obama gets another appointment. Supreme Court will be liberal at that point until RBG retires.

2/13/2016 5:29:21 PM

Quote :

"Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement."

- Ted Cruz

Quote :

"The longest Supreme Court confirmation process from nomination to resolution was Brandeis, at 125 days. Obama has 342 days left in office."

- Some guy on Twitter.

[Edited on February 13, 2016 at 5:39 PM. Reason : ]

2/13/2016 5:38:27 PM

Why does cruz care if it's Obama or hillary

2/13/2016 5:39:38 PM

My prediction: GOP tries to pass law reducing number of judges to 8

Or

They try to block an appointment for a year

2/13/2016 5:48:00 PM

Mojo speculating this will be the nominee:
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/who-sri-srinivasan-supreme-court

2/13/2016 5:50:43 PM

^^ both would be legal options. The number of judges isn't constitutionally set, and they aren't required to confirm anyone. It would be politically suicidal, so I doubt they'd do the first, but I have a feeling they may well try the second.

Also, Obama really only has until election day at the absolute latest to do it. I don't think he'd be able to garner democratic support if Hillary or Bernie wins the election and a lame duck is still trying to get a nominee confirmed.

2/13/2016 6:03:33 PM

I liked when he said that being innocent wasn't a reason to not be put to death

2/13/2016 6:13:15 PM

This is already getting nasty...

Multiple GOPers have repeated Cruz sentiment, even McConnell.

But at least now we know any objections to a nominee McConnell has are purely political and not on the basis of merit.

2/13/2016 6:58:52 PM

Obama can appoint himself

2/13/2016 7:06:36 PM

There will not be any effort to reduce the number of justices - especially not to a fucking even number.

McConnell has only said the vacancy SHOULD not be filled until we have a new president, not that the vacancy WILL NOT be filled. Don't underestimate Sen. McConnell's ability to cave. But with 54 R's in the Senate I find it very difficult to believe any nomination will be taken up in an election year given the long term ramifications.

2/13/2016 7:26:49 PM

Leave it to Scalia to up this election year's crazy factor

2/13/2016 7:35:29 PM

Adios Constitution. It was nice knowin' ya!

2/13/2016 8:07:22 PM

So the President is calling a press conference a few hours after Scalia's death, on a Saturday night, is the Senate in recess? I don't even know how to check Senate status. If they're in recess, my bet is he's making an appointment tonight.

- So the Senate adjourned at 10:18am yesterday and is scheduled to reconvene on Feb. 22. So I guess they are in recess and a recess appointment can be made tonight...

http://gov.mtopgroup.com/art1/live/senate

[Edited on February 13, 2016 at 8:34 PM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on February 13, 2016 at 8:41 PM. Reason : ...]

2/13/2016 8:29:27 PM

^^ ?

2/13/2016 8:35:53 PM

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/2016_schedule.htm

2/13/2016 8:39:08 PM

He's not going to make a recess appointment the day of.

2/13/2016 8:43:20 PM

Just got the 2 min warning on the live stream so I guess we're about to find out...

2/13/2016 8:44:18 PM

Do you not know how politics or things in general work?

2/13/2016 8:48:48 PM

^ Not really. And no recess appointment tonight so that almost certainly means no SCOTUS replacement until next year.

2/13/2016 8:50:40 PM

In case yall haven't been reading TSB, GoldieO is not very smart.

2/13/2016 9:02:05 PM

^ Agreed. But I would have used active voice - GoldieO is not very smart in case y'all haven't been reading.

[Edited on February 13, 2016 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ...]

2/13/2016 9:04:10 PM

I'm guessing Obama will nominate someone more moderate than anything and it will go through. He knows if he tries to put someone really left leaning up they won't get through and could possibly go to the next president. McConnell might be talking big now but he will likely rollover, especially if it is a moderate choice.

2/13/2016 9:15:39 PM

The fact that we even sit here and have to discuss liberal/conservative/moderate judges reveals how fucked up this whole system is.

2/13/2016 9:30:22 PM

Why not nominate someone liberal and let tthe republicans destroy themselves and hilary/bernie will most likely nominate someone even more liberal. Its a win win unless obama is selfish

2/13/2016 9:39:29 PM

Quote :

"The fact that we even sit here and have to discuss liberal/conservative/moderate judges reveals how fucked up this whole system is."

2/13/2016 9:43:05 PM

Quote :

"McConnell has only said the vacancy SHOULD not be filled until we have a new president, not that the vacancy WILL NOT be filled. Don't underestimate Sen. McConnell's ability to cave. But with 54 R's in the Senate I find it very difficult to believe any nomination will be taken up in an election year given the long term ramifications. "

I don't think McConnell has any intention to try and block an appointee for a year. This is just his way of putting pressure early on Obama to pick as moderate a person as he can muster.

2/13/2016 10:11:43 PM

Republicans allowing themselves to be pinned to blocking a Supreme Court appointee would nearly guarantee a loss in the general.

2/13/2016 10:22:40 PM

Well I guess this thread answers if Goldie was joking about supporting Cruz...

2/13/2016 10:34:34 PM

Quote :

"The fact that we even sit here and have to discuss liberal/conservative/moderate judges reveals how fucked up this whole system is."

we need an amendment where 2/3 of states could overrule any supreme court decision

2/14/2016 7:23:17 AM

^ already exists (article 5)

2/14/2016 7:56:01 AM

^that's 3/4

2/14/2016 8:46:51 AM

So why do you think 2/3 is more preferable than 3/4?

2/14/2016 10:36:45 AM

^trust 34 states more than 5 lawyers

2/14/2016 11:10:58 AM

Those states will only think in their states best interest. If something hurts 34 states, it doesnt mean that it is unconstitutional or bad for the union

2/14/2016 11:31:15 AM

I could see this happening:

1) Obama nominates someone, McConnell denies it, and the Dems use the Obama-Blocking-Republicans discussion in the races where incumbent Republican Senators are up for reelection.

2) Option 1 happens, Hillary or Bernie gets elected, and nominates Obama. Democrat-control Senate confirms.

3) World explodes.

Thanks Obama.

2/14/2016 11:58:32 AM

^ haha, yeah i also thought about that exact sequence of events.

2/14/2016 3:38:46 PM

Doubtful that Democrats will take the Senate in this election. Also, I believe Obama has already stated that he has no interest in a SCOTUS position.

It would be fun to watch heads explode across the nation though.

2/14/2016 4:22:32 PM

I guess I get the need for the GOP to refuse to consider any of Obama's appointments, it's winner take all politics, I think most of us are used to that at this point.

What really bothers me is how they are going about it. Not that many years ago the GOP leadership would have allowed Obama to appoint someone, then delayed the consideration process, cooked up some scandal or even just disapproved because the appointee was "too liberal", etc. then punted to the next appointment, repeated the process, and drawn it all out until the end of the year. That at least feigns that they are interested in the normal operation of the senate/executive relationship.

Instead, on the day of Scalia's death, they come out trumpeting their complete refusal to even consider ANY appointee, under any circumstances.

The outcome is the same, but the latter scenario is just so much more openly nihilistic. Or maybe it's just blunt knee-jerk stupidity, I can't decide, but it's troubling to me either way.

2/14/2016 5:27:30 PM

You can't avoid election year politics when something this major occurs - there's no doubt McConnell made the statement he did, as quickly as he did, in part to take away the issue from Cruz and Trump. If he had waited until after the debate and let this issue simmer until after the SC primary, Bush/Rubio would have had even less chance to come in a respectable third place. Don't forget, he left himself a way out saying the vacancy should not be filled instead of will not be filled.

2/14/2016 5:36:53 PM

Could be, I just don't give McConnell that much credit to play multi-dimensional chess

2/14/2016 5:45:18 PM

It's not just the election year politics, the difference here is replacing Scalia with a non-Scalia as opposed to Obama's other two appointments not affecting the split on the Court.

2/14/2016 5:49:09 PM

Yea I get that, it's a battle that the conservative cause can't afford to lose.

But it's like, why can't leadership scheme a little and feign normal order? It's a huge symptom of the state of our politics (of which I think the GOP is more indulgent).

2/14/2016 6:16:49 PM

Its over for them and they cant accept that.

2/14/2016 7:17:43 PM

^^

Why not? They have a real chance to win the presidency, they could Punt on the Scalia replacement, put efforts to winning the presidency, then secure 1 or 2 more of the left leaning judge appointments.

This is more a cause the left can't afford to lose. If they can't get a decently progressive judge in, If they lose the presidency, they risk a +3 conservative tilt in the SC.

2/14/2016 7:52:27 PM

^ It could backfire, though. Being perceived as obstructionists to a Scalia replacement might cost them a presidency they would have otherwise won.

2/14/2016 8:00:05 PM

I really don't see that. People who are going to vote republican aren't going to care if they are obstructing. Hell, that might help the cause.

2/14/2016 8:11:24 PM

SCOTUS is now a front and center issue in the election, but I can't see it swaying any voters who aren't already pre-disposed to vote other than R. It has been a very long time since a lame duck nomination was confirmed and I think the average independent/moderate understands the politics involved with the Senate asserting their authority. I get it though, if I was on the other side, I'd be hella concerned about not getting one of my people in now bc if the R's win there is a very good chance they'll be nominating the Ginsburg replacement in the next 2-3 years.

2/14/2016 8:18:19 PM

theres not a chance in hell they win the presidency. they won't ever win anything again without gerrymandering and voter suppression.

2/14/2016 8:35:43 PM

^^, ^^^ I'm not thinking in terms of swaying voters so much as affecting voter turnout. Seeing blatant obstructionism yet again might persuade more voters to turn out against Republicans.

2/14/2016 10:38:31 PM

Quote :

"I think the average independent/moderate understands the politics involved with the Senate asserting their authority."

I can't speak for the conservative base, but I feel that the average independent or moderate is rather tired of Congressional obstruction.

2/15/2016 12:16:02 AM