yes, exactly. “A vote for Republican Candidate __________ is a vote for Citizens United!” It would sway a lot of independents and maybe even some Republican moderates, who are about as sick of Tea Party Republicans as progressives are of DNC Democrats.
Completely wrong. CitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnitedCitizensUnited.
That’s what Republicans think of, when they think of compromise.
This article is interesting reading: according to it, we might see a gradual winnowing of the Supreme Court until one party wins a filibuster-proof majority and a President in the same party as the Senate majority. Basic idea is, the current impasse signals a complete breakdown in the tradition of allowing a President to nominate a candidate of his ideological leaning, meaning that NO Supreme Court justice seats will be filled for a very long time.
Citizen’s United was decided January 2010. There have been three federal elections since then. It’s highly doubtful that this will be the hot button topic of this election.
As to a compromise nominee, CNN has an opinion piece by Michael J. Broyde which argues that one means of compromise is for Obama to nominate a moderate who is rather elderly. The author suggests Judge Richard Posner. He is 77 years old, a moderate, and likely to serve only a few years.
More conservative magical thinking. Back in reality, the Republicans will almost certainly lose the Senate if they don’t back down.
From a PPP poll dated yesterday:
And Toomey and Portman aren’t even the weakest Republicans in danger of losing their seats this year.
So, bring it on. Help us evict the do-nothing Republicans from offices they are incapable of executing.
Sandra Day O’Connor went to Stanford.
People keep saying that the Pubs would get politically punished for this, but seriously, where’s the precedent for that? I mean everybody was so sure in 2014 that the GOP were going to get punished for shutting down the government, but what happened? The party won 9 Senate seats.
Not that I wouldn’t love to be proven wrong here.
But this newfound precedent is dangerous on SOOO many levels. If by some chance Trump wins in November, I’ll just say that the Democrats should just stonewall his ass as much as possible and hold out until the 2020 election. Why not? Fuck it, that’s the logical place for this precedent to lead. Any nominee confirmed post-Obama to replace Scalia must by definition be an illegitimate Justice, because he or she will not have been appointed by Obama but will rather be filling the slot of a nominee that Obama should have appointed.
He’d also break the stranglehold of the Catholics and Jews from New York. 
Toomey in PN was already in trouble because of his support of gun control. I wouldn’t think his poor polling position is a referendum on the SCOTUS nomination alone.
Aaaaaaaand Mitch McConnel doubles down.
Citizens United had nothing to do with fiscal or economic policy.
I should have clarified - I meant first non-Ivy Leaguer on the current court. :smack: Obviously there have been rather a lot of non-Ivy League justices in history, since most of the first 50-odd justices didn’t attend law school at all.
President Barack Obama posts a guest blog at SCOTUSblog explaining what kind of nominee he will put forward.
Cool! Although the post is really just a bunch of platitudes.
For your consideration -
“A vote for a Democrat candidate is a vote for gun banning and registration/confiscation!”
Gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters will vote. Especially if it prevents Hillary from becoming the next President. Bernie, OTOH, has learned to work with his gun owners and pro-2nd Amendment constituents. Bernie’s Presidency would be less controversial on this issue. I’m sure there are many more get-out-the-vote-issues that will be raised if/when the DNC/Obama finally announce a nominee.
And the Supremes have managed to operate with an even number of Justices in the past.
Most of it could have been written by any president, but I thought this part was more substantive:
I disagree this is a positive trait.
So you’d rather have an ivory-tower academic dictating to the plebes? 
How 'bout Vermin Supreme? He’s a Republican, isn’t he? Supreme for Supreme!
I think so, yes. What that part of the statement says to me is that Obama wants a justice who in part evaluates the outcome of decisions and factors that into their ultimate decision. I think that’s an unwise approach. I would prefer a justice evaluate the laws themselves, independent of the outcome. If the outcome is bad, then it is up to Congress or the states to change the law. Make a bad law, tough shit and live with it until the law is changed.
This doesn’t speak to individual constitutional rights which in general, aren’t subject to be legislated away.
That’s fair enough, so far as it goes. But a judge who dryly evaluated laws in the manner you suggest would likely have ruled in favor of Virginia over the Lovings (to use one example). After all, it’s not his problem if a biracial person can’t marry anyone.