I can only speak for myself but no, I don’t think that is what Obama is doing. If he is in fact considering Sandoval for the open seat I would actually say he is taking a pragmatic view toward finding someone who is qualified, stands a good chance to be confirmed and is decidedly further to the left than Scalia ever was. Sandoval is a GOP governor who is pro-choice, supportive of SSM and has implemented substantial parts of the ACA in his state. I don’t know much about his time on the Federal bench, but my initial impression is that he would be a pretty smart choice.
Wouldn’t McConnells actions be trolling then?
If I were Obama, I would ask Sandra Day O’Connor if she would consider coming out of retirement for an interim appointment of a year to fill the vacancy on the court until after the next election - or at least, with a tacit agreement that she could re-retire after January 2017. O’Connor was a Reagan appointee and voted with the majority to give the election to Bush in 2000. Plus many years of experience, and a moderate voting record - there’s probably no one in the country more qualified. Let’s see the Republicans object to her “on principle”. If they do, they just shoot themselves in the other foot…or whatever organ remains un-bulleted.
(She might turn it down, of course. But it would be extremely interesting if she accepted!)
Obama is not a pussy - he is playing politics with the nomination. He is getting as much benefit as he thinks he can by not nominating someone. That way, the discussion focuses on those naughty GOP-ers and none on his nominee.
Plus, he needs time to spin the situation away from “I wanted to filibuster Alito but this is totally different and has nothing to do with having the shoe on the other foot”.
Regards,
Shodan
Because its just words until there is an actual nomination and the Republican carry through on their threat to stonewall ANY nomination. I suspect that if Obama nominated a well qualified moderate justice, they would make a lot of noise and then they would have heated confirmation hearings and then they would allow a vote.
Why would he need to? A junior senator wanting to filibuster a specific nominee who comes up for a vote IS totally different than the Senate leadership vowing not to consider or even hold committee hearings for ANY nominee.
You’re adorable.
I’m not sure what you mean by this; is Obama taking longer than other presidents to nominate a replacement? Do you think he is delaying a nomination for political purposes? Or do you think he is going to decline to nominate someone altogether?
He can’t do that. (I know you know. 
)
True, but what does that have to do with the debate?
Its all talk until they actually do something. Do you know how many times they threatened to shut down the government? Do you know how many times they actually did? And then they got really mad at Cruz for doing it, heck, they’re STILL mad at Cruz for doing it.
They don’t want to deal with the political repercussions of doing something that so blatantly puts party before country. Their hard core base might be OK with them winning by hook or by crook but there are more than enough voters that would be turned off by that sort of attitude at the party level that they wouldn’t show up to vote. They can’t win the general election by doubling down on the Cruz or Trump playbook of politics.
Shutting down the government was never their intent, however; they had budget goals they were promoting and were holding the budget hostage. Here, their express intent is to prevent a vote on an Obama nominee. They know that is the real risk, and that some blue state Republicans might peel off and vote to confirm. Plus, the black guy thing; they just don’t want him to get anything. At all. That has been their mantra for seven years.
Not necessarily. It could be to force Obama to nominate someone moderate like Gov. Sandoval.
It’ll be nice when the Democrats in the Senate decide to hold their own hearings to ask questions of whichever moderate reasonable person Obama ends up nominating. They will of course invite the Republicans, and even have some empty chairs available to them for the entire thing. They will then give a national platform of soft pitch questions to a reasonable nominee with no counter argument from the right.
Gonna be hard to not look obstructionist.
Can the minority party schedule their own hearings? In that case they should totally do that. But the fact that I’ve not heard anyone else suggest that makes me wonder if it is really an option.
Of course – and they’ve done it before, on both sides. A bunch of Senators just reserve a meeting room, ask the nominee to join them, invite the Republicans, and call the press – and bam, you’ve got “hearings” that the Republicans are refusing to attend.
Republican Nevada Governer Sandoval has taken himself out of the vetting process. He didn’t want to be used as a Moderate, Hispanic cudgel against his own party.
Makes sense from the good of his party. Would’ve been intense if he’d been picked.
Yeah, I gotta think there aren’t too many Republicans that would agree to that.
I would do it no hesitation. It’s a lifetime appointment at the pinnacle of a profession, that is looking and smelling a lot better than being a pol these days. The political realities are irrational to say the least, and might be unacceptable to a normal thinking person ie: not an ideologue or a megalomaniac.
It’s not unheard of to hold shadow hearings. Democrats would be stupid not to do this. No downside.
In that case, I’m sure they’re waiting for an actual nomination to come. Because that’s a slam-dunk to show the world how petty and obstructionist the GOP is being.