Worries about the Supreme Court are overrated. I refuse to base my vote on those concerns and everyone else should as well. Justices live a long time. Even if they are in their 70s they might not step down for a decade or more.
So let’s say Clinton gets to replace Scalia and Ginsburg. The court is 5-4. But there’s still Breyer and Kennedy, who seem less likely to step down in Clinton’s first term. All the GOP has to do is beat Clinton for reelection and then maybe they tip things back to 5-4, except with that fifth justice being more solid conservative than Kennedy.
The Supreme Court is never worth electing a total loser over.
Depends on who runs, but I’m not a Cruz fan unless he shows growth over the next four years as a statesman. That doesn’t seem likely to me.
But aside from the 2016 field there are some promising people who might run: Nikki Haley seems to have a pretty good shot if she runs.
I’m also willing to give Clinton a chance to win my vote for reelection. Substantially reduce the threat of ISIS or balance the budget and I’m a happy camper that sees no reason to change anything. For beating ISIS and/or balancing the budget you can have all nine SCOTUS spots if you want.
Technically, they can; in reality, it’s highly doubtful. What’s being overlooked is that even if republicans keep the senate in name, there will no longer be the same type of pressure to conform to party leadership. There are factions in the GOP. There are probably also factions in the Democratic party as well. But the factions among the democrats, despite their differences, will probably be in agreement that they desperately want a liberal justice. The republicans are no longer in a position to block a left leaning justice; it’s now a matter of whether they take a moderate like Breyer or a more decisive liberal like Sotomayor. They might get someone much stronger than Sotomayor, and they might get more than one of them in the next few years. The only thing positive for conservatives is that the conservative wing of the bench is probably younger and in better health. But who saw Scalia’s untimely death?
There’s no question the republicans are better off nominating Garland, who would probably be Obama’s equivalent to Chief Justice John Roberts, someone who could occasionally surprise critics and supporters alike with his decisions.
The record shows, however, that Mitch McConnell is a very, very weak republican leader, and he’s presiding over a hopelessly ideologically divided party. He is afraid of the tea party and the radical elements within the party. There is no reasoning with them. He wants McCain and other moderates to win re-election. It’s politically dangerous to offer anything to Obama, even if it’s the wise move in the long run. In effect, he will let the tea party take destroy the party’s broader interests, the way they have the past 8 years. The destruction continues.
It may be another generation before it becomes possible for a Republican to win the Presidency again. They’ll have to shed their nativist/classist/NRA brand first, and that will take more leadership than seems to exist over there.
Sour grapes usually come *after *the failure, not in prospect of it.
Seriously, if the CJ job comes up, I do think Obama would be a very good choice. A former President is not going to settle for an associate’s role, though.
What makes you say that? McConnell seems to have been remarkably effective in keeping his cacaus together to block Obama’s efforts to pass, well, anything. And he’s been similarly effective in implementing a block on even the first steps of considering Garland.
I’m not sure either of those strategies are a particularly good idea, but McConnell seems to have been very effective in leading his cacaus into following them. Especially given the Senate tradition of allowing Senators to act relatively independently of their partys.
The last time a party got three straight terms was nearly 70 years ago.
Seems to be working just fine in Britain. What if the next nativist is more like Boris Johnson than Donald Trump? You do know Boris Johnson is likely to be the next PM, right?
Gotta take the Senate first. He’d never get approved and the hearings would make him look like a fool. “So your administration lost how many unanimous Supreme Court decisions?” Obama isn’t even in step with the liberals on the court. He’s way too extreme in his constitutional viewpoints for the job. Not to mention his views on executive power, due process, and domestic surveilance would create quite a backlash on the left as well.
Well, in a poll most Trump followers did agree that America was great before the Bush the lesser years (meaning that they would actually go back to the last years of the Bill Clinton administration). It is a wonder though that many Republicans forget about the three consecutive terms Republicans got with Reagan and Bush father about 30 years ago.
I guess they were not considered great days for America by the Trumpers
The Democrats have won every time since 1988, although two were stolen. You do know that, right? And you do know how silly it is to predict a Trump win on that basis, right?
Two were stolen? I’ll give you one. And without that “stolen” election, the Democrats would be blamed for the housing crisis and their lack of response to 9/11. Not having to take responsibility for 2001-2008 is the best thing to ever happen to the party.
Some things would definitely have been different. But 9/11 and the housing crisis would not have been absent extraordinary intelligence and boldness not present in Al Gore’s DNA.
But sure, GWB was uniquely awful so a lot of things would have been better if Al Gore had won. Although I think he still loses to JOhn McCain in 2004 due to McCain’s extreme popularity at the time and the Democrats’ traditional weakness on national security. That was another benefit of GWB. It allowed Democrats to pretend to be tough for eight years, until they took power and decided never to use ground troops, ever, no matter the scope of the threat.
Without getting too deep into the details, there’s a reason parties don’t stay in power too long at the Presidential level. There will always be just bad luck or issues that come up that exposes weaknesses in a party. The Democrats have yet to figure out national security since the Vietnam trauma, so any national security problem they fail to deal with successfully will be attributed to Democrats being weak.
911 would have been more likely to be caught, because Gore gave a fuck, and wasn’t sitting back chuckling about how awesome he was gonna cowboy the economy, hyuk!
That is not accurate. There has been no declaration that there will never be ground troops ever, no matter the scope of the conflict. Now that you know that’s wrong, hopefully you won’t repeat it.
Obama is fantastically good on national security. And McCain would have had us at war with Iran, because McCain is a chucklefuck. It’s certainly not a foregone conclusion that it would have been a Dem lock, but they certainly would have been superior, simply on the basis of having policy based on reality, than what the GOP would have pushed upon us.
