What is the GOP’s long game on filling Scalia’s seat if Hillary is elected? Will they reverse themselves on letting the next president nominate a replacement, and refuse to consider any of her nominees as well?
Is it unthinkable that they would refuse to hold hearings for any unfilled openings at all until a Republican is elected president, or they lose control of the Senate? Would they allow attrition to reduce the number of justices to five or less, if others were to die or retire?
I don’t see how they could take obstructionism to that level, but I would never have predicted much of the brinksmanship they are will to inflict on the country in the name of partisan power. Part of me would not be surprised to see them go that far.
No hearings? No votes? So they didn’t really mean the next president should choose replacements, and that the people’s voice should be respected? That was just jiggery-pokery to get their way? Is that about right?
If Hillary wins, the Democrats have a good chance of regaining the Senate. If she wins a close election and the Republicans maintain control in the Senate, they’ll probably hold hearings and vote down the first few Hillary nominees, and eventually there will be some compromise nominee that gets a majority.
What would be acceptable to them is that Clinton not be President, period. As with Obama, it doesn’t matter who or what is brought before them-the only thing that matters is who brings it.
What makes you think they have a long game? If you ever watch Survivor, lots of times the contestants are just focused on not getting voted off during the current Tribal Council. Buy me one more day, and I’ll worry about the rest of the game tomorrow.
Seriously. I don’t know that “The GOP” has a long game. That is, the party as a whole.
I don’t believe that to be the case, but it is easily verified. If Hillary wins the Presidency, she can nominate a genuine compromise candidate, and see if the Senate confirms.
If she keeps sending lefties, they won’t. And the mid-terms of 2018 can be used, in part, as a referendum.
Then Congress holds hearings, and either confirms or rejects the nominee, depending on whether or not they think the next nominee is going to be any better. Or just stall until November, and then shoot him down if a Republican is elected or the GOP retains control of the Senate.
This is just politics. Both sides do it, and both sides complain when the other side does it. That won’t change if Congress and/or the White House changes hands.
That would require Mitch McConnell to reverse himself on his outright ban on even considering any nominees before the election. What are the odds of that happening?
The longer the nomination process goes on, the worse Senate Republicans will look and the more likely they will be to moderate their positions. I think time is on the side of the Dems, we’re not in any rush to get things done but we’ll act like we are and force the GOP’s hand. I think Obama and President Clinton/Sanders should just keep nominating liberal judges and dare the GOP to reject them. Even resubmit nominees that have already been rejected. They may get away with one or two rejections, maybe even three, but eventually they will relent. There is absolutely no way that they can keep rejecting for a year until the Dems win the presidency, and reject it for 4 more years until the next opportunity for a Republican president
No candidate Obama nominates will be considered to be a “genuine compromise” candidate. They will all turn out to be extreme left-wing radicals who want to rewrite the Constitution. This will be evidenced by the fact that Obama nominated them, and on the basis of whether they take sugar on their porridge.
So if one street gang has a habit of beating up another street gang, and the second street gang escalates to murder, is the escalation relevant? Or would you say of the murders, “Eh, both sides do it. Nothing new.”