SCOTUS Nomination Battle

Page 13 of Originally Posted by Twotoplace Should be an opportunity for more Roberts arm-twisting and agenda-setting now. Neither of the other two far-right justi... 266 comments | 8207 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #181
    Habib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    Buy the ticket, take the ride
    Posts
    12,180

    More strategy speculation.

    NY Times - Obama’s Options for a Supreme Court Nominee, and the Potential Fallout
    Advertisement

  2. #182
    Randy Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 08
    Location
    In the snow, laying there like a slug
    Posts
    68,909

    Quote Originally Posted by Getslow View Post
    Do what the Democrats did with Bork: get the nominee in, vote him or her down, send them home.
    Yep.

  3. #183
    Voice of Reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 08
    Location
    N. KY.
    Posts
    32,984

    Quote Originally Posted by Habib View Post
    McConnell's statement would seem to be a blunder, but as I said before if the Senate moves to confirm an Obama appointment swiftly it will all but guarantee a Trump or Cruz nomination. McConnell has some strategic reasons to have beaten them to the punch on it, especially with the debate being that night.

    The big question in my estimation is whether McConnell and Republicans will come around on a confirmation once the party's presidential nomination is locked in.
    Paragraph 2 is how I see things playing out. The Republicans will drag any approval out till after the presidential candidates are set and will look at how the race shapes up in the fall. If things look shaky for Republicans in the fall, they might go ahead and accept the nomination of a moderate.

  4. #184
    LIPTON BASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    10,079

    Everyone assumes Obama will offer up a moderate. What from any of his appointments so far would suggest that? Also who's definition of a moderate are we using ?

  5. #185

    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    4,143

    Quote Originally Posted by LIPTON BASH View Post
    Everyone assumes Obama will offer up a moderate. What from any of his appointments so far would suggest that? Also who's definition of a moderate are we using ?
    I agree. This "moderate" option is mostly fanciful talk. GOP will use the vacancy to rally the base and fearmonger. Obama may put up a sacrificial candidate (like Lynch) so he can rally minority and female voters when McConnell shoots down her nomination.

  6. #186
    LIPTON BASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    10,079

    Quote Originally Posted by Twotoplace View Post
    I agree. This "moderate" option is mostly fanciful talk. GOP will use the vacancy to rally the base and fearmonger. Obama may put up a sacrificial candidate (like Lynch) so he can rally minority and female voters when McConnell shoots down her nomination.
    I'm glad we agree on something finally. I don't see how Obama benefits by offering a "moderate". It's his final year and it's all about legacy.

    GOP leaders also can't rubber stamp someone that is on the opposite spectrum on hot button issues this close to an election.

    Both sides can argue back and forth but I'll be shocked if it isn't the next president selecting the next justice.

    If the roles were reversed each side would take the opposite approach. I mean look what Obama did to Alito in 2006.

    These are politicians practicing politics.

  7. #187
    LIPTON BASH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    10,079

    Double post

  8. #188

    Join Date
    May 01
    Location
    City of Beautiful Homes
    Posts
    25,561

    Saw a scenario today under which the republicans could hold off a nomination until 2021 if they had to! They will hold the senate this year and the 2018 mid terms are favorable to them; that would delay it to January 2021. Crazy idea but politics is a crazy place these days.

  9. #189
    Habib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    Buy the ticket, take the ride
    Posts
    12,180

    Quote Originally Posted by 75center View Post
    Saw a scenario today under which the republicans could hold off a nomination until 2021 if they had to! They will hold the senate this year and the 2018 mid terms are favorable to them; that would delay it to January 2021. Crazy idea but politics is a crazy place these days.
    Ostensibly they could do it indefinitely unless the rules on the filibuster are changed. I imagine the probability of one party getting 60 Senators is quite low.

  10. #190

    Join Date
    Apr 13
    Location
    Hunkered Down in the Arena Awaiting Corbin-Knox Central: WWIII
    Posts
    8,978

    Quote Originally Posted by 75center View Post
    Saw a scenario today under which the republicans could hold off a nomination until 2021 if they had to! They will hold the senate this year and the 2018 mid terms are favorable to them; that would delay it to January 2021. Crazy idea but politics is a crazy place these days.

    As long they maintain control of Congress , it wouldn't surprise me if they never confirm an Obama or Hillary nominee.

  11. #191
    capt278's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 08
    Posts
    4,320

    Quote Originally Posted by Habib View Post
    Ostensibly they could do it indefinitely unless the rules on the filibuster are changed. I imagine the probability of one party getting 60 Senators is quite low.
    I guess Harry Reid's change in the rules may come back to haunt the Left. We shall see.

  12. #192

    Join Date
    May 01
    Location
    City of Beautiful Homes
    Posts
    25,561

    Quote Originally Posted by capt278 View Post
    I guess Harry Reid's change in the rules may come back to haunt the Left. We shall see.
    One think remarkably consistent is that both parties forget that control is fleeting.

  13. #193
    mcpapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 05
    Location
    Home of a proud papa
    Posts
    61,574

    Another serious question.

    If SCOTUS judges are supposed to be Constitutional scholars, why are there so many 5-4 (soon to be 4-4) decisions?

  14. #194

    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    4,143

    Quote Originally Posted by mcpapa View Post
    Another serious question.

    If SCOTUS judges are supposed to be Constitutional scholars, why are there so many 5-4 (soon to be 4-4) decisions?
    Good point. I'm thinking, though, that there might be fewer 4-4 decisions than one might think, because the internal dynamics of the court are going to change with Scalia's death. We might well see Roberts take a more assertive role in forging consensus now that Scalia no longer looms large.

  15. #195
    capt278's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 08
    Posts
    4,320

    Quote Originally Posted by mcpapa View Post
    Another serious question.

    If SCOTUS judges are supposed to be Constitutional scholars, why are there so many 5-4 (soon to be 4-4) decisions?
    Unfortunately, I feel the Justices vote primarily on political lines.

    If all voted strictly based on the way the Constitution is written, many on both sides would be upset. I would say more so on the Left. There are many things the SCOTUS has affirmed that are not in the Constitution. Judicial review is probably the most glaring. Nowhere in Article III is this granted to the court.

Top