4 ms·
First, Supreme Court Justices are pretty much inscrutable as far as their jurisprudence before they join the bench (see: just about any justice in modern histor
by lawpoop 10y ago
First, Supreme Court Justices are pretty much inscrutable as far as their jurisprudence before they join the bench (see: just about any justice in modern history). Knowing anything about the president's political leanings tells us next to nothing about how their nominees will decide cases, beyond knowing the nominee themself.
Second, as soon as Trump and Clinton are locked in (after the conventions), the Republicans will cave on Merrick Garland, rather than have Clinton nominate someone. The next Supreme Court justice is Merrick Garland, an Obama nominee.
- pessimizer 10y agoThis is a possibility, but if they don't cave, Clinton is not putting in Merrick Garland. And I don't know that Merrick Garland has any sympathy for Scalia's argument. This is a case where the more liberal justices tended towards an anti-fourth argument as long as the surveillance was done in a public place, and neither Obama nor Clinton have shown themselves to have a problem with universal surveillance that I'm aware of, in any case, ever.
- lawpoop 10y agoThere's no reason they won't cave. McConnell even put forth Garland as a nominee they'd like to see from Obama, even though "he'd never nominate him". I was going to say this is the devil they know, but in this case, it's actually the devil they've wanted.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago> There's no reason they won't cave. Before the election, sure there is. The optimal course would be to wait until the elections happen (or at least until polling shows a clear advantage one way or another), then either approve Garland or refuse until Trump is inaugurated.