Will no 5 Repub senators approve a non-extreme SCOTUS nominee?

There is a lot of discussion about whether the Senate will allow a vote on any Obama nominee. Has me wondering what folk think the actual state of party politics currently is.

Of the 54 Republican senators, are there none who would stand up to say a nominee should be allowed up for a vote? And, should a vote be held, are there none who would break with party ranks to support the premise that a sitting president has the reight to name non-extreme justices?

What are the factors that would prevent 10% of the Repub senators from placing actually governing above blatant party politics? I would hope that if the reverse were true, at least 5 Democrats would be reasonable enough, and in secure enough districts.

Are there precedents for Supreme nominees being opposed on strict party lines? As I recall, even Thomas - who had at least some reasons to be opposed - garnered some Dem votes.

Here in IL - I’m interested to see how Kirk plays it. He’s up for re-election, and considered vulnerable. Of course, since his stroke, I’m not entirely convinced he is competent to tie his shoes, let alone govern… :rolleyes:

Why are you assuming that the Republicans as a whole will block Obama’s nominee? There’s a lot of paranoia going around; let’s wait until a nomination is actually made.

PS Pass the popcorn, please. :slight_smile:

I’m asking whether others think such an assumption is reasonable. I sure hope not.

You misspelled 14.

Alito got four Democratic votes, after a filibuster attempt was defeated.

And when you look below the level of the SC, nominations for lower-court judges yield a whole variety of results.

It’s not really about numbers, it’s about Mitch McConnell. If he doesn’t want a vote on a nominee, a vote won’t happen unless he has a true rebellion against his leadership in his conference. Unlike the Speaker of the House or House Minority leader, there is more institutional and historical independence of individual Senators vs their leadership than in the House (which by design the caucuses in the House are organized around the principle of people doing what leadership tells them to do.)

If Mitch wants a vote then you only need 5 Republican Senators to be on board, the majority leader can make it so a filibuster won’t last long term either by forcing the filibuster to be done through traditional rules or by simply invoking a cloture vote which would have support of all of the Democrats and enough loyalist Republicans to easily pass.

But there’s no evidence McConnell is envisioning this role for himself, instead he’s on the exact other side, the side of obstruction. If leadership was willing to compromise I think there’s enough sane Republicans left to side with him and get it done, but there isn’t nearly enough who would be willing to do it in opposition to leadership.

Yeah. NPR just did a “primer” on the approval process, identifying the numerous ways McConnell - or another individual senator - can stop the process. I’ve never respected McConnell, but it shocks me that he would want to put this much of a bullseye on himself.

If he does, I HOPE the Dems prove themselves adept at taking advantage of the opportunities presented. Of course, history has shown them capable of dropping the easiest lobbed balls…

It would be nice if something like this were to spur some increased control by the reasonable adults closer to the middle of both parties… I can dream, can’t I?

Was Alito “extreme?”

Was Roberts “extreme?”

If one individual senator can sabotage the whole process then there is zero chance Cruz lets it happen, even if every single other republican is on board.

Alito yes, Roberts no.

But that’s sort of beside the point. Neither man was successfully filibustered because enough Democrats crossed over. Right?

He can’t except via filibuster, as John Mace alluded to above. There need to be 60 votes to shut down a filibuster.

Alito is a bit over the edge. And an ass.

While on the Third Circuit, he “authored a dissenting opinion in Doe v. Groody, arguing that qualified immunity should have protected police officers from a finding of having violated constitutional rights when they strip-searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized the search of a residence.”

His vote in favor of gutting the Voting Rights Act was unforgivable.

Your point?