Yeah, he would never be a REpublican nominee, but unions don’t seem to like him and he worked in Republican administrations as well as Democratic. His ideology would be a bit unpredictable like Souter’s.
I hope that’s how it plays in public, but I don’t think it’s true. Srinivasan worked for two years arguing Supreme Court cases for the Obama administration. They certainly know his views far better than Bush knew Souter’s, as Souter was pretty unknown to anyone outside New Hampshire at the time of his appointment.
Just a thought. Suppose Sanders wins in November. How quickly would the Senate confirm Obama’s left-of-center nominee to avoid a Sander’s sure-to-be-a-socialist nominee?
Depends a lot on the makeup of the incoming senate.
Given a D incoming senate the lame duck current senate would be assholes & elbows to get Obama’s pick seated ASAP.
Given an R (or better yet a more-R) incoming senate they’d probably double-down on obstructionism. The People have spoken; they want no liberalism evar. Etc.
There’s a piece at 538 titled, “Obama Won’t Be Able To Replace Scalia With A Justice As Liberal As Sotomayor.” We knew that, guys, we really did. We were wondering whether Obama would be able to replace Scalia with anyone.
I’m uninformed on a question, but rather than using the traditional approach of posting an ill-informed opinion and awaiting a sneering response, I’ll just ask it: what has to happen? If Obama nominates a candidate, is anyone legally compelled to act? Can they simply stand about with their hands in their pockets, whistling, and pretending not to have noticed?
In other words, a typical day in the Republican Senate.
OK, so the President writes a letter saying “I nominate Eric Holder”. Who is it delivered to? My guess would be the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Who might be expected to schedule hearings to discuss how this nomination would destroy the Republic. But do they have to, is there a rule or law in place that compels them?
It’s sort of like the nerdier version of Highlander.
This was addressed in some of the other threads (!) on Scalia’s replacement.
In short there’s nothing beyond tradition, sense of continuity with history, and some sense of duty or shame or pride in country forcing the senate to do anything. Ever. If there was something written which required action, it’d be within the senate rules which the senate may change on a simple majority vote at any time.
Ultimately the government (any government) can only function when all parties play by most of the unwritten, as well as most of the written, rules at least most of the time.
Nothing in the NFL’s football rulebook prohibits snipers in the stands, or real live buffalo playing the offensive line. But either would be an effective tactic to change the outcome of a game.
I mean, come on. Race-baiting nonsense like this doesn’t help.
Sure. They do that all the time with other nominations. Sometimes nominees drop out in frustration.
The difference here is that people are going to notice, and maybe even get mad about it, and maybe even get mad enough to do something about it.
Or he could nominate Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who just happens to be a ranking minority member of that Senate Judiciary Committee. Then they could hold hearings to intervies this person who’s been sitting next to them on the committee for several years, and vote either to promote her to the Supreme Court, or to keep working with her for several more years. (Presumably, she would vote in favor of herself – only 50 more votes needed!)
Cool idea except it takes a Dem out of the Senate. Still, her seat is probably fairly safe for Dems, as safe as any Senate seat can be.
Minnesota governor Mark Dayton (DFL) would promptly appoint a replacement (a democrat), who would then have to run for re-election in November.
Ginsberg, shouting: “According to Article III Section 4, the Justices of the Supreme Court shall not number greater than one, nor less than one!” –smashes Kennedy’s head with large gavel–
Okay, but would the replacement win? I presume MN is safely DFL but I don’t know for sure.
A nominee from the Senate would certainly shine a VERY large spotlight on the GOP’s choice to refrain from voting on the nominee…with the person sitting right there every day, staring at Mitch McConnell. Every day.
The last Republican elected to the Senate from Minnesota was 14 years ago, Norm Coleman in 2002. He lost to Al Franken in his reelection campaign in 2008. Currently, there isn’t a single Republican in any statewide elected office in Minnesota. So she would have a good chance of holding the seat, even in a short election season.
Rex Huppke, a Chicago Trib writer, wrote a column that had me chuckling. Among other zingers, he noted:
Also: