Scalia

[TheCainer]

Who saw this coming? I always figured it would be Ginsberg who would pass away first. This is going to be a political firestorm nominating the next justice, especially with it being an election year. I heard Mitch McConnel say that Obama should let the next president nominate Scalia's replacement. I'm not sure why though, except for the obvious, political purposes.

IMO, the GOP might want to refigure that strategy though, if that's what they try to pursue, because if they don't win the White House and also lose the Senate this year, they will actually have more of a say in filling the vacancy now than they would if the election goes that way.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think either way, there's little chance of an Obama appointment happening. I think he will and should try, and I think the Senate will and should oppose the hell out of it. Same would apply the other way. It makes the most sense long term, to me.

 

[Purdue97]

-I do not see Obama caring that the Senate would have more of a say now and could block the nomination. He will nominate someone like Sotamayor and Kagan. And I think the Senate rejects the nomination.

-I can actually see something like this energizing Republican base politically. Not sure how much of a backfire there could be on them. Republicans would not care but be energized by it imo. Independents with an open mind will realize Obama voted against both Bush nominees and Dems actually blocked Bork so it is not without precedent.

 

[qazplm]

Who saw this coming? I always figured it would be Ginsberg who would pass away first. This is going to be a political firestorm nominating the next justice, especially with it being an election year. I heard Mitch McConnel say that Obama should let the next president nominate Scalia's replacement. I'm not sure why though, except for the obvious, political purposes.

IMO, the GOP might want to refigure that strategy though, if that's what they try to pursue, because if they don't win the White House and also lose the Senate this year, they will actually have more of a say in filling the vacancy now than they would if the election goes that way.

If the election goes as the prediction markets say I agree with you because now they can probably get a left of center moderate out of Obama... If its HRC it will be a lefty and if somehow its Sanders hoo boy. They won't do that though because they want to drive turnout...of course that works on both sides.

 

[lbodel]

-I do not see Obama caring that the Senate would have more of a say now and could block the nomination. He will nominate someone like Sotamayor and Kagan. And I think the Senate rejects the nomination.

-I can actually see something like this energizing Republican base politically. Not sure how much of a backfire there could be on them. Republicans would not care but be energized by it imo. Independents with an open mind will realize Obama voted against both Bush nominees and Dems actually blocked Bork so it is not without precedent.

This can certainly backfire for the Republicans - this is really not much different than the other shutdown situations.

Americans think Congress doesn't get anything done. Republicans control the Senate. The Senate confirms Supreme Court nominees. There are 34 Republican seats up for grab in the Senate in 2016 - 24 held by Republicans. And at least 5 of those are in "blue" states. The Republicans trying to get re-elected in a blue state - let alone facing a tough re-election (having to present themselves as moderate) having to stonewall a Supreme Court nominee for a year is not something they want to deal with.

Democrats can also turn the tables and refuse to do stuff and you can end up having a standstill.

Most "reasonable" Americans will not believe that waiting a year to even nominate someone else for the Supreme Court is the right thing to do. It's one thing for it to happen in September - it's February. Most Supreme Court nominations taken about 2 months to get through. The 2 parties won't even be settled with their primaries in that time probably, let alone even nominated a candidate.

I'd also suspect that Obama will nominate someone fairly moderate that has received strong support from both parties.

The risk is mostly on the Republican side. The Democrats don't have a ton to lose in this situation. It's just a matter of how far they're willing to go - something Democrats don't always do well - be aggressive/loud about something.

 

[lbodel]

Who saw this coming? I always figured it would be Ginsberg who would pass away first. This is going to be a political firestorm nominating the next justice, especially with it being an election year. I heard Mitch McConnel say that Obama should let the next president nominate Scalia's replacement. I'm not sure why though, except for the obvious, political purposes.

IMO, the GOP might want to refigure that strategy though, if that's what they try to pursue, because if they don't win the White House and also lose the Senate this year, they will actually have more of a say in filling the vacancy now than they would if the election goes that way.

Ginsberg not only survived pancreatic cancer, but is operating full-steam at 82, Anthony Kennedy is 79 and Stephen Breyer is 77.

It's sad that within a matter of minutes of the news coming out - Mitch McConnell was talking about the politics, not the death.

People like Ruth Bader Ginsberg could have easily retired during Obama's 2nd term knowing they'd be replaced with another left-leaning judge. But she didn't make it about politics and is planning to keep going into the next President, who could be a Republican.

The fact that Republicans want to go a year before even someone is nominated for the court shows how bad American politics has gotten.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

It's sad that within a matter of minutes of the news coming out - Mitch McConnell was talking about the politics, not the death.

The fact that Republicans want to go a year before even someone is nominated for the court shows how bad American politics has gotten.

Go look at Twitter. Democrats were celebrating his death. There were people on my Facebook feed damning him to hell. So please, guys, let's not just pile on one side. The entire handling of the death of a 30-year Justice has been abhorrent.

If you watched the debate last night, the candidates all pretty much said they expected Obama to nominate someone. Of course they argued that he shouldn't - that's to their advantage, but everyone knows he's going to and everyone knows that Congress is going to delay the appointment as long as possible until it is to their benefit (i.e. it looks like the D's are going to win everything in November) to approve a less "evil" nomination. It's the smart thing to do.

The thing that drives me craziest about politics and political discussion here, on social media, everywhere, is that both sides pretend like their side is the only one playing the game correctly. Both sides play the same game with the same rules. People only complain about it when their side isn't the one with the advantage at that point.

 

[qazplm]

Go look at Twitter. Democrats were celebrating his death. There were people on my Facebook feed damning him to hell. So please, guys, let's not just pile on one side. The entire handling of the death of a 30-year Justice has been abhorrent.

If you watched the debate last night, the candidates all pretty much said they expected Obama to nominate someone. Of course they argued that he shouldn't - that's to their advantage, but everyone knows he's going to and everyone knows that Congress is going to delay the appointment as long as possible until it is to their benefit (i.e. it looks like the D's are going to win everything in November) to approve a less "evil" nomination. It's the smart thing to do.

The thing that drives me craziest about politics and political discussion here, on social media, everywhere, is that both sides pretend like their side is the only one playing the game correctly. Both sides play the same game with the same rules. People only complain about it when their side isn't the one with the advantage at that point.

If only we had an example of dems being in this position with a republican President getting a justice confirmed in an election year.

Oh wait...

 

[lbodel]

Go look at Twitter. Democrats were celebrating his death. There were people on my Facebook feed damning him to hell. So please, guys, let's not just pile on one side. The entire handling of the death of a 30-year Justice has been abhorrent.

If you watched the debate last night, the candidates all pretty much said they expected Obama to nominate someone. Of course they argued that he shouldn't - that's to their advantage, but everyone knows he's going to and everyone knows that Congress is going to delay the appointment as long as possible until it is to their benefit (i.e. it looks like the D's are going to win everything in November) to approve a less "evil" nomination. It's the smart thing to do.

The thing that drives me craziest about politics and political discussion here, on social media, everywhere, is that both sides pretend like their side is the only one playing the game correctly. Both sides play the same game with the same rules. People only complain about it when their side isn't the one with the advantage at that point.

I never said anything about general reactions.

I gave 1 example who is the Senate Majority Leader - not Joe Smith from Twitter. I didn't find that to be in good taste and really jumpstarted the "official" talk from people. Could have waited a day or two.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

How convenient a way to assassinate someone than by making it he died in his sleep. Then again kennedy had his head blown off the week after he went to NY colleges giving speeches about how there was a conspiracy against Americans to enslave them. The bullet that killed him defied what even the most advanced aircrafts ever made can do. What's suspicius of a Supreme Court Justice dying in his sleep at the most heightened politcal time in US history. And one who constantly backs the constitution at a time it is under attack. At a time California won't even allow thennews to say the words founding fathers.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I never said anything about general reactions.

I gave 1 example who is the Senate Majority Leader - not Joe Smith from Twitter. I didn't find that to be in good taste and really jumpstarted the "official" talk from people. Could have waited a day or two.

Would be the same either way. I don't get why folks can't grasp and admit that. This is like arguing about how Baylor and Alabama play football. Same game, different teams.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

If only we had an example of dems being in this position with a republican President getting a justice confirmed in an election year.

Oh wait...

I have no problem if Obama nominates someone and no problem if the Senate takes three or four months vetting them. If Obama nominates a moderate like Sri, he should get approved and fairly quickly. If he nominates RBG's clone, it'd get disapproved regardless of timing.

 

[tigerchump]

Is it any wonder people are turned off by politics?

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

Is it any wonder people are turned off by politics?

Its perfectly normal for Supreme Court Justices to die in their sleep unexpectedly. It was also just as unexpected for John F Kennedy's secret service to abruptly walk off his car with roof down. Never happenend in history just right when he gets shot in the head. Then magically everyone who witnessed it near the grassy area died too. Its the same thing as Eyes Wide Shut the movie. The director hands in final version of movie to the board and 7 days later the director Stanley Kubrick falls dead. Interestingly Kubrick filmed Eyes Wide Shut inside the Rothschild mansion where those exact rituals actually take place. Then the entire movie is rearranged as they edit out Kubrick's warning to the world about the Illuminati. Same thing with Tupac. He puts Killuminati as his album cover and suddenly he is machine gunned in the middle if las vegas and the killers totally at large to this day. Its all just a coincidence. The Orders that the Illuminati gave Obama are to disarm Americans so they can be exterminated by the government, so they assassinated the most important Supreme Court Justice before Obama leaves office. In an attempt to get their people in place before they kill the constitution they just said here swallow this drink. There yah go. Then he went to sleep and never woke up.

 

[TheCainer]

Its perfectly normal for Supreme Court Justices to die in their sleep unexpectedly. It was also just as unexpected for John F Kennedy's secret service to abruptly walk off his car with roof down. Never happenend in history just right when he gets shot in the head. Then magically everyone who witnessed it near the grassy area died too. Its the same thing as Eyes Wide Shut the movie. The director hands in final version of movie to the board and 7 days later the director Stanley Kubrick falls dead. Interestingly Kubrick filmed Eyes Wide Shut inside the Rothschild mansion where those exact rituals actually take place. Then the entire movie is rearranged as they edit out Kubrick's warning to the world about the Illuminati. Same thing with Tupac. He puts Killuminati as his album cover and suddenly he is machine gunned in the middle if las vegas and the killers totally at large to this day. Its all just a coincidence. The Orders that the Illuminati gave Obama are to disarm Americans so they can be exterminated by the government, so they assassinated the most important Supreme Court Justice before Obama leaves office. In an attempt to get their people in place before they kill the constitution they just said here swallow this drink. There yah go. Then he went to sleep and never woke up.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

View embedded media

Yah oh sure..you mean the autopsy he got? Look at everyone say no autopsy please...no need please don't do it. Please. Totally normal Cainer.

Judge drops dead no autopsy.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

Judge found with pillow over his face now. That is how everyone sleeps. Who needs air?

 

[qazplm]

Judge found with pillow over his face now. That is how everyone sleeps. Who needs air?

Thanks Obama.

 

[Purdue97]

This can certainly backfire for the Republicans - this is really not much different than the other shutdown situations.

Americans think Congress doesn't get anything done. Republicans control the Senate. The Senate confirms Supreme Court nominees. There are 34 Republican seats up for grab in the Senate in 2016 - 24 held by Republicans. And at least 5 of those are in "blue" states. The Republicans trying to get re-elected in a blue state - let alone facing a tough re-election (having to present themselves as moderate) having to stonewall a Supreme Court nominee for a year is not something they want to deal with.

Democrats can also turn the tables and refuse to do stuff and you can end up having a standstill.

Most "reasonable" Americans will not believe that waiting a year to even nominate someone else for the Supreme Court is the right thing to do. It's one thing for it to happen in September - it's February. Most Supreme Court nominations taken about 2 months to get through. The 2 parties won't even be settled with their primaries in that time probably, let alone even nominated a candidate.

I'd also suspect that Obama will nominate someone fairly moderate that has received strong support from both parties.

The risk is mostly on the Republican side. The Democrats don't have a ton to lose in this situation. It's just a matter of how far they're willing to go - something Democrats don't always do well - be aggressive/loud about something.

Sure we will see. I think an issue like this may just get Republican turnout higher-which is what is needed. 270 to win has some different numbers with Senate seats up for grabs, what is safe and what is not.

I think the 2nd Amendment is some of these states is pretty important, and that would be a litmus test type vote for a SCJ. CO, IL, NV, NH, and WI IMO would not have adverse reactions to a nominee blocked over gun/carrying rights.

I would just say that in 2007 Democrats I think it was Schumer stated they would not approve of any court nominees from Bush 18 months in advance. Not to mention Obama voted against both of Bush's nominations. Tough to say the Democrats have a leg to stand on.

 

[Purdue97]

If only we had an example of dems being in this position with a republican President getting a justice confirmed in an election year.

Oh wait...

If you are referring to 87-88 that was totally different for a pretty obvious reason. Hearing already took place. Hardly anything new-reportedly this has been precedent for 80 years or so.

 

[qazplm]

If you are referring to 87-88 that was totally different for a pretty obvious reason. Hearing already took place. Hardly anything new-reportedly this has been precedent for 80 years or so.

Yes it's always totally different... Like how Presidents only have three year terms not four...you wanna talk unprecedented? Having 300+ days without a confirmation. But hey if the pubs want to wait and get a more liberal justice while mostly dem-favored lower court cases stand 4-4 no skin off my nose.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

Thanks Obama.

Oh no doubt. Obama's superiors had that judge taken out. It is Obama's mission to disarm the country and since the courts got in his way they had that judge assassinated. Sure it is a subtle way. An older man conveniently dies on a hunting trip. Of course no autopsy. I mean why be careful and thorough at a time like this? Why do an autopsy? Guy found with a pillow on his face and unwrinkled sleeping clothes away from home. Why investigate it? Why even consider the possibility at all? I sleep with my pillow on my face all the time. Why would I want to breathe at night? It is normal for people to find the most uncomfortable possible way to sleep especially a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[TheCainer]

If you are referring to 87-88 that was totally different for a pretty obvious reason. Hearing already took place. Hardly anything new-reportedly this has been precedent for 80 years or so.

It would seem that Republicans have taken the position in favor of election year confirmations several times just in this century alone, not to mention Reagan's plea in 1988.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/st-ronnie-speaks-question-scotus

Why is this time REALLY different? Did Scalia pick the wrong year to die? What happens if, God forbid, another justices passes away this year. Should we then let the president who will be elected in 2020 make that call so the 2016 president-elect won't have too much influence? Where does this end?

What would Scalia himself say about this, being the constitutional originalist that he claimed to be? The constitution doesn't say to delay the appointment in cases like this, right?

"The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted." A. Scalia

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Yes it's always totally different... Like how Presidents only have three year terms not four...you wanna talk unprecedented? Having 300+ days without a confirmation.

That's not true either. Longest was 390 days and I think something like 5 have gone over 300. I don't think that's the right answer at all, as I've said, but the "unprecedented" narrative being pushed on one side is as bogus as the "unprecedented" narrative being pushed by the other.

 

[qazplm]

That's not true either. Longest was 390 days and I think something like 5 have gone over 300. I don't think that's the right answer at all, as I've said, but the "unprecedented" narrative being pushed on one side is as bogus as the "unprecedented" narrative being pushed by the other.

OK then Gr8, highly highly unusual...rare...not the norm.

You let me know when I reach the appropriate adjective so that you can add something substantive to the debate.

 

[qazplm]

It would seem that Republicans have taken the position in favor of election year confirmations several times just in this century alone, not to mention Reagan's plea in 1988.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/st-ronnie-speaks-question-scotus

Why is this time REALLY different? Did Scalia pick the wrong year to die? What happens if, God forbid, another justices passes away this year. Should we then let the president who will be elected in 2020 make that call so the 2016 president-elect won't have too much influence? Where does this end?

What would Scalia himself say about this, being the constitutional originalist that he claimed to be? The constitution doesn't say to delay the appointment in cases like this, right?

"The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted." A. Scalia

It doesn't matter because you either have folks on the right who ignore all that, or folks in the supposed middle like Gr8 who simply do the lazy "everyone does it so it doesn't matter" schtick.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I've already said like six times what should happen. There should be no debate about it, but if you want to continue wasting your energy whining about something that "everyone does so it doesn't matter" (which they do and it doesn't), go right ahead.

 

[Purdue97]

It would seem that Republicans have taken the position in favor of election year confirmations several times just in this century alone, not to mention Reagan's plea in 1988.

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/st-ronnie-speaks-question-scotus

Why is this time REALLY different? Did Scalia pick the wrong year to die? What happens if, God forbid, another justices passes away this year. Should we then let the president who will be elected in 2020 make that call so the 2016 president-elect won't have too much influence? Where does this end?

What would Scalia himself say about this, being the constitutional originalist that he claimed to be? The constitution doesn't say to delay the appointment in cases like this, right?

"The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted." A. Scalia

The hearing was held in 87. The vote was held in 88. That was different.

What would Scalia say? Likely nominate someone, then the vote should be held in the Senate.

That said, it was the President himself who voted and wanted to fillibuster Alito and voted against both Alito and Roberts. It was the Democratic Party that offered and went with 18 months before a new Presidential Election no new judges should be heard/voted on. Well, like it or not, he created a lot of this rancor.

 

[Purdue97]

Yes it's always totally different... Like how Presidents only have three year terms not four...you wanna talk unprecedented? Having 300+ days without a confirmation. But hey if the pubs want to wait and get a more liberal justice while mostly dem-favored lower court cases stand 4-4 no skin off my nose.

-You might want to check that time period stance.

-And Obama basically stated by correcting a reporter today about his stance on if a nominee will be moderate or not. The reporter mentioned a moderate and Obama could not say I never said that fast enough. At least he finally came out on his true colors.

 

[qazplm]

-You might want to check that time period stance.

-And Obama basically stated by correcting a reporter today about his stance on if a nominee will be moderate or not. The reporter mentioned a moderate and Obama could not say I never said that fast enough. At least he finally came out on his true colors.

Yes, how dare he not select a moderate, like Scalia or Roberts or Alito or Thomas...

 

[Purdue97]

Yes, how dare he not select a moderate, like Scalia or Roberts or Alito or Thomas...

Roberts took a pretty liberal view a few times on allowing the ACA to stand. Independent. Poor example. Souter was a Republican nominee-good judge-pretty liberal. Scalia, at least his ruling were based on constitution. The other two I can give you-definitely conservative. That said, every nominee from a liberal President does little more than rubber stamp progressive political agenda. And that is an issue. Judges are not supposed to rubber stamp political issues which is what the left side of court does.

 

[qazplm]

Roberts took a pretty liberal view a few times on allowing the ACA to stand. Independent. Poor example. Souter was a Republican nominee-good judge-pretty liberal. Scalia, at least his ruling were based on constitution. The other two I can give you-definitely conservative. That said, every nominee from a liberal President does little more than rubber stamp progressive political agenda. And that is an issue. Judges are not supposed to rubber stamp political issues which is what the left side of court does.

lol so by your reading, if they aren't 100 percent conservative on everything, then they are "independent." Right got it...conservatives Presidents nominate a wide range, liberal Presidents just nominate left wing rubber stampers. lol

You're like the anti-Gr8. He overplays the everyone does everything exactly the same schtick, and you do the my team great, your team horrible schtick.

The correct answer is Presidents nominate folks that they THINK will put forward their view of how laws should be interpreted, and in the modern era that is a very binary view. That someone they select ends up not exactly voting as they intended does not mean they wanted an "independent" vice a conservative or liberal justice. Reagan wanted conservative judges, Bush wanted them (both of them), Clinton wanted liberal judges, Obama wants liberal judges...

See how that works?

 

[kescwi]

Who saw this coming? I always figured it would be Ginsberg who would pass away first. This is going to be a political firestorm nominating the next justice, especially with it being an election year. I heard Mitch McConnel say that Obama should let the next president nominate Scalia's replacement. I'm not sure why though, except for the obvious, political purposes.

IMO, the GOP might want to refigure that strategy though, if that's what they try to pursue, because if they don't win the White House and also lose the Senate this year, they will actually have more of a say in filling the vacancy now than they would if the election goes that way.

In the all or nothing political world we live in today, this one will be interesting. In reality civilized society happens only with conscious acceptance of opposing views and finding compromise solutions, once one side decides to stop being civil it ends quickly.

Think of the possibilities moving forward, this could get very ugly, again we all really allow this government out of consent and the laws that define that consent, this could become an event on par with the Civil War if it turns into the pure politics.

 

[Purdue97]

lol so by your reading, if they aren't 100 percent conservative on everything, then they are "independent." Right got it...conservatives Presidents nominate a wide range, liberal Presidents just nominate left wing rubber stampers. lol

You're like the anti-Gr8. He overplays the everyone does everything exactly the same schtick, and you do the my team great, your team horrible schtick.

The correct answer is Presidents nominate folks that they THINK will put forward their view of how laws should be interpreted, and in the modern era that is a very binary view. That someone they select ends up not exactly voting as they intended does not mean they wanted an "independent" vice a conservative or liberal justice. Reagan wanted conservative judges, Bush wanted them (both of them), Clinton wanted liberal judges, Obama wants liberal judges...

See how that works?

What I see is Republican President's nominees, through the examples I provided, put forth candidates that can and have voted on either side of an issue. Actually know the restraints of the constitution. Way to ignore the point. Yeah, I see how you do that quite often. And no, I am not aware of any Dem appointee that does anything but rubber stamp policy.

In no way do I do the my team great, your team horrible schtick, not sure where that came from. Projection on your part again. This does not even make sense. As of now, it was Obama who voted no for both Bush's Supreme Court Justices, wanted to fillibuster Alito, and had no issue with Schumer wanting to block judges 18 months out end of term. Republicans did not do that yet, and if they do, are simply returning the favor.

I think for Independent's such as myself, it is really a non issue as I realize that if Republican's just deny a vote or say no, it is something both sides do. So if anything, more like Gr8 in that sense.

What I think will happen: Obama will nominate someone, and it will get blocked/automatically voted no. Republicans then turn election into a 2nd Amendment referendum. Might work. Might not. What I think should happen, Obama will nominate someone, there should be a hearing, and a vote.

What I realize, and what is the right answer, is that if Supreme Court Justices do nothing more than rubber stamp policy, in some cases they have no right deciding, the country begins to fall apart much quicker. One can argue that is not even a Republic at that point.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

What is suspicious of the second most powerful political figure in the United States falling dead in his sleep without an autopsy? He is only the most important person in the Supreme Court going around to all the law schools in America giving speeches about how there is a foreign takeover of the country right now and that the Obama administration is a foreign coup d'etat. What is suspicious about that.

No Marshalls guarding him at a ranch owned by democratic former black ops commander assassin. Every other time just not when he wakes up with a pillow on his face. Body embalmed within 24 hours so no toxicology can be done or if done it is meaningless. President notified 2 hours before the public. Non medical personnel making the decision that it was natural causes. I mean what is suspicious about that 80% of the country thinks he was assassinated. Pillow over the face. Who needs air? Now CNN acts like it is a conspiracy theory to have an autopsy like it is unusual especially for powerful people in positions of power. Oh but don't worry we have a government so "paranoid" about things they naked body scan the entire country repeatedly every time they travel. But that same government says why do an autopsy when the most important judge in America falls dead at an assassins ranch. Only it is the public that is crazy for not kneeling nicely about it by asking questions by CNN attitude when they full well know he was assassinated.

 

[qazplm]

What I see is Republican President's nominees, through the examples I provided, put forth candidates that can and have voted on either side of an issue. Actually know the restraints of the constitution. Way to ignore the point. Yeah, I see how you do that quite often. And no, I am not aware of any Dem appointee that does anything but rubber stamp policy.

In no way do I do the my team great, your team horrible schtick, not sure where that came from. Projection on your part again. This does not even make sense. As of now, it was Obama who voted no for both Bush's Supreme Court Justices, wanted to fillibuster Alito, and had no issue with Schumer wanting to block judges 18 months out end of term. Republicans did not do that yet, and if they do, are simply returning the favor.

I think for Independent's such as myself, it is really a non issue as I realize that if Republican's just deny a vote or say no, it is something both sides do. So if anything, more like Gr8 in that sense.

What I think will happen: Obama will nominate someone, and it will get blocked/automatically voted no. Republicans then turn election into a 2nd Amendment referendum. Might work. Might not. What I think should happen, Obama will nominate someone, there should be a hearing, and a vote.

What I realize, and what is the right answer, is that if Supreme Court Justices do nothing more than rubber stamp policy, in some cases they have no right deciding, the country begins to fall apart much quicker. One can argue that is not even a Republic at that point.

lol right you are an independent about as much as I am.

 

[lbodel]

Sure we will see. I think an issue like this may just get Republican turnout higher-which is what is needed. 270 to win has some different numbers with Senate seats up for grabs, what is safe and what is not.

I think the 2nd Amendment is some of these states is pretty important, and that would be a litmus test type vote for a SCJ. CO, IL, NV, NH, and WI IMO would not have adverse reactions to a nominee blocked over gun/carrying rights.

I would just say that in 2007 Democrats I think it was Schumer stated they would not approve of any court nominees from Bush 18 months in advance. Not to mention Obama voted against both of Bush's nominations. Tough to say the Democrats have a leg to stand on.

There's obviously a lot of factors at play.

First off, who the presidential nominees are.

If Trump wins the nomination for example, the RNC may view holding the Senate as more important because they probably won't go gung ho for Trump (or think he'd win). If so, I doubt it will be held up.

Some Republicans have clearly backed off of what they initially said as numerous Republicans have gone back on their hard line (which they probably shouldn't have had a hard line to begin with - it makes it look like politics vs. having a legit stance).

My guess is Republicans will probably soften their tone knowing Obama will probably nominate a confirmable candidate and let it drag out a bit. They need to buy their time to see how the presidential race plays out.

Yes, it may "fire up" the base. But it can also fire up the liberal base. And I'm also guessing independents will not look too highly upon blocking it - especially if its a solid nominee.

 

[kescwi]

...My guess is Republicans will probably soften their tone knowing Obama will probably nominate a confirmable candidate and let it drag out a bit. They need to buy their time to see how the presidential race plays out...

That will probably be how it plays out, Obama will do what he is there for and nominate a nonthreatening judge who will have something unimportant in their past that will allow that person to be seen as "liberal." The Rep. then can jump up and down, piss and moan about the tyranny of Obama but the end not move the court one bit.

What if, however, the political theater goes haywire and this does in fact drag out until next year and another spot unexpectedly opens while the pols are doing their Medival Times jousting for their base. Then it will get real interesting as the big money and special interests would probably begin to clash with each other as they scramble for control.

 

[qazplm]

That will probably be how it plays out, Obama will do what he is there for and nominate a nonthreatening judge who will have something unimportant in their past that will allow that person to be seen as "liberal." The Rep. then can jump up and down, piss and moan about the tyranny of Obama but the end not move the court one bit.

What if, however, the political theater goes haywire and this does in fact drag out until next year and another spot unexpectedly opens while the pols are doing their Medival Times jousting for their base. Then it will get real interesting as the big money and special interests would probably begin to clash with each other as they scramble for control.

I hope it drags out:

1. I firmly believe a Dem wins in Nov and we get a Dem Senate, so please proceed Republicans because what you will get out of the next President is way more likely to be way more liberal than what you are going to get now if you play ball.

2. Obama does his job, Senate doesn't do theirs, and all those vulnerable Republicans up for reelection will have to explain why, and some of them aren't going to be able to.

3. Most of the lower court decisions this term favor Dems/liberals...a 4-4 decision maintains those cases so that makes it a no lose proposition in most cases.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think for Independent's such as myself, it is really a non issue as I realize that if Republican's just deny a vote or say no, it is something both sides do. So if anything, more like Gr8 in that sense.

I don't believe blocking a vote just cuz is something both sides do. That would be idiotic. What both sides do is TALK about blocking votes and filibusters, etc. No, the Republicans should absolutely review and vote on whomever Obama nominates. In fact, they are obligated to do so, in my opinion. If they want to deny the nomination for valid reasons of ideological differences, etc., then I have no problem with that.