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!
Besides, if they really want to hold a gun to the GOP establishment’s head, they should threaten to nominate Trump.
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”.
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.
You actually understated the case. A former editor of the Harvard Law Review who taught Constituional Law at the Unviersity of Chicago Law School.
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.
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…
I say explode everyone’s head and nominate Colin Powell.
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!
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.
Politicians playing politics.
Shocking.
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.
I’m I a’reading this correctly, Senator Cruz is promising to filibuster any Senate Republican attempt to stack the court with conservatives?
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.
I’m reading that Obama may not even be very concerned with getting his nomination approved. This article/opinion here:
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.
Exactly. This is not a situation the GOP can come out stronger by being obstructionist.
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?
Exactly how many times was he before the Supreme Court?
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.