Well, he is wrong, and hypocritical, after saying during the Bush years that nominees deserve an up or down vote.
I just think Warren was being too smug by half.
Heh, good one. Or…was that serious?
Here’s one interesting compromise: Ruth Bader Ginsburg announces that she will retire at the end of the court session in June 2017, guaranteeing that there will be a Supreme Court appointment for the next president.
That’s not compromise, that’s capitulation.
I don’t think so. RBG is the oldest justice and she’s had health problems. She obviously wouldn’t say it’s part of a compromise, just that she’s decided that one more full court term is all she is going to serve.
Okay, I’ll bite.
There are 100s, (probably 1000s) of “qualified” candidates to be on the SCOTUS. There is no valid objective measure to rate any one of them higher than another. For example, was Abe Fortas or Thurgood Marshall better “qualified” to be on the Court? What made Warren Burger the most “qualified” when he was nominated?
Having members of a different religion, national origin, race, or economic background greatly benefits the Court (like it does the classroom and the workplace),. Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice Marshall both brought unique and important insights to their work in the Court.
The nomination process always includes politics, personality, and ideology. There is nothing wrong with also considering the values of diversity and inclusion.
She’s also 82, so it’s more like offering something that was already extremely likely to happen anyways.
Yeah, but some activists were putting pressure on her to retire earlier. She’s not going to do it except on her own timetable.
It is capitulation, though, and I’ll tell you why. There’s no NECESSITY for such a “compromise.” The President is allowed to nominate whomever the hell they like, with no reference to future appointments. What deals were offered when Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito were appointed? None! Zip! Nada! Which Democrats called for a deal? None of them!
Whoever the next President is, Republican or Democrat, he or she will be able to nominate whoever they like in the event other justices die or retire. That’s the law.
Now Republicans want a deal. The only deal Obama should give them is a deal with the back of his hand.
The best compromise is to just nominate a moderate, someone to the right of Sotomayer and Kagan. The Republicans would be stupid to not confirm such a choice.
That’s giving the Republicans what they want, period. Sotomayer and Kagan ARE moderates. Obama should nominate a very qualified far leftist … the judicial equivalent of Naom Chomsky … and force the Republicans into a brutal confirmation battle over him, then finally offer a compromise candidates who is a leftest but not as far left as the judicial Chomsky, allowing the Republicans their “victory.”
Fortunately for your side, the Dems never listen to good advice and will not do this.
You want to place a wager on Republican not being “stupid?”
Anyway, anyone to the left of Bork is going to be be labeled the next Lenin.
That’s not good advice. If you nominate a Noam Chomsky type you are giving the Republicans an extremely good reason to fight the nomination, thus not making them look so bad when they fail to confirm. The Dems have an oppurtunity to show moderates and swing voters who the adults are and you want to piss that away.
Oh, it IS good advice, because as has been pointed out, the Republicans will call anyone to the left of Bork the most leftist person ever. So no one except their die-hard moron base will buy it when they call the Naom Chomsky type a far leftist. Crying wolf will at LAST get its just reward.
That’s the worst advice ever. The Republicans can vote anyone down they want to. NOminating a leftist just validates their criticism of Obama.
And I agree that Sotomayer and Kagan are not out of the mainstream, but now the GOP controls the Senate so Obama should be expected to go a little to the right of them.
The best political move might be someone like Sri Srinivasan, who was approved for a lower court just a few years ago by the Senate in a 97-0 vote. It would be awfully hard for the Republicans to justify not allowing a vote for someone so recently unanimously approved, and if they allow a vote, each “no” vote for a qualified and reasonable candidate would be great political fodder for Senators’ opponents.
@EvilCaptor: They won’t have to “buy” anything if it’s plainly obvious.
It does seem obvious that the best move would be nominating one of his earlier choices that was unanimously approved.
It would also help with the Indian community, small as it is. In my experience they are conservative but kinda swingy.
WEll, my position is that Srinivasan should be approved, and quickly. He’d make a fine justice from everything I’ve read about him.
Although let’s keep in mind that a certain Presidential candidate who was quite successful despite voting against Roberts and Alito. Obama even favored a filibuster over Alito in particular, so he doesn’t actually have a leg to stand on either. Republicans can certainly vote against a reasonable candidate and get away with it.
It depends on your definition of “reasonable”, but that’s a separate question from the political strategy one.