9 ms·
This will likely result in a major political shift of the court. Even if Obama places a staunch centrist, it will be a net left swing, as Scalia was perhaps the
by liquidise 11y ago
This will likely result in a major political shift of the court. Even if Obama places a staunch centrist, it will be a net left swing, as Scalia was perhaps the second most conservative justice beside Thomas.
There have been a great deal of 5-4 decisions since Sotomayor's nomination that in the future could easily fall the other way.
- fennecfoxen 11y agoIt would be interesting of Obama did nominate a staunch centrist right out of the gate, as a gambit to get in a new justice confirmed before the likes of Donald Trump gets to make a nomination.
- aioprisan 11y agoThat's not possible, since a senate confirmation this close to elections is likely to just be punted on for a year.
- fennecfoxen 11y agoWell, consider: You're a Senate Republican. Obama nominates a guy who is certainly no Scalia but legitimately isn't the worst. You can hold out and hope that a Republican gets elected, but there's a good chance that'll be Donald Trump, and what kind of a judge is that weirdo going to nominate? You hate that guy and think he's a blemish to the name of the Republican party. Also, there's still a real risk Hilary/Sanders will win instead. AND you can expect to face more than half the media harassing you over any delay. In fact, the harassment has already begun today, Feb 13. So a real compromise candidate might be possible. It'd likely depend on Obama and the senate Democrats as well, though.
- lotharbot 11y ago> "there's a good chance that'll be Donald Trump" it's actually pretty unlikely. Fivethirtyeight has a bunch of good articles about this, but the simplest piece of information pointing to it: Trump is intensely disliked by about 60% of the voting public. He's got a vocal and enthusiastic following, but once you go outside that bubble, he simply doesn't have room to grow. I voted for Bush twice, McCain, and Romney, and I'll vote for either Hillary or Bernie (two candidates I can't stand) over Trump, and I'm far from alone.
- protomyth 11y agoTrump said he'd nominate his sister. I doubt he'll get the nod, and I doubt we'll see anything until after the election since it will energize both sides. It's too good a fund raising tool for red and blue to pass up.
- JohnBooty 11y agoI hope you're right. And really, a "compromise candidate" is more or less what representative democracy ought to look like in practice anyway.
- themartorana 11y agoObama barely got the ACA through the Court, and that was by a breath. He would not give up the opportunity to make sure it's never that hard again.
- tptacek 11y agoI don't follow. It doesn't matter how much Obama wants to replace Scalia (I'm sure: a lot). He can't. The Senate must consent to his nomination, and is entitled to advise it. And advise it they have: they've decided it should be an issue for the election this year, and the voters should decide.
- CWuestefeld 11y agoWhich is really a shame. With the entire lot of candidates on both sides ranging from bad to awful, it seems likely to me that this will be one of, if not the, deciding issue in the election. That's bad, because it will perpetuate party politics. No matter how much people dislike the candidate nominated by their party, they'll think they've got no recourse but to vote for him/her lest they lose the Court. All the Republicans I know who say they'll vote for Clinton before they'd vote for Trump - and there are plenty of those - won't follow through. The chance we might have had for an olive branch, reaching out of the viper pit of party politics, is now gone.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoIt was always going to be, now it's just become apparent to those who don't pay attention. Next POTUS will nominate a replacement for Notorious RBG as well. This is probably the most important Presidential election in a long time.
- tptacek 11y agoMaybe, because Kennedy is getting old (and Kennedy is probably the most important justice on the current court), and so the next President might get 3 seats to fill. But if it's just RBG and Scalia, that'll be the same number Obama, Bush 2, and Clinton got.
- rpgmaker 11y agoMcConnell already said that Obama should wait for the next POTUS: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/269389-mcconnell-dont-replace-scalia-until-after-election http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/269389-mcconnell-dont-rep...
- lightlyused 11y agoMcConnell is a racist and doesn't like Obama.
- fixxer 11y agoThis is how you get hellbanned.
- chillwaves 11y agoHe really does need to back up that second assertion.
- fixxer 11y agoDoesn't support progressive politics != Racist. Such a tired meme. Whenever a lefty plays that card in discussions, I know I've won the argument.
- chillwaves 11y agoAre you responding to the right person?
- otterley 11y agoWhich, I'm sure, McConnell himself would do if he were a sitting President.
- mikeyouse 11y agoThere's a precedent to replace 'like with like', so knowing that Scalia was very right-leaning, (if he gets the chance) Obama will very likely nominate a centrist, if not a right-leaning one. At least that seemed to previously be the case... In this new world of scorched earth politics, who knows.. Edit; My guess for nomination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan He's a Stanford guy, Indian, already sailed through the Senate for a DC Court of Appeals position, disliked by Unions, and by all accounts a brilliant legal mind. He's successfully represented corporate clients (e.g. Skilling in Skilling vs. USA) and had a successful career in the private world. This somewhat contradicts my first paragraph, but he's definitely to the right of Kagan or Sotamayor.
- gyardley 11y agoWhile there is a tendency to replace like with like, that's because Supreme Court justices usually time their retirements to coincide with presidencies that share their views. In this case, I doubt it applies. In theory Obama could pick a nominee closer to the center to avoid a tiresome confirmation battle, but I suspect there's a bigger bang for the buck in nominating fairly left-wing candidates and making the Republican Senate choose between looking obstructionist to the general public or looking weak to their base.
- nindalf 11y ago> looking obstructionist to the general public Could you explain why this might cost the Republicans votes? Their core voters would absolutely love them standing up to the "tyranny" of Obama. Even independent/undecided voters would understand that its reasonable enough to postpone considering how close the Presidential election is. To be clear, I think it would be best to have it completed within 3 months, like the previous 10 nominations to the court but I don't think it will cost the Republicans at all to postpone it till next year.
- newjersey 11y agoIt can be a good call to arms for the Democrats though. If the nomination is withheld long enough, lobbies like EMILY's list will get more donations and will raise more noise. and rightly so because more is at stake.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- barney54 11y agoSenator McConnell has announced that the Senate won't take up a Supreme Court nomination this year. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg
- dlandis 11y agoThat's not really what that quote says. It sounds more like he is expressing an opinion about what should happen.
- tptacek 11y agoHe's the Senate Majority Leader and the official spokesperson for Republicans in the Senate. The fact that he said it right away, after two GOP Senators who are also viable Presidential candidates said it as well, is a pretty strong indication of what's going to happen.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoPoint of Inquiry, Is there a parliamentarian in the house? There may be one or more ways to force McConnell's hand.
- pvg 11y agoThe president can use a recess appointment. It would probably end up looking worse than blocking a nomination for 11 months so it seems unlikely, if technically possible.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y agoWhat's Obama got to lose?
- waterlesscloud 11y agoA recess appointment would make it an ironclad certainty that a Republican would be elected president. It would make enough voters, including moderates, angry enough that a Democrat would stand no chance.
- MaysonL 11y agoIt will be interesting to see whether the Republicans will be as obstructionist to an Obama SCOTUS appointment as they have been to almost everthing else he proposes.
- 13thLetter 11y agoWhy, it's almost as if they are a different political party altogether!
- MaysonL 11y agoWhat the fuck ever happened to good old-fashioned bipartisan horse-trading?
- 13thLetter 11y agoWent out the door with Tip O'Neill, apparently. :(