Why bother bluffing before the fact? If you just want to get yourself a moderate candidate to confirm, you say nothing and reject the first nominee so it looks like you’re being reasonable. The only reason to threaten to stonewall is if you actually plan to stonewall.
No, it could be to satisfy the base, then when you get a good candidate you declare victory. All much of the base wants to hear is “We beat Obama”.
An article mentioned GOP governor Brian Sandoval as a possible appointee. Hard to see Republicans holding a united front against a guy they really like.
If Obama nominates a Republican politician I will eat my fucking hat. Who comes up with these idiotic suggestions? Obama has said it will be a person with impeccable qualifications. That means it will be a working judge or a highly respected lawyer who doesn’t have blazingly obvious political alliances.
Sandoval actually was a judge and has liberal social views. He’d probably be conservative on everything else, but liberals could trust him on abortion and gay marriage.
Then why didn’t he run as a Democrat? You know as well as I that nominating a serving Republican politician is a non-starter. Obama would deserve to have the Dem Senators vote against it.
This is the Republican idea of compromise in a nutshell. “Just nominate one of us and then maybe we’ll think about it”. Ridiculous.
Democrats might be better off using the nominee for the election in the long term. Citizen’s United is a very unpopular ruling. Vote for us, and we put in a justice who would be more likely to overturn it in time for 2020. Vote for Republicans, and it stays.
It’s not a terrible idea. Judges have relatively little influence on fiscal and economic matters, which are almost wholly committed to the other branches. I suppose Sandoval might have voted against the ACA on economic grounds (under some pretext) but otherwise I don’t think his spending or taxing policies would be cause for concern.
I don’t know anything about his social views so I’ll take adaher at his word that he’s socially liberal.
It is a terrible idea. It would look like complete capitulation.
Who cares what it looks like? It’s not like Obama is seeking reelection. The point is to get the most liberal candidate possible seated. I mean, it wouldn’t be my first choice; I’m just saying it’s an option to consider.
The way to get the most liberal candidate is to nominate reasonable candidates til they get through, not hand the Republicans your balls on a platter. If they won’t confirm a moderate, slightly left judge for Obama then you have to trust Hillary will get one through. But nominating a Republican governor for the job is probably the best thing the Republicans could hope for to look strong this election and the Dems looking like useless wimps. If the Republicans win this little battle, how do you think the next Supreme court battle will go?
Yes, but if you’re confident of winning the next election(which probably brings the Senate with it), then why not hold out for a really liberal choice?
Remember also that some of the other prospective nominees also have Republican ties. Not sure if the President will go that route, but the media speculation is that he will.
THat’s pretty much how my side sees it, assuming they are being intelligent. Getting a win is better than just blocking him.
It’s also possible they’d just block even a Republican. I’m just hoping they aren’t being that stupid, but I wouldn’t bet against it.
The only media speculation that I’ve seen that doesn’t look like complete wanking is Srinivasan.
And if I were a Democrat, I wouldn’t risk the bluff of nominating a Republican politician just to prove how unreasonable the Senate majority is acting. If they aren’t bluffing, that’s what everybody already thought, if they call my bluff I just fucked myself. So it’s a neutral-lose proposition. Better to go with a reasonable leftish moderate who is unaffiliated. Then it’s a neutral-win situation.
Who has ties to the Bush administration. Unions don’t like him either. If that’s the nominee, Republicans should confirm him with all possible haste and declare victory.
I’m not a political professional, but it seems to me that the President’s best play is another Sotomayer/Kagan type judge and let it play out how it will.
That wouldn’t be crazy, imho, but the media isn’t speculating on that idea much.
Well, there’s also Jane Kelly. Both she and Srinivasan were unanimously confirmed to their respective appellate benches so it would be amusing to watch the GOP try to explain why they’re blocking their SCOTUS nominations.
As an Indian American, it would be nice to see Srinivasan get the nod. Bonus: he’s from Stanford, so he’d be the first non-Ivy League justice.
I wonder if Obama is also consulting with Clinton and Sanders on his choice; typically you wouldn’t expect him to, but since it’s clearly going to be a campaign issue it would be best for everyone to be on the same page about it.
I think that would also be the best way to get a potential candidate to sign on. Agreeing to be nominated means that you’re going to get the absolute shit kicked out of you for the next year, and without some assurance that the next president will still have your back should they win election, this is actually not such a great job offer right at the moment.