6 ms·

I'm guessing they nominate Obama in the tradition of Taft. In an election year that conservatives are expected to sweep, Manchin/Sinema voters could be upset i

I'm guessing they nominate Obama in the tradition of Taft. In an election year that conservatives are expected to sweep, Manchin/Sinema voters could be upset if their representatives lose them the ability to seat a justice of their choice. It is my belief that Obama is the only nominee that would have widely bipartisan unconditional support.

meepmorp 5y ago
> It is my belief that Obama is the only nominee that would have widely bipartisan unconditional support. The last decade has destroyed my sense of irony, so I really don’t known if you’re being serious or not.
JadeNB 5y ago
> It is my belief that Obama is the only nominee that would have widely bipartisan unconditional support. I think it is impossible after having lived through the Obama administration to think that Obama would get bipartisan support. (EDIT: It turns out @meepmorp said the same more pithily: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30088921#30089293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30088921#30089293 .) For that matter, obstructionist opposition is not about the nominee; it's believable that the GOP would have refused to seat Kavanaugh or ACB, if they had been nominated by Obama.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
awb 5y ago
Um, I remember McConnell overtly saying they would stop at nothing to block Obama’s agenda. Sure, Obama might get 50+% support from voters, but it’s not a popular vote and no single Republican Senator would vote to confirm him, McConnell would make sure of it. He’s made a career out of trying to stop Obama. Plus, Obama’s entire presidency would be used to show political bias. With an unknown judge name, there’s a slight veneer of impartiality. With a past President, there isn’t.
- AaronM 5y ago
  There is likely very few people, short of the names on the federalists list, that the Republican party, and McConnell would willingly vote for. Compromise in this country is dead, except for the raising the debt ceiling and increased military spending.
- yucky 5y ago
  >I remember McConnell overtly saying they would stop at nothing to block Obama’s agenda. For sure, but did you see Democrats do anything different with Trump's agenda? They fought him just as hard or harder than Republicans fought Obama. Nobody gets a pass in my opinion.
  - JadeNB 5y ago
    > For sure, but did you see Democrats do anything different with Trump's agenda? They fought him just as hard or harder than Republicans fought Obama. Nobody gets a pass in my opinion. I believe that the difference is that some in the Republican party—McConnell, for example—explicitly advanced the position "whatever Obama does, we will oppose." Whereas I am aware of no mainstream Democratic politician who stated a blanket opposition to anything Trump might do; it just happened that they very often disagreed with him on the things he did do. I think bad-faith accusations come from opposing a person's positions ad hominem, because of who holds them, rather than from simply disagreeing, even consistently, passionately, and vociferously, with many or all of the positions that a person happens to hold.
    - yucky 5y ago
      >Whereas I am aware of no mainstream Democratic politician who stated a blanket opposition to anything Trump might do They literally tried to impeach him before he took office. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trum...
      - JadeNB 5y ago
        This is the sort of thing where argument is probably fruitless, but they didn't try to impeach him for being Donald Trump, which is what I mean by an ad hominem attack. Rather, they (for some values of ’they’; this position was signally not taken by, to reach for the Democrat in what seems to be an analogous position to McConnell, Pelosi) talked about impeaching him, but in fact did not impeach him before he held office, for something he'd done—or, rather not done, namely, for his failure to resolve certain conflicts of interest that, according to a reasonable legal theory, made him ineligible to hold office. Notice that the Wikipedia article you cite itself cites two sources for the claim of talk of impeachment before election, and, as far as I can tell, neither of these quotes any Democrat by name as calling for impeachment before he held office. This is, again, a far cry from McConnell, who very much went on record from his leadership position as opposing anything Obama might do; and, for that matter, from the Republicans who, on the record, called for Biden's impeachment before he held office.
CameronNemo 5y ago
Obama is already 60. They will probably go for someone younger. Amy Coney Barrett is 49, for example.
- tharne 5y ago
  > Obama is already 60. They will probably go for someone younger. 100%. Ever since O'Connor they've been leaning heavily toward younger nominees.

meepmorp 5y ago

> It is my belief that Obama is the only nominee that would have widely bipartisan unconditional support. The last decade has destroyed my sense of irony, so I really don’t known if you’re being serious or not.

JadeNB 5y ago

> It is my belief that Obama is the only nominee that would have widely bipartisan unconditional support. I think it is impossible after having lived through the Obama administration to think that Obama would get bipartisan support. (EDIT: It turns out @meepmorp said the same more pithily: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30088921#30089293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30088921#30089293 .) For that matter, obstructionist opposition is not about the nominee; it's believable that the GOP would have refused to seat Kavanaugh or ACB, if they had been nominated by Obama.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

awb 5y ago

Um, I remember McConnell overtly saying they would stop at nothing to block Obama’s agenda. Sure, Obama might get 50+% support from voters, but it’s not a popular vote and no single Republican Senator would vote to confirm him, McConnell would make sure of it. He’s made a career out of trying to stop Obama. Plus, Obama’s entire presidency would be used to show political bias. With an unknown judge name, there’s a slight veneer of impartiality. With a past President, there isn’t.

AaronM 5y ago
There is likely very few people, short of the names on the federalists list, that the Republican party, and McConnell would willingly vote for. Compromise in this country is dead, except for the raising the debt ceiling and increased military spending.
yucky 5y ago
>I remember McConnell overtly saying they would stop at nothing to block Obama’s agenda. For sure, but did you see Democrats do anything different with Trump's agenda? They fought him just as hard or harder than Republicans fought Obama. Nobody gets a pass in my opinion.
- JadeNB 5y ago
  > For sure, but did you see Democrats do anything different with Trump's agenda? They fought him just as hard or harder than Republicans fought Obama. Nobody gets a pass in my opinion. I believe that the difference is that some in the Republican party—McConnell, for example—explicitly advanced the position "whatever Obama does, we will oppose." Whereas I am aware of no mainstream Democratic politician who stated a blanket opposition to anything Trump might do; it just happened that they very often disagreed with him on the things he did do. I think bad-faith accusations come from opposing a person's positions ad hominem, because of who holds them, rather than from simply disagreeing, even consistently, passionately, and vociferously, with many or all of the positions that a person happens to hold.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >Whereas I am aware of no mainstream Democratic politician who stated a blanket opposition to anything Trump might do They literally tried to impeach him before he took office. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trum...
    - JadeNB 5y ago
      This is the sort of thing where argument is probably fruitless, but they didn't try to impeach him for being Donald Trump, which is what I mean by an ad hominem attack. Rather, they (for some values of ’they’; this position was signally not taken by, to reach for the Democrat in what seems to be an analogous position to McConnell, Pelosi) talked about impeaching him, but in fact did not impeach him before he held office, for something he'd done—or, rather not done, namely, for his failure to resolve certain conflicts of interest that, according to a reasonable legal theory, made him ineligible to hold office. Notice that the Wikipedia article you cite itself cites two sources for the claim of talk of impeachment before election, and, as far as I can tell, neither of these quotes any Democrat by name as calling for impeachment before he held office. This is, again, a far cry from McConnell, who very much went on record from his leadership position as opposing anything Obama might do; and, for that matter, from the Republicans who, on the record, called for Biden's impeachment before he held office.

CameronNemo 5y ago

Obama is already 60. They will probably go for someone younger. Amy Coney Barrett is 49, for example.

tharne 5y ago
> Obama is already 60. They will probably go for someone younger. 100%. Ever since O'Connor they've been leaning heavily toward younger nominees.