I don’t think that a single Democratic-leaning poster in this thread is looking for a rubberstamp. And I don’t think any serious Democratic politician would be, either.
Do you understand that there’s a difference between a “no” vote on a nominee, and a refusal by the Senate to even consider a nominee, even put that nominee to a vote? Because the latter is what the Senate leadership is talking about.
The lower court ruling would stand. I don’t believe that the SCOTUS (in the last 100 years anyway) has ever heard a case that didn’t originate in another court. Maybe one of the SDMB legal eagles can confirm?
As I said, it is easier to make political hay out of Republicans stonewalling a moderate centrist than it is to score the same political points by rejecting an extremist.
If the Democrats presume for a moment that the Republicans will refuse to even hold hearings on a nominee then who should Obama nominate to gain the most political advantage for his party? Any choice will not have much bearing on the votes of the true believers, either Democrats or Republicans.
I think the greatest advantage the Democrats can gain is by nominating someone who is viewed as more like a moderate than like a Saul Alinsky protege.
If a nominee is viewed as too radical by that segment of the population that is subject to persuasion then those voters may view the Republicans as saving the country by rejecting the nominee. If a nominee is viewed as of moderate judicial temperament then the swing voters may be more responsive to taking out frustrations on the Republicans for their intransigence.
The risk to the Democrats is that the Republicans vote to confirm a nominee who is still to the left of Scalia.
In both cases, the end result is that the nominee doesn’t get seated on the SCOTUS.
Yes, but if the Senate votes “no” on a candidate, they’ve fulfilled their duty. And then the president can nominate a different candidate (and, yes, possibly, there would be negotiation, attempting to find a middle ground).
This does not seem to be what the Republican Senate leadership wants. They want a Republican president to nominate a candidate, because they’ve had the misfortune of having a arch-conservative Justice die during a Democratic presidency. If it means stonewalling for 11+ months to get what they want (and not delivering on their own duty in order to do this), they seem to be willing to do this.
Actually, one or two each year. Cite
I don’t get what Evil Captor thinks will be gained by the grand gesture of nominating Noam Chomsky. Motivate the base? But would it motivate them to come out and vote Hillary/Dem? Just a satisfying middle finger to the Republicans? I don’t get it.
Grassley is now saying that he’s going to wait to see who the nominee is:
I think this is more of an acknowledgement that the Republican’s strategy is/was dumb than an indication of more cooperation.
Seriously? There is no rule that says the U.S. Senate has to rubberstamp any President’s nominee.
Since you appear to have grown tired of discussing possible Congressional actions over Obama’s soon-to-be-announced SCOTUS nominee, I’ll just say that since IRS Deputy Director of Acquisitions Gregory Roseman, and Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations division Lois Lerner both invoked the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination, I believe you’re wrong when you say, “There’s apparently no law prohibiting the IRS from giving conservative political action committees extra attention on their tax status”.
Thanks for the info. That makes sense since neither state would accept the ruling of the other state.
Listen, even a combination of Casanova, Don Jaun, and James Bond, wouldn’t have been able to get Mother Theresa to put out on the first date. This says nothing about their skillset as seducers.
McConnel has come out and said that there is no nominee that Obama can nominate that he will consider, and no deal to be made. Why can’t you take him at his word.
Oh, well why didn’t you just say this before? That solves everything
Which means Obama is unable to shepherd his nominee thru the Senate. Perhaps a different President would have had the skillset to make a deal?
Might motivate the base. And might piss off the swing voters.
The party faithful aren’t going to change their minds. The undecided voters might, being more likely to cast votes against whichever party is perceived to be making more of a mess of it.
What the heck? He’s going to wait to see who the nominee is but the next President is who should fill the position. How is that differentiating himself from McConnell’s position?
CNN on why some, if not all, prospective SCOTUS nominees might be reluctant to take the gig: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/politics/supreme-court-nomination-possibilities/index.html
The IRS can put Republican PACs through the same meat grinder as the Democratic PACs.
Treating them differently on the basis of expressed political views is a violation of First Amendment Freedom to Assemble and Freedom of Speech rights.
Obama might be the greatest political negotiator of the past seven years if you ignore his inability to work with the duly elected representatives in Congress.
Good government is based on the ability of elected leaders to reach a compromise with the opposing party.
But the FBI investigated and said no laws were broken. So it’s okay, right?
(post shortened)
The media outlets will be all over the nominee’s law school records, high school records, middle school records, and grade school records. Any traffic tickets, divorces, children, grand children? Involved in any criminal or civil cases, hopefully as a judge and not as the defendant? Bought a home, or two, or three? Questionable loans? Questionable donations? Questionable friends?
Yeah, that sounds like fun. :eek: