Is he that guy who climbed a tower in Austin and shot a bunch of folks?
Why would the Republicans allow a recess appointment to stay past the next Senate term? And then, if they drag out the nomination process, you have a sitting court with one “liberal” justice missing. What’s to gain from that?
If Ginsburg dies or resigns and Obama offers no nominee until after the election (what’s the rush, after all?), he makes SCOTUS nomination an election issue (even more so than usual). Do you really think Romney has the advantage of that issue, considering we now have a SCOTUS with five Pub appointees and only four Dem appointees? Shifting the balance even further Pubward is what might be scary to the voters.
The only way it might “blow up” is if we have a 2000-like scenario where an evenly divided SCOTUS of eight has to decide the presidential election. That would be some political theater.
I think that would make the charge “Obama is playing politics instead of looking to the good of the nation” far too potent.
Yeah, I think that is Advantage Romney. Obama can’t refuse to nominate anyone until after the election, unless the opening occurs in September or later. If he does, he appears weak and indecisive. And anyone he nominates is going to severely piss off a substantial part of the electorate. From a tactical point of view, Obama very much does not want Ginsburg to retire or die before the election. It would be very inconvenient for him. For that matter, he doesn’t want her on her deathbed, either.
From his point of view, the only thing that would be worse is if Scalia or one of the other conservatives would die/retire before the election, leaving him an appointment that could actually shift the balance of the Court. That would pretty much doom his chances in November. You think Big Money is talking loud now? You ain’t seen nothing yet.
On the flip side, his best case scenario is to win in November, and then have Scalia or one of the other conservatives die/retire. With a second term in hand, he’s suddenly in a position to shift the balance and make it stick.
Well, certainly, whoever is POTUS 2013-17 will get to make some appointments. The oldest members of the SCOTUS at present are Scalia (76; appointed by Reagan); Kennedy (76; Reagan); Ginsburg (79; Clinton); and Breyer (73; W). I should think at least two of those will be gone before 2017. (If only Roberts (57; W) and Alito (62; W) were older . . .)
But it would be a different President, and IIRC, Harriet Miers took one for the team and withdrew her own name from nomination. Again, IIRC, Robert Bork when it was obvious that he was going to lose and got an unfavorable result from the Judiciary Committee, demanded a full Senate vote.
Also, the Senate reconvenes on January 3rd-ish, so Obama could resubmit Soros on January 4th leaving him still on the Senate calendar when Romney is sworn in.
Recess appointment? The Republicans would demand 24 hour sessions (real ones, not pro forma) over Christmas to prevent that from happening.
In contentious cases, he generally voted on the side that had talked to him last. Finally, in Baker v Carr (the “one man, one vote” case), he, entirely unable to decide which way to vote, had a nervous breakdown and resigned.
You mean Bubba, not W.