February 18, 201610 yr Author More strategy speculation. NY Times - Obama’s Options for a Supreme Court Nominee, and the Potential Fallout
February 18, 201610 yr Do what the Democrats did with Bork: get the nominee in, vote him or her down, send them home. Yep.
February 18, 201610 yr 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.
February 18, 201610 yr 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 ?
February 18, 201610 yr 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.
February 18, 201610 yr 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.
February 18, 201610 yr 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.
February 19, 201610 yr Author 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.
February 19, 201610 yr 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.
February 19, 201610 yr 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.
February 19, 201610 yr 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.
February 19, 201610 yr 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?
February 19, 201610 yr 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.
February 19, 201610 yr 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.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.