If this was September, okay, delay until the next election. It’s February. Unless Republicans can find Lani Guinier-type stuff about Obama’s nominee, then the President should appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. And even if they do find Robert Bork in reverse, then he gets to withdraw that nomination and appoint another one. He’s in office for almost another year.
Republicans need to chill out. Win the election and they probably get to replace two liberal justices(Breyer, Ginsburb) and a swing justice(Kennedy). Elections have consequences, and Scalia being replaced by a liberal justice is the consequence of the 2012 election. That being said, Obama can’t go ultraliberal, because the 2014 elections had consequences too. But a Sotomayer or Kagan-type nomination should be approved on the normal timeline.
Just woke up, haven’t gotten the talking points yet.
In all seriousness, I’ll probably get more cantankerous if I really object to his nominee, but he hasn’t been extreme with the last two so I doubt he’ll be extreme with this one.
I think it’s highly unlikely that the Senate will confirm anyone Obama nominates. The main issue is how it will affect the election and it probably benefits the Democrats. Obama will probably nominate someone with solid credentials so the Republicans will look extreme blocking them for nine months.
You are a Republican running for President. Obama nominates a somewhat conservative Hispanic male for the Supreme Court vacancy. What’s your position? (Be careful…)
What occurs to me is that the Republicans might prefer to accept Obama’s nominee. It’s not like they’re guaranteed the election. If the Republicans block Obama’s choice, they might end up with a Supreme Court Justice who was picked by Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Heck, Clinton or Sanders could be the nominee.
Yea, given McConnell’s statements, it seems pretty obvious that the Senate isn’t going to hold a vote on any Obama nominee unless public opinion on the matter forces them to. And the last years have to show that the public is pretty OK with the senate leaving offices vacant for years at a time for political advantage.
Granted SCOTUS is higher profile, so I guess it isn’t totally impossible that there will be enough of a public outcry to force Senate action (especially given the amount of time still left in Obama’s term for him to keep the issue active) similar to the way public and elite anxiety over the budget ceiling forced the GOP’s hand during the various budget showdowns.
But I wouldn’t hold my breathe.
On the plus side, the status-quo is to the Dems advantage. Had Ginesberg died, leaving a GOP Senate obstructing to maintain a conservative majority court, I think it would be a much bigger crisis.
Eh, putting aside the moral issue, from a tactical point of view, I think its pretty clear the GOP should obstruct if they can. A Hillary/Sanders nominee isn’t going to be that different from an Obama one (indeed, it might be literally the same). On the other hand, a Rubio/Bush/Kaisch* nominee would be much different then an Dem nominee. So if they wait, they get a 50%ish chance of having a Justice they’d much prefer, as opposed confirming an Obama appointee now who, at best, would guarantee them a nominee who might be marginally better then one from Hillary/Sanders.
*(God knows who Trump would appoint. Probably his horse or something).
Plus it hurts their chances of winning the White House. Not a lot, as it’s a process issue, but there’s no way the majority of the public will side with the Senate on blocking the nominee.
Pretty crazy. McConnell is basically saying “sorry, you’re not allowed to do President stuff during your last year”. I guess if you completely plan to be an utter hypocrite it’s no problem but otherwise it sets up a sticky precedent.
A link provided by Slacker in the other thread lists some candidates for him to run through and let get shot down.
Sri Srinivasan … widely felt to be highly qualified and would be the first Indian American on the court. And Indian Americans include a few with fairly deep pockets. A few Senators’ future campaigns might feel a hurt as the result of blocking that one, especially since he’s been felt to be a leading contender for a while now.
Paul Watford … a reasonable Black candidate. Blocking that could help energize that segment of the base.
And two women on that list, Jane Kelly and Patricia Ann Millett, have quite moderate profiles. Hard to justify voting against them.
Given that Sotomayor is a Latina I don’t think that demographic has the political juice.
For many GOP Senators this is a lose lose circumstance.
Obama needs to pick a male, preferably Hispanic, with impeccable credentials, strongly liberal but without a clear view on Choice/Life. Since there are not enough rational citizens to sway the election, the Democrats are always dependent on getting about a third of the GOP’s redneck base and mustn’t play into their memes with a woman (“One woman is plenty; vote No on Hillary”) or a black (“See, Obama is a racist”).
The Republicans are going to nominate for President a man with no qualification except an Hispanic surname. By choosing a Hispanic judge for the Republicans to humiliate, Obama can help that minority choose more intelligently in November.
