BTW, SCotusblog says Loretta Lynch. That would be a “no”, and rightfully so. But they should hold a vote. Every nominee deserves a vote. That vote will just be a resounding no.
There is a small but reasonable chance that a handful of Republicans, for their own reasons, might put pressure on McConnell to have a vote - McCain because he was part of the gang that broke judicial filibusters, Kirk because he’s running for reelection in a blue state, etc.
Obama picking a Noam Chomsky type guarantees that there will be no vote on a poor choice, and guarantee that he doesn’t have a second bite at the apple. This gambit is the most politically oblivious plan that I have heard since Scalia’s death.
Loretta Lynch, assuming she’s the nominee, would be an admission that he’s given up on getting a nominee through and is prioritizing African-American turnout for the Democratic nominee.
That’s why the Republicans were morons. If they’d said nothing, then they could oppose Lynch on principle. Now it’ll just look like they are doing it because that’s their master plan.
At least they won’t be inconsistent. They opposed Lynch as AG, so opposing her for the court won’t be any different. They should still hold a vote though, maybe the President will send someone else up once Lynch is rejected.
Why rightfully so? She’s not my top choice, but I don’t see anything wrong with her as a nominee.
She’s partisan. She believes in a right to work for anyone here, regardless of whether they are here legally or not(something even liberals are generally not on board with), She is against voter ID laws in all circumstances. She is for civil forfeiture.
She is nowhere near the mainstream. This is the proverbial “Noam Chomsky” pick if he goes that route.
I assume this SCOTUSBlog knows what he’s talking about, but it seems to me that Obama nominating someone straight out of his Cabinet seems almost as silly as the suggestions that he nominate his wife. It would smell bad. It would play in to the narrative of Obama thinking himself an Emperor. I am going to file this under “trying to get page hits” for now.
Wrong again! SCOTUSblog does not say Loretta Lynch; Tom Goldstein, one of the bloggers publishing at SCOTUSblog, says he thinks she is likely the next nominee. 7.5 hours earlier, he thought perhaps Paul Watford (9th Circuit) could be the likely nominee. Perhaps by tonight he’ll have changed his mind again; who knows? Who cares? It’s all idle speculation.
Indeed; I think that Lynch would likely be a more qualified candidate than Harriet Miers, but it’d still smell bad.
If the name Lynch is being heard in beltway chatter as the leading contender, it’s possibly to make the actual nominee seem less partisan and more moderate. I could see the West Wing leaking this name.
Much as I’d love to see another reliably liberal justice, I’d be pretty thrilled to even get another Sandra Day O’Connor - basically canceling out the rightward shift that happened when Alito took O’Connor’s place.
It will be very interesting if Obama does nominate a moderate… do the Republicans dare risk holding out and possibly getting a much more liberal justice if the Dems retake the Senate?
That’s because you think there is a chance in Hell that the Republican Senate will approve ANY nominee in an election year. They might VOTE but they will not approve ANYONE. The only way it might happen is what adaher has been hinting about: nominate someone so thoroughly right wing that they might easily have been nominated by a Republican presiident. In which case I, and many, many Democratic voters will be asking … “Why did I bother to vote?”
No one who is for civil forfeiture can be described as a left-leaning pick. The progressives hate that shit as much as the conservatives do. It’s only government types who like it.
Didn’t they also have a say when the elected members of the US Senate of which the POTUS needs the consent ?
If the wanted a Senate to rubber stamp the President’s appointment they should have elected a majority Democrat senate.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean they expect Senators to refuse to hold hearings or vote. I I have not heard a call for a “rubber stamp.” No one is suggesting that the Senate is obligated to vote for a particular nominee; the objection comes from those who are advocating 1)Obama shouldn’t nominate anyone or 2) the Senate should refuse to even consider anyone who is nominated.
The Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
If they obstruct nominations, they are likely to lose not only the white house but the senate as well. This will give the incoming Democratic President (much more likely to be Hillary now, IMHO). If they don’t then they run the risk of low hardcore base turnout. The best they can do is be seen kicking and screaming. Its hard to see how you can do this when you have an 8 vote advantage in the senate.
-All 34 Class 3 Senators are up for election in 2016; Class 3 currently consists of 10 Democrats and 24 Republicans. Of the Senators not up for election, 34 Senators are Democrats, 30 Senators are Republicans and two Senators are independents who caucus with the Senate Democrats.-
-wikipedia
Agreed. If Obama nominates someone like Srinivasan quickly, they’ll either have to vote down someone they’d previously approved unanimously, or delay voting for more than twice as long as has ever been done before for a Supreme Court nominee. Either way looks incredibly obstructionist.
I do wonder though how many Senate seats could actually turn on this… A lot of the 2010 Republican class feels they were voted in with a mandate to obstruct Obama. And for those voters who were fine with it until now, is this really going to be the straw that broke the camel’s back?
To all those saying that McConnell can block it from even going to a vote, is that actually true? Can’t the President of the Senate call for a straight up-or-down vote? I know he wouldn’t get to vote himself, but can’t he still, well, preside?
The interesting question to me is which R senators who’re up for re-election are in the most dangerous spot depending on how this process breaks.
If you’re from a hard R state then there’s not much risk of being voted out for a D no matter what you do. But you are at risk of getting “primaried” by a Righter-than-Thou type if there’s already one teed up in your late-primary state.
If you’re from a competitive state you have some risk from the Righter-than-Thou side. You also need to decide whether obstructionism will energize your base to vote for you more or less than it energizes the D base to vote for their guy.
Then there’s the R candidates in the states which are currently D but could plausibly go R under favorable circumstances. Those folks have yet different needs.
I think part of the R hierarchy’s decision-making is, or at least ought to be, looking at whether they’ll help or hurt more R senators by taking the issue away from the individuals by icing the whole process on McConnell’s say-so versus letting it get to hearings & votes and such where each R senator can plot his own course through the minefield. As long as the end result is Obama’s pick isn’t confirmed of course. But that’s a recipe for a muddled message.
Conversely a downside to McConnell icing the whole thing is he gets all the media attention. That would forego a lot of delicious opportunity for the various senators to grandstand for the cameras during extensive hearings and debate on the merits of the nominee. Pus a blizzard of tweets, cameos, and positional press releases.
For darn sure the two approaches will have different winners and losers amongst the 24 R senators and the 10 R senatorial candidates. There’s one hell of a fight taking place under the elephant’s saddle blanket right now. And this is just the sparring before the stare-down. The main event will be a sight to behold. Through a leaky blanket of course.
It has to go through the Judiciary Committee first at the very least which could delay it quite a bit. And even after that no, I don’t think Biden can just walk in and tell them to vote now.
I think Biden’s lack of power is due to Senate Rules more than Constitutional limitation, (which says only that the Vice President shall act as President of the Senate, but have no vote except for ties). It would be interesting if the VP could call a vote on any pending matter.