# Will Congress forestall every attempt by Obama to appoint a new justice for the rest of his term? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 13, 2016, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067 "2016-02-13T23:38:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/181 "2016-02-16T03:33:51Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Obama doesn’t have the skillset to make a deal with the Senate. Other way around, actually. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/182 "2016-02-16T03:40:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > There is no such rule, just as there is no such rule against politicians flip-flopping on their view of government when it becomes convenient for them: > > Senator Alexander: “I pledged, then and there, I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.” (Congressional Chronicle, June 9, 2005) > > Senator Burr: “But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution.” [Senate Floor Speech, 4/20/05] > > Senator Cornyn: “And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents’ nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat… We need a permanent solution to this problem. And I believe it should be along the lines that I suggested, that each president’s nominees would be treated exactly the same and not dependent on who happens to take up the decision to block, in a partisan fashion, a bipartisan majority from being able to cast an up-or-down vote.” [CQ Transcriptions “U.S. Senator John Cornyn Holds a News Conference on Judicial Nominees,” 5/9/05]; “Far too many judicial and executive nominees have been delayed by the majority party of the Senate. An up-or-down vote is a matter of fundamental fairness, and it is the Senate’s constitutional duty to act on each nomination. It is also critically important to our judicial system and the proper functioning of our federal government to fill these positions. Senators have a right to vote for or against any nominee-but blocking votes on nominations is unacceptable.” (Senate website, Feb. 7, 2008) > > Senator Grassley: “History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. It’s time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor.” [[Grassley.Senate.gov](http://Grassley.Senate.gov), “Talking Judges to Death,” 5/8/05] > > Senator Hatch: “…I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor…” [NPR, “Orrin Hatch Discusses Debate in Senate,” 5/19/05] > > Senator Roberts: “Let me talk about cost. Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the Federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches. Reckless behavior such as this is irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars.” [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/05] And after these elegant heartfelt pleas, the Democrats forever pledged to never stall a nomination again. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/183 "2016-02-16T03:42:39Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Obama doesn’t have the skillset to make a deal with the Senate. So you believe such a deal that doesn’t involve complete capitulation to the Republicans’ demands is possible? If so, what do you think it would entail? ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/184 "2016-02-16T04:27:18Z")
Man, you can’t fix stupid, and why would you want to? The republicans seem determined to hand another election to the the dems. You go Cruz, and go on with your bad, wrinkled self Mitch McDickhead. Hillary Clinton thanks you. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/185 "2016-02-16T05:18:17Z")
Condolences to the Scalia family and everyone personally close to the man. What to do? Let’s ask Mitch McConnell, from [here](http://www.drudge.com/news/195791/mcconnell-70-sc-nominees-politics-not): > [@](#): > > “Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.” (States News Service, May 19, 2005) > [@](#): > > “The President is presumably elected by the people to carry out a program and altering the ideological directions of the Supreme Court would seem to be a perfectly legitimate part of a Presidential platform. To that end, the Constitution gives to him the power to nominate.” > [@](#): > > “Even though the Senate has at various times made purely political decisions in its consideration of Supreme Court nominees, certainly it could not be successfully argued that this is an acceptable practice.” All seems pretty reasonable. I’m going to check in with McConnell’s integrity before I go on about the progress of these ideals in modern times. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/186 "2016-02-16T06:30:15Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > That’s because you think there is a chance in Hell that the Republican Senate will approve ANY nominee in an election year. They might VOTE but they will not approve ANYONE. The only way it might happen is what adaher has been hinting about: nominate someone so thoroughly right wing that they might easily have been nominated by a Republican presiident. In which case I, and many, many Democratic voters will be asking … “Why did I bother to vote?” Agreed, but see out of box proposal below. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Agreed. This is the same poor logic as is often expressed on that other topic which must not be named. “They will attack a moderate anyway, so let’s just throw up a Trotskite.” ::headdesk:: No, no, no: we want their attacks to look ridiculous, not accurate! It shouldn’t be hard to tag the Republicans as obstructionist and at odds with the founding fathers _because they are_. > [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > A modest proposal from a judge friend of mine: > > \*…Perhaps the President should call in both the Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate, including of course the Judiciary Committee leadership, and propose that… and then jointly propose a candidate… \* [John Holbo at Crooked Timber](http://crookedtimber.org/2016/02/14/just-a-thought-about-the-post-scalia-situation/#more-37757) proposes a variant of that. Draw up a list of 10 moderate Democratic judges. Offer them to the Republicans and let them choose 5. Any 5. Obama picks 1 of 5. [indent] Either Republicans would agree to this or not. If Senate Republicans refused this generous offer (practically a David Brooks fantasy of bipartisanship, no?) and persisted in refusing even to consider any Obama nominee, that would amount to encroachment on the executive’s enumerated powers. (What if Obama further offered to let Senate Democrats help draw up the list of 10 candidates, so it wasn’t just the tyrant Obama doing the picking?) I don’t know what would happen, but at least it would be clear any constitutional crisis wasn’t down to Obama’s radicalism. If Republicans agreed, then somehow couldn’t find five acceptable names even on the most moderate of lists; or if they got as far as shooting down whomever Obama picked, even from their own pre-vetted five; then Obama could proceed down the list to the next name. [/INDENT]And fundamentally: [INDENT]Democrats have a strong interest in getting any Democratic nominee confirmed to replace Scalia, rather than none. They ought to be entitled to such a confirmation, procedurally (though it stings Republicans.) That doesn’t mean they are going to get it (since it stings Republicans.) But Democrats should be able to force Republicans to make plain the dynamics of the situation, if Republicans really are going to stonewall. It has nothing to do with Obama. Democrats should not let Republicans suggest otherwise.[/INDENT] More at link. I says this plan might appeal to Obama as it could change the feel of Washington a little. McConnell would reject it out of hand for the same reasons. McConnell believes that bipartisanship disproportionately benefits the party in power. So he will have none of it. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/187 "2016-02-16T07:05:53Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > It’s in the constitution, in article 2 section 2, that the president - > > “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,” Yes, the President has a constitutional duty to nominate. The Senate has no duty to hold an up or down vote, or even to hold hearings on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/188 "2016-02-16T07:15:37Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > What to do? Let’s ask Mitch McConnell, from [here](http://www.drudge.com/news/195791/mcconnell-70-sc-nominees-politics-not): We could also ask Senator Schumer, who fancies himself the next Senate Majority Leader: In July 2007, he advocated that no Supreme Court nominee made by President Bush should be confirmed. That was when there was a year and half remaining in the President’s term, instead of the 11 months we have now. [http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146](http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146) President Obama can nominate whomever he likes, but no nominees should be confirmed. Sauce\>Goose\>Gander ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/189 "2016-02-16T07:22:10Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Yes, the President has a constitutional duty to nominate. The Senate has no duty to hold an up or down vote, or even to hold hearings on the matter. What bullshit. The entire history of the process doesn’t mean anything, eh? Because they can’t be arrested is good enough for you. Pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/190 "2016-02-16T09:13:14Z")
I think everyone agrees that they CAN do it — otherwise, it wouldn’t be a possibility to begin with. What’s being debated here is whether they SHOULD, and not even just in the sense of their own political futures, but whether this sets a bad precedent that could fundamentally change how Congress and the President interact. How much can/should they disagree before it’s “proper” (not legal, “proper”) for Congress (or even just individual Congresspeople, not only the institution as a whole) to decide they won’t let him fulfill his Constitutional duties? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/191 "2016-02-16T10:38:22Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Yes, the President has a constitutional duty to nominate. The Senate has no duty to hold an up or down vote, or even to hold hearings on the matter. Taken for a long enough period, this could result in no Supreme Court at all. I believe that the Senate does have this duty, described in the Constitution. It’s possible that there’s nothing the President can do about it if the Senate chooses to have no hearings in this particular instance, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a duty. You don’t believe the Senate has any duty, ever, to hold hearings or a vote for Supreme Court nominees? What if they all died in a plane crash? ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/192 "2016-02-16T11:01:21Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Yes, the President has a constitutional duty to nominate. The Senate has no duty to hold an up or down vote, or even to hold hearings on the matter. Senators take the same oath as the president to uphold the constitution. By doing nothing with a nominee they are abdicating their sworn duty. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/193 "2016-02-16T11:28:22Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > We could also ask Senator Schumer, who fancies himself the next Senate Majority Leader: > > In July 2007, he advocated that no Supreme Court nominee made by President Bush should be confirmed. That was when there was a year and half remaining in the President’s term, instead of the 11 months we have now. > > [http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146](http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146) > > President Obama can nominate whomever he likes, but no nominees should be confirmed. > > Sauce\>Goose\>Gander Indeed that posturing by Schumer was stupid. You _do_ see the difference between one Senator who is not the Majority Leader at the time running off at the mouth but not acting on something, and actual implementation of such a course of action by the Majority leader? Right now we have similar running off at the mouth, with the difference that the circumstance is imminent instead of hypothetical. Not _too_ much worse, just similar stupid posturing. The issue hinges on if such stupid rhetoric gets backed up with actual stupid and irresponsible action. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/194 "2016-02-16T11:30:18Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > We could also ask Senator Schumer, who fancies himself the next Senate Majority Leader: > > In July 2007, he advocated that no Supreme Court nominee made by President Bush should be confirmed. That was when there was a year and half remaining in the President’s term, instead of the 11 months we have now. > > [http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146](http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146) > > President Obama can nominate whomever he likes, but no nominees should be confirmed. > > Sauce\>Goose\>Gander One Dem Senator said something 9 years ago. Nothing happened. Sauce\>Goose\>Gander would be if one GOP Senator said something now, and nothing happened. But **1** Dem Senator **saying something** nine years ago, and **54** Republican Senators **acting in concert** to refuse to allow the Constitution to work the way it’s supposed to, is not exactly an equivalence. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/195 "2016-02-16T11:32:35Z")
FWIW, these are my ideas on possible nominees. Sri Srinivasan seems to be an eminently qualified choice. If he were to be rejected, considering his unanimous (97-0) approval for his current appellate court position this wouldn’t reflect well on the integrity of the Republicans. I kinda like the idea the idea of Loretta Lynch, the U.S. attorney general who is very well qualified and when the Republicans deny the confirmation, that may energize the Dem voters more than the rejection of some Indian guy they’ve never heard of. This may sound like a crazy idea, but how about former RNC chairman Michael Steele. He’s still a Republican and a regular political analyst on MSNBC. He always sounds very thoughtful and moderate and doesn’t have the crazy loon persona that’s the MO for most Republicans these days. He would need to be well vetted on his current views, particularly abortion rights which I think he says he would leave to the states, but that may have changed. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with same sex marriage and also supports reasonable restrictions on guns and doesn’t believe it’s necessary to have an assault rifle to go hunting. Although I think he’s not too popular with the hard core base, it would certainly be perceived by reasonable people that Obama is meeting the Republicans more than half way. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/196 "2016-02-16T11:39:54Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Right, but what the Legislative Branch wants to do is neither confirm nor deny, but refuse to even have the discussion. If they want to deny Obama’s pick, let them hold the hearing and vote to deny. Bingo. Their Constitutional responsibility is to advise and consent. They are saying that they will refuse to do either. If they will not consider individual nominees, identify their shortcomings, and vote them down on the basis of those shortcomings, then they will have abdicated their Constitutional responsibility. What I would propose the Dems do about this is: once Obama has submitted the name of his nominee to the Senate, and a week has passed by during which the GOP has not done so much as refer the nomination to committee, the Dems should use every slow-down tactic that Senate procedures give room for to grind the Senate to a halt until Obama’s nominee for SCOTUS receives a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And if the normal flow of appropriations to states with two GOP Senators was slowed down a good bit until the Senate voted on the nominee, that would be fine and dandy, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/197 "2016-02-16T12:16:53Z")
**doorhinge** , you say that you don’t want the Republicans to just rubberstamp everything Obama does. So why do you tolerate it? That’s exactly what the Republicans are doing. They’ve got a big old “NO” stamp that they’re sticking on everything. Why is this acceptable? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/198 "2016-02-16T14:06:38Z")
Rachel Maddow posed an interesting question last night. If I might paraphrase, it goes roughly like this: Suppose Trump and Clinton are the nominees, though it really doesn’t matter who. Now suppose the election is close, which is possible. Let’s further suppose that with one state remaining to be counted, it is evident that the race hinges on how this state goes. Then suppose that the vote in this state is razor-thin, and there is a recount and another recount and that one of these favors Trump and another favors Clinton. Suppose each side has what it thinks is a legal reason to advance that his/her claim is superior and that his/her side should prevail. The case is immediately kicked to the Supreme Court, and the Court splits 4-4. Now what happens? Obama’s term expires, who gets their hand on the Bible on Inauguration Day? Paul Ryan? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/199 "2016-02-16T14:11:43Z")
That only happens if no state court ruled first. In case of SCOTUS tie, the state court ruling would stand. But yes, that is a rather scary, if unlikely, outcome. ALthough it could be solved by simply not allowing recounts. Elections, like polls, have margins of error and that should just be accepted. There is no evidence that 2nd or 3rd counts are more accurate than 1st counts. Just go with the 1st count, or create a tiebreaker rule if an election is within the margin of error. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2016, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067/200 "2016-02-16T14:14:14Z")
But it all goes to show how critical it is to have an odd number of justices so that if something that absolutely needed a decision came up that it would actually get decided. Barring death of another justice, we are working without a safety net. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-congress-forestall-every-attempt-by-obama-to-appoint-a-new-justice-for-the-rest-of-his-term/746067.md?page=11)