Yea, if the public does let it slide, its kinda hard to see what would stop future Senates from just turning it into a defacto stop on Presidents appointing Justices when their party doesn’t control the Senate, leaving us with Court vacancies that would persist until one party won both the Presidency and the Senate.
Don’t count this as a prediction, but I suspect that Republicans are talking big but will back down once there’s an actual nominee. Because all of the ones Dseid listed are hard to oppose unless the Republicans can find something really bad in their records.
Another name I’ve heard mentioned in the past is Thomas Perez, which would be like waving a red cloth in front of the GOP. But that would be OBama preferring a fight to actually getting a nominee, and so I’d have to side with the Republicans on that one.
I’ve been thinking that Obama should go with a totally safe, white male, pick. But you’re right. Making Cruz & Rubio grandstand against another Hispanic judge would be pretty funny.
To the OP - they’re going to try, but the longer this goes on, the worse the Pubs will look, in the eyes of the moderates. If it starts generating constant negative feedback, I think they’ll cave and make it a get-out-the-vote issue for the election.
Yeah, I could see this working if this happened in September, even, but THIS long? For not just a normal federal judgeship, but the SUPREME COURT? I just don’t see it happening. 11 months is a long time. SOMEONE is going to break before then.
There seems to be some media buzz around this guy, and I’d say that’s a choice the GOP should push through unanimously if it comes up lest the President change his mind. He could be the Democrats’ Souter.
I presume McConnell will make good on his threat and shut down *any *nominee.
That said, I looked up the timeline on the Sotomayor and Kagan appointments. Of course in each instance the appointments were due to the retirement of a justice, and it is widely assumed that the White House was given notice earlier than when the formal announcement of retirement was made. But any administration would be foolish not to have a few nominees in mind for just such occasion as we now face.
May 1, 2009 - Souter formally announced his retirement as of the end of the current term.
June 1, 2009 - Obama formally notified the Senate of Sotomayor as his nominee.
August 6, 2009 - Senate voted to confirm Sotomayor
April 9, 2010 - Stevens formally announced his retirement as of the end of the current term.
May 10, 2010 - Obama formally notified the Senate of Kagan as his nominee.
August 5, 2010 - Senate voted to confirm Kagan
So… about a month for a nominee to be announced after a formal notice of vacancy. And that is with even earlier notice that the vacancy would be forthcoming. Another six to eight weeks beyond that for a Senate vote. Three months delay in total is normal.
Assuming three months from today, then we would be looking at mid-May to seat a new justice. But the current term ends the end of June. And the last cases will be argued by the end of April.
So a delay of a couple more months will have little practical effect… so long as a new justice is seated by October for the new term.
Given that the immigration case is going to be decided in the summer, they’ll probably want to seat that new justice at the beginning of next term, not this one.
Huh, it occurred to me (way too late) that this is the “satisfying the primary voters versus satisfying the general election voters” dilemma writ large for the Republicans. How many of those in power really think that a “severely conservative” candidate who completely satisfies the Republican primary voters will cruise to general election?
Can’t he elevate some senior Court of Appeals judge say like (Alex Kozniski, (probably the only American punise Judge who is read overseas) as a recess appointment.
A safe , experienced and solid man who can then spend the two years until the new President fill it full time.
Heh. Kosinski. That would be awesome, but he’s a libertarian, Obama would never go for it.
President Obama is fully entitled to nominate a replacement.
Meanwhile apparently the Republicans have just two current policies:
- tax cuts for rich (e.g. Koch brothers)
- oppose anything Obama proposes
As a practical matter he cannot make a recess appointment unless the Republican controlled Senate lets him. Maybe that is a way the Republicans can weasel out of this… a justice is appointed temporarily and the Republicans could avoid the nastiness of obstruction but also avoid voting on the matter.
In 2014 the Court decided NLRB v Canning, holding that for the purposes of making recess appointments the Senate is only in recess when they say they are in recess. Pro forma sessions are sufficient to prevent a recess and preclude the President from making a recess appointment.
Funnily enough, I’ve been reading on a couple of conservative sites about how supine the Republican senate is and that - absent provocation - Obama will easily get his way.
They only need to obstruct until November. Once the election is done, assuming another incoming Democratic president, there’s no point in continuing to stall. On the small chance it’s a Republican, then I could see them holding out.
President Obama is fully entitled to nominate a replacement.
The Senate is fully entitled to deny the nominee of the President.
I think that, when an issue becomes really well known (such as anything government related is), the public broadly prefers process over partisanship. The budget and debt ceiling debates have consistently been losers for the GOP because getting it done was more important than the GOP’s nakedly partisan stonewalling. There’s a very simple argument to be made that the president gets to nominate SC justices and no counter-argument that isn’t obviously “We only want conservatives”. And Supreme Court of the United States resonates a lot stronger with people than National Labor Relations Board.
I could be wrong but my off the cuff is that this will be another example of the GOP base trapping the party into a broadly unpopular stalemate.
…and the electorate is fully entitled to send them packing for being obstructing jackoffs.
What’s Bill Ayers doing to keep busy these days?
There’s three Republicans who signed the Gang of 14 deal - I’m betting they would vote for cloture to debate a nominee, assuming the nominee is halfway reasonable. There’s a few more that would probably see things the same way as the Gang of 14: Murkowski, Alexander, maybe Flake (not sure), and a couple more. There’s a much smaller group of Republicans who are in close races that are pretty much doomed if they support such an obstructionist policy, Kirk first among them.
Obviously, McConnell is the guy who makes the ultimate decision on whether there is a vote, but I can see that if the nominee is pretty reasonable, there’s going to be pressure inside the Republican caucus to allow an up or down vote.
At this point, given the stark yes/no answer that is allowed, and not knowing who the nominee is, I’m going to say that McConnell’s threat collapses. Mostly just to be contrarian. But I’m not going to be surprised if the Senate doesn’t vote on the nominee either.
I’m betting the Republicans stonewall until the election. What I’m wondering is, if a Democrat wins, will they just renominate Obama’s nominee, or switch to someone else?