# 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:** 12
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/221 "2016-02-16T16:39:04Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Obama must not be allowed to nominate the next Justice. He’s already trying to circumvent the Constitution. He’ll just try to put in a “Yes Man” who will be willing to let him and the Dems do all kinds of unconstitutional and illegal acts. Olson Johnson is right! ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/222 "2016-02-16T16:39:07Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Look, if Republicans just played hardball, said, “We hate Obama and think he’s a nasty-ass poopyhead and we’re going to vote down anyone he nominates unless that person is to the right of Clarence Thomas,” that’d be obnoxious hardball. Well, to be fair, that’s pretty much what they’re saying. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/223 "2016-02-16T16:39:46Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Obama must not be allowed to nominate the next Justice. He’s already trying to circumvent the Constitution. He’ll just try to put in a “Yes Man” who will be willing to let him and the Dems do all kinds of unconstitutional and illegal acts. This Yes Person will also enshrine culturally repugnant practices as law, unlike the late Justice Scalia, who dutifully followed the Constitution and never let personal/political considerations enter into his decisions. And he was a brilliant writer! [It says so](http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-supreme-court-after-scalia-1455580665) in today’s Wall St. Journal (op-ed is fully accessible by separate Google search). ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/224 "2016-02-16T16:45:45Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Obama must not be allowed to nominate the next Justice. He’s already trying to circumvent the Constitution. He’ll just try to put in a “Yes Man” who will be willing to let him and the Dems do all kinds of unconstitutional and illegal acts. If the Supreme Court lets him do something then by definition it wouldn’t be illegal or unconstitutional. ---
**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 16, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/225 "2016-02-16T16:51:34Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Obama must not be allowed to nominate the next Justice. He’s already trying to circumvent the Constitution. He’ll just try to put in a “Yes Man” who will be willing to let him and the Dems do all kinds of unconstitutional and illegal acts. Is that serious? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/226 "2016-02-16T16:54:13Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It’s the dishonesty, and the ineptitude of the dishonesty, that gets me. So your objection is one of language choice? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yep. I don’t generally like “what would the other party do if…” scenarios, but it’s hard to imagine the Democrats just going along with an appointment made by GWB in his last year in office had RBG died then. The parameters are pretty much equally reversed, as the Dems had the House and the Senate in 2008. You mean [when Shumer said this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8): > [@](#): > > We should not confirm any [Obama] nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not > … > This is just a prologue considering the constitutional harm and dramatic departures that are in store if those few are joined by one more ideological ally. We have to, in my judgment, stick by the precepts that I’ve elaborated. I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining [Sotomayor and Kagan] on the court. (“Bush” replaced with “Obama” and “Roberts and Alito” changed to “Sotomayor and Kagan.”) [Taken from here.](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431323/its-only-reckless-partisanship-when-other-guys-do-it-huh) Just normal politics. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/227 "2016-02-16T16:57:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Just normal politics. Except that Schumer’s statement was as a member of the minority who had no opportunity to carry out his intention. It’s like saying that Bernie Sanders, if elected, would implement single payer health care. Well, he won’t, because there’s no way to carry out his plan. There is a way for McConnell to carry out his plan, so his threats are fundamentally different in character. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/228 "2016-02-16T17:02:51Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Well, to be fair, that’s pretty much what they’re saying. No, it’s not. They’re making up incredibly lame excuses to pretend that it’s anything other than the rankest partisanship ever. > [@Bone](#): > > So your objection is one of language choice? “Language choice” isn’t correct, because it’s not just a choice of words; it’s a blatantly deceptive description of their rationale. But even if they were honest, remember what I said: > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Look, if Republicans just played hardball, said, “We hate Obama and think he’s a nasty-ass poopyhead and we’re going to vote down anyone he nominates unless that person is to the right of Clarence Thomas,” that’d be obnoxious hardball. If they were honest, they’d still be acting in a supremely obnoxious manner. > [@](#): > > You mean [when Shumer said this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8): > (“Bush” replaced with “Obama” and “Roberts and Alito” changed to “Sotomayor and Kagan.”) [Taken from here.](http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431323/its-only-reckless-partisanship-when-other-guys-do-it-huh) > > Just normal politics. Let’s also replace “a hypothetical comment” with “one made about a real situation,” and let’s replace “will vote against the confirmation of” with “will not even hold a vote on,” and let’s replace “one jerkwad Senator” with “the leadership of the party,” and then they’ll be the same. ---
**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 16, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/229 "2016-02-16T17:09:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Except that Schumer’s statement was as a member of the minority who had no opportunity to carry out his intention. It’s like saying that Bernie Sanders, if elected, would implement single payer health care. Well, he won’t, because there’s no way to carry out his plan. > > There is a way for McConnell to carry out his plan, so his threats are fundamentally different in character. Of all the lame excuses… (And for the record, I am a Democrat). ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/230 "2016-02-16T17:10:24Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Except that Schumer’s statement was as a member of the minority who had no opportunity to carry out his intention. It’s like saying that Bernie Sanders, if elected, would implement single payer health care. Well, he won’t, because there’s no way to carry out his plan. > > There is a way for McConnell to carry out his plan, so his threats are fundamentally different in character. My recollection isn’t that great here - was Shumer part of the Senate Judiciary committee at the time? In any case, the Democratic Party controlled the Senate at the time Shumer made his statement. The point isn’t Shumer, it’s just that jockeying for position is typical politics. I see it as an effort to try an influence Obama to put up someone that is a compromise candidate. I don’t think it will work. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/231 "2016-02-16T17:14:21Z")
Does a black president only get 3/5 of a term for SCOTUS appointments? What is the limit for when a President can’t do “president stuff”? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/232 "2016-02-16T17:20:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > My recollection isn’t that great here - was Shumer part of the Senate Judiciary committee at the time? In any case, the Democratic Party controlled the Senate at the time Shumer made his statement. The point isn’t Shumer, it’s just that jockeying for position is typical politics. Do you really see “I’m probably going to vote no on your nominees, based on previous ones” and “I’m not going to allow your nominees to come to a vote, since you’re almost out of office anyway” as the same thing? I mean, really? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/233 "2016-02-16T17:30:12Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Do you really see “I’m probably going to vote no on your nominees, based on previous ones” and “I’m not going to allow your nominees to come to a vote, since you’re almost out of office anyway” as the same thing? I mean, really? It’s not “I’m probably going to vote no on your nominees”, it’s “I’m going to do everything in my power…” And no, they are not the same thing. The pretext is just that, pretext. When Obama voted “no” on Roberts and Alito, do you think it was after careful consideration of their judicial philosophy and he did not think they were qualified for the role? Or was it because he was ideologically opposed to them, or maybe both? I mean, does it matter? I don’t see a meaningful difference between, I’m going to vote no on whoever you put up so don’t even try because it will be a waste of time, and going through a big production and ending up in the same spot, and voting no. It’s still just politics. When other federal judicial nominees were being held up and they finally came to a vote, it’s not like the votes were close. I seem to recall a supermajority approving those nominees that eventually came to a vote. It was politics then, why would there be any expectation that this would be different? The sanctity of the role? I personally find it interesting to test the constitutional limits of what advise and consent really mean. Theoretically the senate could never approve a nominee, SCOTUS members would eventually be reduced through attrition and we could get a SCOTUS made up of 3 people! ---
**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 16, 2016, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/234 "2016-02-16T17:47:27Z")
Well there’s nothing in the Constitution stating how many Supreme Court justices there should be anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/235 "2016-02-16T17:53:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s not “I’m probably going to vote no on your nominees”, it’s “I’m going to do everything in my power…” I think my paraphrase is much closer to what he actually said: > [@Schumer](#): > > We should reverse the presumption of confirmation…the Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/236 "2016-02-16T18:03:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s not “I’m probably going to vote no on your nominees”, it’s “I’m going to do everything in my power…” I watched Schumer’s speech in question, and although I still disagree with his overall point, you are in fact misrepresenting Schumer’s point. Schumer talked about an ideological tipping point on the Court, and that the expectations should be flipped: rather than presuming confirmation, the presumption should be not to confirm any Bush appointees, except in extreme circumstances. He also said that nominees should have the burden of proof in asserting they are part of the mainstream, as opposed to Democrats having to prove the nominee is not in the mainstream. He then goes on to mispronounce the work “clique” in the most grating way possible. [Link.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY) To put this in terms of the SDMB, there’s a couple posters who I think everything that comes out of their mouths is completely wrong. Schumer’s speech basically suggests that I respond to all of their posts with rolleyes. What McConnell suggests is that I put them on ignore. I think there’s a big difference. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/237 "2016-02-16T18:10:02Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I think my paraphrase is much closer to what he actually said: Ok. I quoted it, and linked it. Since he actually said what I quoted, but you’re “I’m probably going to vote no on your nominees” wasn’t in the speech, I’m not seeing how your original paraphrase is more accurate than my direct quote. > [@Ravenman](#): > > I watched Schumer’s speech in question, and although I still disagree with his overall point, you are in fact misrepresenting Schumer’s point. Yes, he talked about a tipping point, flubs the word “clique”, etc. In what way did I misrepresent his point? I used a direct quote. What did I imply that was different than what you think Schumer actually meant? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/238 "2016-02-16T18:26:22Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In what way did I misrepresent his point? I used a direct quote. What did I imply that was different than what you think Schumer actually meant? Because Schumer quite clearly left the door open to voting for a nominee that could pass his test. Now, that’s just a tiny crack in the door, but by quoting “I’ll do everything in my power…” and ignoring everything else he said, you’re implying that Schumer said that he was going to gin up opposition to any nominee, no matter who they were. ---
**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 16, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/239 "2016-02-16T18:28:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > To put this in terms of the SDMB, there’s a couple posters who I think everything that comes out of their mouths is completely wrong. Schumer’s speech basically suggests that I respond to all of their posts with rolleyes. What McConnell suggests is that I put them on ignore. I think there’s a big difference. Is there though? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/240 "2016-02-16T18:35:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Because Schumer quite clearly left the door open to voting for a nominee that could pass his test. Now, that’s just a tiny crack in the door, but by quoting “I’ll do everything in my power…” and ignoring everything else he said, you’re implying that Schumer said that he was going to gin up opposition to any nominee, no matter who they were. Ok, fair point. Though I used the entire quote in my first post on this subject in post #226 that included the portion about ideological allies. I wasn’t planning on including the entire passage each time the subject was discussed since it was previously stated. It’s a stretch to say that was misrepresenting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=13)