnoticed except that the author, Elizabeth Lauten, was communications director for Rep. Stephen Lee Fincher, R-Tenn. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/195 "2016-02-15T21:49:12Z")
> [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](#): > > Cite? [http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/elizabeth-lauten-resigns-criticizes-obama-daughters-113228](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/elizabeth-lauten-resigns-criticizes-obama-daughters-113228) She didn’t quite call them “sluts” though. That’s an unfair characterization. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/196 "2016-02-15T21:52:54Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So Obama wasn’t elected? Hmmm. Yeah, I don’t know how he could say this with a straight face. As if the American people didn’t already have their say on who should be selecting SCOTUS justices right now. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/197 "2016-02-15T22:08:33Z")
> [@Clu-Me-In](#): > > Obama must be allowed to nominate the next SCOTUS Justice > > With the unfortunate passing of Justice Scalia, if the Republicans refuse to allow Barack Obama to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice, we might as well blow up this country and start all over again with a new Constitution. Obama can “nominate” anyone for SCOTUS. A nomination doesn’t mean his nomination will be confirmed. As the current, lame duck President, that’s still his job. I’m sure there are many suggestions for the job coming his way. We the People also elected a room full of U.S. Senators. And we expect those duly elected Senators to respond to the needs of their constituents. Some Senators may put the needs of their particular political party over the needs and wants of their constituents but those Senators may soon be looking for honest work if they chose to piss off the voters. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/198 "2016-02-15T22:17:58Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Obama can “nominate” anyone for SCOTUS. A nomination doesn’t mean his nomination will be confirmed. As the current, lame duck President, that’s still his job. I’m sure there are many suggestions for the job coming his way. > > We the People also elected a room full of U.S. Senators. And we expect those duly elected Senators to respond to the needs of their constituents. Some Senators may put the needs of their particular political party over the needs and wants of their constituents but those Senators may soon be looking for honest work if they chose to piss off the voters. He is not a lame duck president. You’re repeating a current GOP talking point trying to redefine the term “lame duck”. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/199 "2016-02-15T22:49:01Z")
[I’ve just read](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/) that the Senate voted in 1960 that the President should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court in an election year. ---
**Author:** ![davida03801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5e925/32.png) [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2016, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/200 "2016-02-15T22:49:38Z")
> [@Clu-Me-In](#): > > With the unfortunate passing of Justice Scalia, if the Republicans refuse to allow Barack Obama to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice, we might as well blow up this country and start all over again with a new Constitution. The President has the right to nominate who he pleases. The Senate has the right to delay, deny or approve the nominee to SCOTUS. After all that is done the voters have the right to vote in or out who they please based upon whatever outcome there is. Actually the Constitution is working as intended, and very well. IMHO [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=11)