What is the GOP's long game on filling Scalia's seat if Hillary is elected?

[Ravenman]

Let me get this straight - your bet is that Republicans will confirm an Obama nominee this year, then?

[Fear_Itself]

@Saint_Cad

So a threat is actual obstruction? Nope - it’s called politics. Maybe Obama should grow a pair and not cave in to the threat.

So there hasn’t even been a nominee, and Obama has already caved? How does that work?

[John_Mace]

@Saint_Cad

So a threat is actual obstruction? Nope - it’s called politics. Maybe Obama should grow a pair and not cave in to the threat.

I tend to agree. Obama should take his time, pick his nominee and announce it. Then see what the Republicans actually do. Call their bluff. And if they DON’T hold hearings, then Hillary and/or Bernie should trumpet that at every campaign event. We’ll see who that hurts more come election time.

[Saint_Cad]

@Ravenman

Let me get this straight - your bet is that Republicans will confirm an Obama nominee this year, then?

Please cite the post where I said that.

#10,000

[Saint_Cad]

@Fear_Itself

So there hasn’t even been a nominee, and Obama has already caved? How does that work?

I don’t know but according to the Dems on this board the threat has somehow obstructed Obama from sending a nominee or something.

[Gyrate]

@Saint_Cad

I don’t know but according to the Dems on this board the threat has somehow obstructed Obama from sending a nominee or something.

It would have to be “something” because no one has said Obama has been obstructed from sending a nominee.

[Fear_Itself]

@Saint_Cad

I don’t know but according to the Dems on this board the threat has somehow obstructed Obama from sending a nominee or something.

No one said that. Literally no one.

[Gyrate]

@Fear_Itself

No one said that. Literally no one.

It’s that Strawman Liberal again. Man, that guy is a jerk.

[Ravenman]

@Saint_Cad

Please cite the post where I said that.

That was a question. It’s a form of interrogative statement, but that’s not important right now.

You can’t have it both ways: that Republicans aren’t obstructing but they aren’t going to approve a nominee. So, do you think that they are going to approve a nominee?

[Bridget_Burke]

@Ravenman

…You can’t have it both ways: that Republicans aren’t obstructing but they aren’t going to approve a nominee. So, do you think that they are going to approve a nominee?

The thing is that the Republican leadership said (immediately after Scalia drew his last breath) that they would not consider *any *nominee from President Obama. They met yesterday:

Senate Republican leaders said Tuesday that there would be no confirmation hearings, no vote, not even a courtesy meeting with President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, all but slamming shut any prospects for an election-year Supreme Court confirmation.

Together with a written vow from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee that they would not hold any confirmation hearings, the pledge was the clearest statement yet from the Senate’s majority party that it would do everything it can to prevent Mr. Obama from shifting the ideological balance of the nation’s high court. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, urged Mr. Obama to reconsider even submitting a name.

Both parties have been known to oppose Presidential appointees. But usually because they found something wrong with that person, not because they considered the President not qualified to make an appointment.

I’m sure President Obama will fulfill his Constitutional duties & nominate a replacement. The question is: Will the Senators behave like grownups & actually review the candidate? Or shirk their Constitutional duties as they have promised their Trump-addled base?

To get back to the OP, I doubt the election of President Clinton will improve their position. Or their dispositions.

[doorhinge]

@Lightnin

I’ve said this in another, related thread- If I were a Republican, I’d be increasingly concerned that my elected officials seem to think that they don’t need to do the job I elected them to do.

Unless the duly elected members of the U.S. Senate are doing exactly what their constituents want them to do. Voters vote. During Obama’s reign, the Democrats have lost control of both the House and Senate. The voters spoke.

You assume that the voters will punish the U.S. Senators who refuse to consent to the DNC/Obama nominee. I assume the voters will again turn out in droves to protect the U.S. Bill of (individual) Rights from Democrat political meddling, and from the liberal, progressive, anti-2nd politics of the DNC/Obama nominee.

Only time will tell.

[John_Mace]

@doorhinge

Unless the duly elected members of the U.S. Senate are doing exactly what their constituents want them to do. Voters vote. During Obama’s reign, the Democrats have lost control of both the House and Senate. The voters spoke.

You assume that the voters will punish the U.S. Senators who refuse to consent to the DNC/Obama nominee. I assume the voters will again turn out in droves to protect the U.S. Bill of (individual) Rights from Democrat political meddling, and from the liberal, progressive, anti-2nd politics of the DNC/Obama nominee.

Only time will tell.

If you look at polling data now, it’s mixed, but the most recent poll shows a considerable majority wants Congress to hold hearings on Obama’s appointee. Polls taken a bit early show Americans about equally split on whether Obama or the next president should pick the next SCOTUS justice.

I seriously doubt this is a winning electoral strategy for the GOP.

[silenus]

@doorhinge

You assume that the voters will punish the U.S. Senators who refuse to consent to the DNC/Obama nominee. I assume the voters will again turn out in droves to protect the U.S. Bill of (individual) Rights from Democrat political meddling, and from the **liberal, progressive, anti-2nd politics of the DNC/Obama nominee. **

And what, exactly, would these views be? And who holds them? Since you obviously know everything about the nominee already, before Obama has even compiled a short list.

[Gyrate]

@doorhinge

I assume the voters will again turn out in droves to protect the U.S. Bill of (individual) Rights from Democrat political meddling, and from the liberal, progressive, anti-2nd politics of the DNC/Obama nominee.

Vote for Strawman Liberal this November! He stands for whatever you say he stands for!

[Fiveyearlurker]

Scotusblog put up an essay by Obama this morning. Good read.

[Fiveyearlurker]

If this move by the GOP is successful, then moving forward, will we only be able to replace a supreme court justice when one party or the other controls both the presidency and a filibuster proof majority in the senate? I mean, if the Republicans open this door, the Democrats would be fools to not follow, or else the supreme court would just be Republican nominees in a way that the Constitution never ever intended.

[Fear_Itself]

@Fiveyearlurker

If this move by the GOP is successful, then moving forward, will we only be able to replace a supreme court justice when one party or the other controls both the presidency and a filibuster proof majority in the senate? I mean, if the Republicans open this door, the Democrats would be fools to not follow, or else the supreme court would just be Republican nominees in a way that the Constitution never ever intended.

One political pundit suggested that Chuck Schumer, likely the next Senate Majority Leader if the Democrats take the Senate, should announce that if the Republicans refuse to hold hearings, he would use the nuclear option against the filibuster if the next Senate convenes under his leadership. This really should be the last straw; whatever the consequences of doing away with the filibuster may be, it really is preferable to the childishness we have been subjected to since the Republicans took over.

[Saint_Cad]

@Gyrate

It would have to be “something” because no one has said Obama has been obstructed from sending a nominee.

@Fear_Itself

No one said that. Literally no one.

Wait now I am really confused. The liberals on this board are using the present tense when talking about obstruction - the Pubs ARE obstructing the process. All they have done is threaten to obstruct the process and told Obama not to send - future tense. My cite is “read most of the liberal posts in this and the other Pubs v Obama re: SCOTUS threads”. I see the following ways of interpreting the situation:

1. You guys are wrong. The Senate is not obstructing the President, they are playing politics. My hope is that they think that they will force Obama to nominate a moderate Justice. Senate confirms and Pubs claim victory in forcing Obama to pick the way they want. They may (future tense) obstruct until November elections but I don’t think that ultimately will make a difference - no way the Pubs control both the White House and Senate on Jan 21, 2017.

2. The President is a pussy. “They told me not to nominate anyone. I’m a constitutional lawyer so I guess I need to abide by their advice.” OK liberals, you win this one. If the threat is enough to make Obama not nominate anyone then they ARE (present tense) obstructing the President. But you know, if that’s the case do you really blame the Pubs or Obama?

3. The Senate WILL obstruct the process. I fear that the Pub leadership honestly believes that mainstream America believes the same thing as the TeaBagger base. But if that is the case, then wait until it happens before accusing the Pubs of obstruction.

[iiandyiiii]

@Saint_Cad

Wait now I am really confused. The liberals on this board are using the present tense when talking about obstruction - the Pubs ARE obstructing the process. All they have done is threaten to obstruct the process and told Obama not to send - future tense. My cite is “read most of the liberal posts in this and the other Pubs v Obama re: SCOTUS threads”. I see the following ways of interpreting the situation:

1. You guys are wrong. The Senate is not obstructing the President, they are playing politics. My hope is that they think that they will force Obama to nominate a moderate Justice. Senate confirms and Pubs claim victory in forcing Obama to pick the way they want. They may (future tense) obstruct until November elections but I don’t think that ultimately will make a difference - no way the Pubs control both the White House and Senate on Jan 21, 2017.

2. The President is a pussy. “They told me not to nominate anyone. I’m a constitutional lawyer so I guess I need to abide by their advice.” OK liberals, you win this one. If the threat is enough to make Obama not nominate anyone then they ARE (present tense) obstructing the President. But you know, if that’s the case do you really blame the Pubs or Obama?

3. The Senate WILL obstruct the process. I fear that the Pub leadership honestly believes that mainstream America believes the same thing as the TeaBagger base. But if that is the case, then wait until it happens before accusing the Pubs of obstruction.

Fair enough – I think 3 is the most likely, though I’m hopeful they will cave after a few months.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

I’m starting to think that the political hard-line from Senate leaders (e.g. no vote, no hearing, no meeting, no possibility of considering an Obama nominee) is out of incredible fear that some of their own might turn “reasonable” for individual political reasons. McConnell and co are desperately afraid that Kirk, Collins, and others might force them into an actual hearing and vote (which might be for an eminently qualified and reasonable candidate like Sri Srivathanan that they voted for unanimously already for a lower court), so they’re trying to jump ahead of that by eliminating any possibility of a hearing, or even a meeting with the nominee.

I think its political nudging. They are pushing Obama to nominate the most conservative justice that they can get him to nominate. There is no way that Obama will replace him with another Scalia but they can corner him into trading a staunch conservative like Scalia for a moderate like say Jane Kelly.