# 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:** 7
**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 14, 2016, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/121 "2016-02-14T17:22:31Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > He should appoint an African-American woman who has a background in law. I can think of one. It would make many heads asplode. > > I mean, if the RWers can say and do outrageous shit, why not the president? Because it makes the RWers outrageous shit actually justified. But go ahead and urge the president do something stupid if it makes you feel better. There’s nothing like feeling better! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/122 "2016-02-14T17:48:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@eschereal](#): > > > > I heard it suggested that Hillary and Bernie ought to both promise to nominate Barack Obama to the seat when they are elected. Or maybe Michelle. That would get the Rs off their asses. > > Like most suggestions one hears, that’s a really stupid idea. To prevent you from playing politics with the SCOTUS justice nominating process, we are going to play politics with the SCOTUS justice nominating process. Besides, if they _really_ want to hold a gun to the GOP establishment’s head, they should threaten to nominate Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/123 "2016-02-14T18:39:39Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Obama has an easy task, because Scalia was by far the most conservative justice. Hence, if he nominates a socially liberal but pro-business judge, the Court STILL moves way to the left, and enough business wing Republican senators would be mollified to get his selection through. > > This will only be a battle if Obama makes it one. He can appoint a David Souter type and get 90% of what the Left wants. He’s an idiot if he tries to go farther left than that. Damn things have changed when David Souter, a guy appointed by George H. W. Bush is considered the type of candidate who gets the Left “90% of what they want”. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/124 "2016-02-14T18:46:03Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Ahem. He may not want to further alienate the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which is what a pro-business nominee would accomplish. It would not be HIS problem but it would CERTAINLY be his successors. Frankly, all we have to do is start yelling “We don’t want another pro-Citizens United Justice!” and that would be that … what Democrat would dare support a nominee that was pro Citizens United? A Democrat who’s a member of the ACLU, doesn’t like the idea of the federal government being allowed to regulate documentaries critical of politicians, and pefers the good ole days when the liberals were the champions of free speech. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/125 "2016-02-14T18:53:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Oh **adaher**. You’re so cute when you represent yourself as being more expert in such things than a Harvard Law graduate. You actually understated the case. A former editor of the Harvard Law Review who taught Constituional Law at the Unviersity of Chicago Law School. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/126 "2016-02-14T19:19:44Z")
> [@Me\_Billy](#): > > Obama simply needs to nominate someone, then let the Republicans stonewall and act like children (give them enough rope to hang themselves) This would be where I’d put my money for what will actually happen. I really don’t see how conservatives aren’t completely f@#%ed by Scalia’s death. It seems the best they could hope for would be to completely stall any Obama appointment and then hope like hell they win in November. That’s a rather large Hail Mary Pass to pull off. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/127 "2016-02-14T19:29:53Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > He should appoint an African-American woman who has a background in law. I can think of one. It would make many heads asplode. Well, Janice Brown is probably too Libertarian for Obama. If you were thinking Judith Rogers, she’s in her late 70s, and he’d probably want to pick somebody younger. Ann Williams might be a good pick, or Leah Sears. The only choice there that would make heads explode, though, would be Brown. But the Republicans would probably like her. Personally, I’d like to see him nominate Akhil Reed Amar, but… ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/128 "2016-02-14T19:31:53Z")
I say explode everyone’s head and nominate Colin Powell. ---
**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 14, 2016, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/129 "2016-02-14T19:35:18Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > A Democrat who’s a member of the ACLU, doesn’t like the idea of the federal government being allowed to regulate documentaries critical of politicians, and pefers the good ole days when the liberals were the champions of free speech. Yah, yah, money is speech and butter is cotton and blue is yellow. I hear you. I jsut don’t believe a word of it. Nor do most Americans. But feel free to spend as much money saying it as you like! ---
**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 14, 2016, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/130 "2016-02-14T19:38:04Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You actually understated the case. A former editor of the Harvard Law Review who taught Constituional Law at the Unviersity of Chicago Law School. Yeah, except he doesn’t seem to get that whole “privacy” thing. And open and transparent government is DEFINITELY not his thing. And apparently, corporate types can do no wrong. I’d be real unhappy with Obama as a Supreme Court justice. ---
**Author:** ![GulfTiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e79b87/32.png) [@GulfTiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GulfTiger)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/131 "2016-02-14T20:22:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > To prevent you from playing politics with the SCOTUS justice nominating process, we are going to play politics with the SCOTUS justice nominating process. Politicians playing politics. Shocking. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/132 "2016-02-14T20:35:54Z")
> [@Llama\_Llogophile](#): > > This would be where I’d put my money for what will actually happen. > > I really don’t see how conservatives aren’t completely f@#%ed by Scalia’s death. It seems the best they could hope for would be to completely stall any Obama appointment and then hope like hell they win in November. That’s a rather large Hail Mary Pass to pull off. It’s not even a winning Hail Mary. If they set the precedent it’s acceptable to block nominees and if they don’t suffer politically for being obstructionists what is to stop the Democrats from blocking a Republican nominee for the following 4 years, why should Republicans be exclusive in setting obstructionist records. I think the Republicans do what they’ve been doing and dodge, they ‘accidentally’ go on recess and let Obama make a recess appointment. Then rally the base claiming Obama is a tyrant who circumvents Congress. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/133 "2016-02-14T20:39:16Z")
I’m I a’reading this correctly, Senator Cruz is promising to filibuster any Senate Republican attempt to stack the court with conservatives? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/134 "2016-02-14T21:02:41Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Yah, yah, money is speech and butter is cotton and blue is yellow. I hear you. I jsut don’t believe a word of it. Nor do most Americans. But feel free to spend as much money saying it as you like! I’m sure you think you said something clever but all you did was reveal just how foolish your comment was. I understand that you think you and most Americans understand the law better than the ACLU or trained legal scholars but you don’t. No one at the ACLU has ever claimed “money equals speech”. What they have pointed out is that money is a resource and restricting a person’s ability to spend money criticizing a political candidate is restricting their speech. Similarly, were say the State of Mississippi to declare they weren’t going to ban abortions but they would ban the spending money to either have them or conduct them they’d be laughed out of court. The idea that regulating the ability of a movie company to spend money either promoting or producing a movie with a political message isn’t a form of regulating political speech is moronic. That’s why believers in free speech stand with the ACLU. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/135 "2016-02-14T21:19:35Z")
I’m reading that Obama may not even be _very_ concerned with getting his nomination approved. This article/opinion here: > **[If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/13/if-republicans-block-obamas-supreme-court-nomination-he-wins-anyway/?postshare=701455465977871&tid=ss_fb-bottom)** > > A deadlocked court favors Democrats, so the president should go ahead and appoint a real liberal. suggests that Obama already has an advantage with a deadlocked court. The thinking is that lower appeals courts are more liberal than not. They return decisions that conservatives don’t like, so they take it to the Supremes for them to overturn. Thing is, overturn requires a majority vote, a four to four tie leaves the lower courts decision in place. So, Obama can put up an agreeably “vanilla” center-left nominee, the Republicans can block said nominee for fear of losing their grip on the Court, for fear of losing all the important cases. But blocking an agreeable and acceptable nominee looks bad, and it _also_ loses a lot of important cases, cases they were otherwise likely to have won! Groovy. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/136 "2016-02-14T21:51:56Z")
Exactly. This is not a situation the GOP can come out stronger by being obstructionist. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/137 "2016-02-14T21:59:08Z")
The question comes down to whether or not the Republicans feel strongly enough to block the nomination the way Democrats were willing to block the appointments of Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owens, Miguel Estrada and others. I have a hunch they will and we’ll see a sudden reversal of positions from that time. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/138 "2016-02-14T22:01:25Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > The question comes down to whether or not the Republicans feel strongly enough to block the nomination the way Democrats were willing to block the appointments of Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owens, Miguel Estrada and others. I have a hunch they will and we’ll see a sudden reversal of positions from that time. “One of these things is not like the other…” Can you guess what the difference is? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/139 "2016-02-14T22:26:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > His record before the Supreme Court speaks for itself. Exactly how many times was he before the Supreme Court? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2016, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061/140 "2016-02-14T23:34:00Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > It’s not even a winning Hail Mary. If they set the precedent it’s acceptable to block nominees and if they don’t suffer politically for being obstructionists what is to stop the Democrats from blocking a Republican nominee for the following 4 years, why should Republicans be exclusive in setting obstructionist records. Their only hope would be to convince people that THESE circumstances are different, and that NOW the Democrats are being evil obstructionists. Or else pretend the previous year never happened, and hope everyone forgot about it. Not a strategy I’d want to count on working long term. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-must-be-allowed-to-nominate-the-next-scotus-justice/746061.md?page=8)