# 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:** 15
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/281 "2016-02-17T04:20:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Ok, **Lefty** , let me spell it out for you. The Republicans don’t give a shit about being seen ethical actors. They want power, and they don’t care much how they get it. So you can go on and on about what they “should do” if they want to be seen as ethical actors, but why you would think they care about that is beyond me. That’s up to YOU to explain. I already asked you this explicitly, and you declined to answer. Now, tell me if you can: Why do they give a shit about being seen as ethical actors, and what evidence do you have to show that they do? I don’t know what country’s Republicans you’re talking about, but here in the US, the Pubbies go to laughable extents to seem like they’re not just screwing the middle class for the benefit of large corporations. They give their bills Orwellian names like the Clear Skies Act (as not-yet-Senator Al Franken said at the time, it clears the skies of birds); they talk about how eliminating capital gains and [del]inheritance[/del] death taxes would encourage innovation and save family farms, they call rich people “job creators,” even when they specialize in cutting or exporting jobs; they justify drastic cuts in food stamps or welfare as ending the harm that government dependence does to one’s self-esteem; and for almost anything else, they find some way to say it’s for the children, or our brave fighting men. ---
**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 17, 2016, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/282 "2016-02-17T04:55:26Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > John, there’s no need. I think it’s worth talking about what the ethical course of action is. You don’t. We’re done. Oh please. We all know what the ethical course of action is. We don’t need you to tell us. My question is why you would expect the Republicans to care about taking it. You keep dodging that, and I don’t know why. So here’s a hint: They don’t care. I’m shocked that I need to tell you that… ---
**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 17, 2016, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/283 "2016-02-17T04:59:59Z")
> [@Dumbguy](#): > > Kennedy was approved by a Democratically controlled Senate 97-0. > > Then again, we have always been at war with Eurasia. Ugh. After Bork was ceremoniously unconfirmed in the most partisan confirmation process to date. But then again, nothing has changed in 30 years. Oh wait, it has! ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/284 "2016-02-17T05:21:05Z")
> [@Dumbguy](#): > > Kennedy was approved by a Democratically controlled Senate 97-0. > > Then again, we have always been at war with Eurasia. Kennedy was approved in the first part of January after the same Senate Democrats had rejected two nominees the prior year for the same seat, including one of the smartest jurists of the last century in Robert Bork solely because of his political leanings. The Dems got a Justice who mandated legal abortion nationwide, limited the death penalty, and mandated same sex marriage nationwide. That doesn’t translate into a Republican Senate simply rolling over and agree to replacing Scalia with whatever far left liberal that Obama will nominate. ---
**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 17, 2016, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/285 "2016-02-17T05:28:11Z")
Bork sure was an odd case. How did a guy who acted as a Nixon lickspittle right in the middle of Watergate get nominated? And his confirmation fight goes down in history as “partisan”. Tres bizarre. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/286 "2016-02-17T07:05:40Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That doesn’t translate into a Republican Senate simply rolling over and agree to replacing Scalia with whatever far left liberal that Obama will nominate. Spare me the “He better not be too liberal” bullshit. Poppa Bush replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas. Obama could appoint Bernie Sanders to replace Scalia, and it wouldn’t make up for it. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/287 "2016-02-17T08:24:50Z")
To repeat something I said in the Elections forum thread, what gets me about this whole thing is the bald-faced announcement of what the Republicans’ intent was, especially on the part of those NOT running for President. If they’d just kept quiet and did what they’re expected to do, but not told anyone about their reasoning, what could anyone do if they just said repeatedly, “We need time to thoroughly vet this candidate and make sure that this crucial lifetime appointment is filled with some of the requisite experience and temperament”? Apparently, someone, or a lot of someones, think announcing their intent so brazenly is good political strategy. We’ll see, I suppose. ---
**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 17, 2016, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/288 "2016-02-17T11:37:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh please. We all know what the ethical course of action is. We don’t need you to tell us. My question is why you would expect the Republicans to care about taking it. You keep dodging that, and I don’t know why. So here’s a hint: They don’t care. I’m shocked that I need to tell you that… For the last time, John, the discussion you’re looking to have here? It ain’t the one I’m interested in. I’ll say no more to you on this particular topic. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/289 "2016-02-17T13:11:13Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > No, nominations are never dealt with by subcommittees. They are matters dealt with by the full Judiciary Committee. When hearings with nominees happen, they are never at the subcommittee level. There is no subcommittee vote on nominations. The whole process is dealt with by the full Judiciary Committee. Schumer had no say in scheduling full committee hearings, votes, or any other business, except that he may try to convince Leahy of the wisdom of his suggestions. > > Subcommittees hold hearings and can be the first step for legislative action - like writing bills - but don’t have any role in nominations. I’m not sure where you get the idea that subcommittees can bottle up Supreme Court justices. Sigh! You are really holding to this idea. Any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee can jerk around the process to some extent. Chairs of subcommittee all the more. First, the [standing rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee](http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/rules) allow any member to delay action for one week on any nomination. Get your colleagues on the committee to do the same in succession and a nominee could be delayed by a few months. Second, as chair of a subcommittee you can deign to hold hearings on some matter related to the nomination process. This is exactly what was done to delay actions on nominations by President Bush. It’s already been done by Schumer in 2002. He knew how to do it. And the results were that in Bush’s first two years (2001-02) in office only 38% (11 of 29) nominees to the circuit courts received a Judiciary Committee Hearing. That contrasts with 91% (20/22) for the same period of the Clinton administration and 96% (22 of 23) for GHWB, 95% (19/20) for Reagan and 100% (13/13) for Carter. Third, such Senator can vote his/her single vote against sending a nominee to the full Senate for a vote. The Speaker of the House cannot do any of those things. But somehow you seem to think the Speaker has more sway or that Schumer was unable to act on his statements?! ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/290 "2016-02-17T13:43:11Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > To repeat something I said in the Elections forum thread, what gets me about this whole thing is the bald-faced announcement of what the Republicans’ intent was, especially on the part of those NOT running for President. If they’d just kept quiet and did what they’re expected to do, but not told anyone about their reasoning, what could anyone do if they just said repeatedly, “We need time to thoroughly vet this candidate and make sure that this crucial lifetime appointment is filled with some of the requisite experience and temperament”? > > Apparently, someone, or a lot of someones, think announcing their intent so brazenly is good political strategy. We’ll see, I suppose. Was there any reason for this strategy? It seems to have really limited their options. Could McConnell just not help himself? Hard to make it look non partisan, when you’ve pre announced a partisan maneuver. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/291 "2016-02-17T13:50:51Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Spare me the “He better not be too liberal” bullshit. Poppa Bush replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas. Obama could appoint Bernie Sanders to replace Scalia, and it wouldn’t make up for it. And Clarence Thomas was well qualified. But you don’t like the idea of replacing a liberal icon like Marshall with a conservative like Thomas. I understand, and that is my point. These posts talking about how William Howard Taft nominated a Supreme Court Justice in an election year are misplaced. The Court has in very recent years assumed a super-legislative role and is now paying the price. Taft didn’t have to worry if the judges he was appointing were going to mandate legal abortion or the like. They were considered learned in the law and looked upon as qualified jurists. Today, we don’t look at judges as neutral arbiters of the law, we look at them as votes for our favored positions. Now that we understand that, there is no problem in my mind with using the process (refusing to vote on an Obama nomination) to get a preferred super-legislator in place. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/292 "2016-02-17T15:27:52Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Taft didn’t have to worry if the judges he was appointing were going to mandate legal abortion or the like. No matter what you hear on Fox News, abortion isn’t mandatory. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/293 "2016-02-17T17:05:41Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Spare me the “He better not be too liberal” bullshit. Poppa Bush replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas. Obama could appoint Bernie Sanders to replace Scalia, and it wouldn’t make up for it. Obama’s nominee better not be too liberal. Stee-riiiiik. (Strike as in spares and strikes.) ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/294 "2016-02-17T19:59:04Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Olson Johnson is right! Dr. Samuel Johnson’s right about Olson Johnson being right. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/295 "2016-02-17T20:52:46Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > No matter what you hear on Fox News, abortion isn’t mandatory. 🙂 Sorry, I meant mandate to states that they must make abortion legal. ---
**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 17, 2016, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/296 "2016-02-17T21:39:14Z")
SCOTUS Blog says there is a historical precedent for [Tie votes will lead to reargument, not affirmance.](http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/tie-votes-will-lead-to-reargument-not-affirmance/) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2016, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/297 "2016-02-18T00:10:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Sorry, I meant mandate to states that they must make abortion legal. ??? Roe v. Wade did that. States cannot ban abortion. What exactly are you trying to say? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2016, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/298 "2016-02-19T00:06:06Z")
I consider this whole thing to be pure politics, and nobody should be upset. I don’t take anything anybody is saying st face value. I’m sure that everybody knows that Obama can should and will make a nomination. The job of the opposition is to produce the most formidable possible opposition they can muster. The scarier and more threatening this looks, the greater the chance that Obama will nominate someone palatable to them. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2016, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/299 "2016-02-19T00:09:23Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I consider this whole thing to be pure politics, and nobody should be upset. I don’t take anything anybody is saying st face value. I’m sure that everybody knows that Obama can should and will make a nomination. The job of the opposition is to produce the most formidable possible opposition they can muster. The scarier and more threatening this looks, the greater the chance that Obama will nominate someone palatable to them. Has that worked in the past, or is it just wishful thinking? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2016, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/300 "2016-02-19T00:21:35Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Has that worked in the past, or is it just wishful thinking? That’s a great question. Unfortunately it’s impossible to answer definitively since the intent of the strategy is to psychologically effect the nomination. However I’d say it worked against Bush when he nominated his women friend but later withdrew the nomination. It didn’t work against his next nomination that got threatened with a filibuster. It just makes sense though. This puts pressure on Obama to nominate somebody do good and so balanced that the Republicans would look stupid and spiteful to refuse yo consider… Which is exactly what the republicans want. I would expect the Democrats to be doing some version of this if the tides were turned. In this case the value lies in making as strong a credible threat as you can make, carrying through on it is not the point, obviously. The point of any threat is intimidation do you font have to follow through. Think about it. Telegraphing the move is actually counterproductive if get mean it. Just as me saying “I’m going to punch you” is a bad idea if I mean it because it gives you time to muster preparations. The value is the threat itself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=16)