You have to define your terms. If by obstructionism you mean not letting the current president have whatever he wants - agreed, that may anger voters. But again, if this is how you define obstructionism you were likely not inclined to vote R to begin with. If, however, you think the less Congress does the better - like I do - you will likely already be incled to vote R and it won't be an issue. Separation of powers isn't an accident.

2/15/2016 6:45:30 AM

I think no matter when Obama names his appointee, the Republicans stall until both parties have a presidential candidate in place. Then, it all comes down to polling:

Scenario 1: Republican candidate leads in polling. Congress holds out until at least Election Day and if their guy wins (assuming there is still republican control) will block the appointment until the inauguration. This process risks upsetting moderate republican and independent voters and thus Republicans could lose seats.

Scenario 2: Democratic candidate leads in polling. Republicans in congress fear Hillary or Bernie would appoint someone much farther to the left than Obama would, and therefore will confirm an left-of-center appointment Obama makes.

Scenario 3: The Republican Nightmare (not likely, but a possible situation). The democratic candidate (especially if it is Bernie vs Trump), ignites the party in a way even Obama couldn't produce, and voter turnout is expected to be an all-time high which could lead to Republicans losing control of congress. The democrats then are the ones who hold out, maybe Obama doesn't even make an appointment and a farther-left President with a Democratic congress easily confirms a very young and very left judge.

2/15/2016 7:48:49 AM

I don't know anything about this blog, but the points are correct for why Obama has already won this:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/2/14/why-obama-wants-scotus-fight

Quote :

"As many have pointed out, the Supreme Court is now split 4-4 between liberal and conservative justices, and because of President Obama's appointments to the appeals courts, 9 out of 13 of those now have a majority of Democratic appointees. If the Supreme Court is split 4-4, the Appellate decision stands, which are mostly favorable to liberals. Even the cases that have already been argued, the Court is likely to get stuck at 4-4, which mostly would end up disappointing conservatives. But the paradigm of the tie going to the president is only the tip of the iceberg. The bigger part of the advantage that the President and Democrats have is the actual fight over the nomination and confirmation process. Say the President nominates someone like Sri Srinivasan, who was confirmed to the DC Circuit by a 97-0 vote of the Senate in 2013. Among those 97 Yea votes were those of Sens. Cruz and Rubio, as well as GOP Leader McConnell, all calling for the current President to abdicate his Constitutional responsibility. What will people who have already voted for a judge to be on the federal bench say as a reason to oppose the same judge that won't sound political and hollow? The funny part is that the President doesn't even have to nominate a consensus candidate like Srinivasan to paint the Republicans into a corner. Republicans have already helpfully handed the President all he needs to paint their opposition to his eventual nominee as political and not substantive with their incredibly shortsighted to demand right away that President Obama stay away from nominating a new Justice."

Quote :

"And no Democratic Senator will pay a political price for standing with Reid and President Obama on this. It will be like the GOP's government shutdown, part deux. Democrats will coalesce around the Constitutional principle of giving the president's nominee a vote, and Republicans will be seen as the party of destruction, endangering the very operation of government itself. And this time, there won't be a malfunctioning website to go after when it's done."

2/15/2016 9:20:51 AM

Quote :

" It has been a very long time since a lame duck nomination was confirmed"

Justice Kennedy in 1988 (who McConnell voted for btw), and there have been 13 others

Last time a president entered the office with a supreme court vacancy - Justice Campbell in 1853

but yeah, Obama is being radical by nominating someone even outside of the unwritten 6 month Thurmond rule

2/15/2016 9:26:35 AM

Kennedy was nominated in 1987 - after the Democrats defeated Reagan's first two nominations Bork and Ginsburg.

2/15/2016 9:28:50 AM

he was nominated within 12 months of an election. The "Thurmond rule" is 6 months. We have an election in a about 10 months.

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 9:31 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2016 9:30:17 AM

Yes. Again, we should define our terms. I said a lame duck nomination - meaning the final calendar year of a president's term. 1988 and 2016 would be the analogous years for my definition of lame duck.

2/15/2016 9:31:48 AM

if we are being pedantic, he is not a lame duck until after the election, so even the 6 month Thurmond rule shouldn't apply

basically there is no way of cutting it that doesn't make the GOP ridiculous

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 9:39 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2016 9:39:27 AM

My first reaction was the scene from The West Wing where Bratlett nominates both a liberal and conservative after the one old, liberal guy finally agrees to retire (RBG in this case).

2/15/2016 9:52:05 AM

GoldieO tries so hard, and

2/15/2016 10:00:56 AM

Not trying to be pedantic or argumentative, just trying to define terms of discussion so we're on the same page. It has been a long time since an election year nomination and confirmation and I don't see that changing this year, that's all. If you're opposed to the GOP you'll think this makes the GOP look ridiculous, and understandably so. But, given McConnell's proclivity to cave, I would remain hopeful if I were an other than R that a nomination will be considered this year.

2/15/2016 10:04:06 AM

the page that every sane person is on is that there is of course nothing wrong with Obama appointing a nominee and unless there are actual real problems with that nominee they should be confirmed

2/15/2016 10:05:53 AM

See, calling me insane is not productive. I try to come on here and engage people of differing views in a constructive manner and get pejoratives hurled my way. I consider myself rather sane and disagree a nominee should simply be confirmed absent "actual real problems" whatever that may mean.



[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM. Reason : sad emoticon added bc that's how I feel right now]

2/15/2016 10:18:37 AM

oh for fucks sake. you tards will come up with any argument, 'cause OBAMA. There is no reason he shouldn't nominate a justice; unless it was literally in the final week(s) of his presidency, when there wouldn't be enough time to build/consult a list, interview, etc etc etc, chose, etc, etc, etc.

2/15/2016 11:05:42 AM

Hopefully that hurtful term "tards" was not directed at me - I just used a sad emoticon to express my sadness with the previous hurtful term hurled my way. Let me be clear, I am not disputing Obama's right to nominate at any time, but the nominee has no right to be confirmed.

2/15/2016 11:10:19 AM

Just curious, are there any conspiracy theories about his death and Obama's involvement?

2/15/2016 11:11:35 AM

I have seen references to Alex Jones saying Obama had him poisoned, but I try to avoid purposely clicking on any AJ link.

2/15/2016 11:21:07 AM

My first thought was Hillary accidentally killed him sooner than she meant to, because of the Clintons body count conspiracy thing. Meant to poison him slowly so he'd die when she took over.

2/15/2016 11:42:26 AM

http://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-heart-attack-gun/2555371072001

I think this case is solved

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 11:58 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2016 11:58:11 AM

Super! The best thing Scalia could have done while on the court is die when there is not conservative dipship in the white house that will try to place someone in the court to uphold Christian Values on the land of the "free."

Free being in quotations as freedom is restricted to rich business owners and only applies to common folks in the notion that you are free to live your live within the confines of [insert Conservative politician here] interpretation of Jesus's teachings.

2/15/2016 11:58:36 AM

Quote :

"I am not disputing Obama's right to nominate at any time, but the nominee has no right to be confirmed"

Ah yes, obstructionism, the new democracy.

2/15/2016 12:58:20 PM

if the GOP wants to be completely obstructionist and not vote on a valid nominee, this is relevant:

Quote :

"Harry Reid, I am certain, has other tricks up his sleeve to frustrate the Republican leadership by essentially ending the Senate's business until the President's nominee gets a vote. He could use executive sessions (the motion is non-debatable) to halt business, block unanimous consent requests for short breaks or recesses, and pull every parliamentary maneuver to make Republicans go on record. Even worse for the GOP, by constantly asking for procedural votes on the nomination, he can force Republicans to show up and be on the Senate floor."

2/15/2016 1:24:09 PM

2/15/2016 2:38:03 PM

liberals need to stop posting that, the constitution also gives the senate the plenary power to reject nominees

2/15/2016 2:47:01 PM

Quote :

"Sen. Mitch McConnell, in 2005, defending the absolute right of a sitting president to nominate judges. "The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators." "[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'" Take it from Sen. Mitch McConnell: for the Senate to block a sitting president from nominating a Supreme Court nominee—not just a specific nominee, mind you, but any nominee at all, would put the Constitution of the United States itself at stake. And he's a patriot, so he would never even consider such a thing."

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ^ obviously ]

2/15/2016 2:47:32 PM

Quote :

"the constitution also gives the senate the plenary power to reject nominees"

Is "rejecting any and all appointees until your party's guy takes office" really in the spirit of "advise and consent"?

I don't think Warren's saying that they literally can't do what they're threatening-- just that it'd be a dick move and not in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2016 2:54:36 PM

consent of the Senate isn't qualified as far as I know, its a plenary power

to clarify: my problem with the statement is when she talks about their oath, being a dick doesn't break their oath

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 2:58 PM. Reason : clarify]

2/15/2016 2:57:54 PM

I think Obama's best move would be to nominate a moderate judge to the SCOTUS. This way he can get his nomination on the bench. He can appease moderates/independents by not trying to place an extreme lefty on the bench. Best of all if Republitards try to drag-out and block the nomination indefinitely until he leaves office, Obama can rub it in their face that he tried to appease and meet republicans in the middle but instead the GOP would rather act like a bunch of partisan hacks.

2/15/2016 3:00:59 PM

^^^ and that's all assuming his nominee even gets a vote

2/15/2016 3:02:20 PM

^^ the past 7 years have proven that offering moderate solutions does not work

2/15/2016 3:10:07 PM

This discussion is going to be moot when he makes a recess appointment prior to the Senate reconvening on Feb. 22. I could be wrong, but this is what he's setting up (as evinced by the discussion thus far on this board alone) and he'll explain the Senate has already made clear their intention to obstruct his constitutional power and so he had no other choice.

2/15/2016 3:21:06 PM

Doubtful. The White House is already hinting it will not do a recess appointment (obviously subject to change). More importantly, a recess appointment would only be temporary.

2/15/2016 3:27:28 PM

Temporary, yes. But major precedents could be set this term that would have long last effects even if the recess appointee was immediately replaced by the next president. Even assuming R's keep a majority in the Senate, there's a very good chance a replacement won't be made until after the end of the next SCOTUS term.

2/15/2016 3:31:44 PM

Quote :

"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."

Quote :

"This discussion is going to be moot when he makes a recess appointment prior to the Senate reconvening on Feb. 22"

[Edited on February 15, 2016 at 3:35 PM. Reason : your credibility = the shitter]

2/15/2016 3:34:53 PM

^^ What's more important: deciding cases this term or successfully nominating a permanent replacement? My money is on the latter. Nothing good will come from a recess appointment.

2/15/2016 3:36:01 PM

Quote :

" The White House is already hinting it will not do a recess appointment (obviously subject to change)."

a bit more than hinting

Obama to nominate Supreme Court justice when Senate returns: White House
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-scalia-obama-idUSMTZSAPEC2EK3F1WR

Quote :

"President Barack Obama will not rush through a Supreme Court choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia this week but will wait to nominate a candidate until the U.S. Senate is back in session, the White House said on Sunday. "Given that the Senate is currently in recess, we don’t expect the president to rush this through this week, but instead will do so in due time once the Senate returns from their recess," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. "At that point, we expect the Senate to consider that nominee, consistent with their responsibilities laid out in the United States Constitution," he said."

2/15/2016 3:40:57 PM

Thanks for that ^ link. I haven't been paying attention to news today like usual. If the WH does wait until the Senate is back in session, I will return to post a surpised face emoticon to express my surprise.

2/15/2016 3:47:12 PM

scotusblog thinks Loretta Lynch
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-analyst-loretta-lynch-most-likely-candidate-replace-scalia?cid=sm_fb_mojoe

this part makes me pretty angry:

Quote :

"I think the administration would relish the prospect of Republicans either refusing to give Lynch a vote or seeming to treat her unfairly in the confirmation process,” Goldstein wrote. “Either eventuality would motivate both black and women voters."

i hope that isn't a reason

2/15/2016 3:55:31 PM

Quote :

"past 7 years have proven that offering moderate solutions does not work"

Why is this? The SCOTUS candidate doesn't have to pander in order to get votes from the crazy moonbat conservative right "base" or the rabid PETA loving left.

This country is in dire need of more voice from the middle in order to keep this place from ripping apart. I'm increasingly starting to feel that given the current state of politics if this country can really stay unified.

2/15/2016 4:48:36 PM

^^Loretta Lynch? Pretty sure it's gonna be Dolly Pardon or Sharia Twain. Thanks, Obama.

2/15/2016 6:40:58 PM

The country will be united in 10-20 years once the rest of the scalia demographic is dead.

2/15/2016 7:11:23 PM

Scalia demographic doesn't die, it just multiplies.

2/15/2016 8:29:06 PM

Quote :

"This discussion is going to be moot when he makes a recess appointment prior to the Senate reconvening on Feb. 22"

While I'm sure it would be very satisfying to stick it to the man with a recess appointment, it isn't good politics. The Republicans erred by making a knee jerk reaction over Scalia's still warm corpse. The rap on Republicans is they can't govern and this just reinforces that. Obama has the high ground and he's going to hold on to it. He's going to make a great nomination and dare the Republican's in the Senate to sit on it. They'll cave or get beaten up over it the whole election.

2/15/2016 9:23:06 PM

^exactly

The republicans lost this in the first 12 hours with their foolhardy rhetoric.

2/15/2016 9:51:54 PM

So, Scalia-Truthers are a thing now

2/15/2016 10:24:33 PM

^ Scalia was the exact age of the current average male life expectancy... he's no spring chicken.

2/15/2016 11:29:23 PM

Quote :

"Scalia demographic doesn't die, it just multiplies."

What do you base this on? I'd think it's diminishing.

2/16/2016 12:09:00 PM

Well the Christian Right is known for big families and those against abortion for conservative "values" reasons are more likely to propagate with more of the fuck trophies.

2/16/2016 2:17:07 PM

Republican members of the Judiciary Committee all signed a letter today refusing to hold hearings for Obama's eventual nominee.

2/23/2016 5:21:54 PM

Partisan Hackery at its finest!

2/23/2016 5:37:20 PM