He doesn't need to be a Republican, he needs to nominate someone that Republicans approve of....because he helped get them elected. He inherited a Democrat controlled congress and he got them voted out of congress in favor of Republicans who ran on going against the president. if the people hadn't elected so many people based on promises to push back against the presidents wishes, he could push through whatever justice he wanted.
Time for two whole separate nominations. Block them stubbornly and you lose the election. Let them through and you lose the court. Ya'll are absolutely screwed.
LOL you really think that blocking nominations would cause one to lose the election? Blocking Obama is what caused the Republicans to take back the House and Senate. Hell keep the potential SC nomination on the table during the election would REALLY rally the base to come out and vote. Allowing a left of center justice to be put on the SC in Scalia's place would almost certainly cause the Republicans to lose votes....could even lead to them losing the house. There is no incentive to accepting any nomination from the president unless they are right of center.
I think that would be the point. Lifetime appointments are a terrible idea. Leads to nominating younger ideologues who will literally hold on until the cold hand of death pries them away, well after society has passed them by, see Scalia, Antonin.
Are the GOP aware that Obama could make a recess appointment? Perhaps he could threaten to appoint a truly far left judge to the court during the current recess unless the GOP agrees publicly to a fair appointment process. In return, he agrees to appoint a more moderate justice that has already been previously approved for a lower court.
The Senate is not looking good for the Repubs in this cycle. If Repubs try to mount a minority filibuster after stalling the rest of Obama's term, I suspect the 2017 Dem Senate will go full nuclear option over an SC nominee that will switch a 5-4 conservative court to a 5-4 liberal court. So, an Obama nominee or a Clinton nominee? Which will Repubs choose? I suspect they will put off the reckoning as long as they can even it results in their worst case scenario. On the other hand, with the balance of the SC hanging, the thinking could be that it will be enough to fire up the Conservative base so they overlook the shortcomings and demagoguery of a Trump or Cruz and thus squeak out a Repub Presidential win. Of course, that's a double-edged sword because the Dem side will also be fired up beyond belief as well. What happens with this nomination and the presidential election over the next year will shape the country and the world (climate change) for the next half-century and probably beyond. Dems look to have a structural advantage, but the desperation of Repubs will get amped up to the max, so be wary of anyone trying to make absolute predictions beyond this one: The stakes could not be higher.
Lol. I've never seen a person this delusional. The incentive will be congress doing its job and not grossly abusing their own power by stalling an entire branch of the government for 12 months. If this galvanizes the republican base, then this just proves how crazy and insane the Republican Party and its supporters are.
Rejecting a nominee they don't believe to be in the best interest of the country IS doing they job and it's not abusing power. If the president doesn't nominate a justice those in congress can support, they have a responsibility to reject it. It's the reason why we require congressional approval.
I have no issue with the Republicans holding hearings and scheduling an up/down vote on the issues. However, stalling nominees in committee and not even allowing the issue to come to a vote seems to me the antithesis of Congress doing its job as a legislative body; there's already talk of just that action. I also think that the optics of stalling a nomination would be bad on Republicans. Now the optics of voting down a Pres. Obama nominee? That's a different story that has yet to be written, and I'm not sure how that would play out. I know that the election just got supercharged though - this is going to be _the_ issue of the election now.
I agree that stalling tactics are BS, I was suggesting that they would or should simply vote down any nominee that they deem unacceptable. I think they could spin either action into something their base would approve of and they have enough votes for it.
It is going to be interesting to see who the nominee end up being. The Senate has the power to obstruct, of course, but they have to accept the impression that they create. Who knows how things will work out, but it is certainly interesting to watch.
Any Republican should be embarrassed for the people that represent your party. They are so much about defending the Constitution and doing the right thing- yet, they actually have the audacity to suggest to President Obama that he not do his job- the audacity of these idiots is amazing. Sore ****ing losers- the Supreme Court Justice that died happened to have been conservative- well, tough ****, that's the way it goes. It's one thing for them to reject Obama's appointment- which they are allowed to do- but to say that the President shouldn't do his duty?? Oh, what a bunch of Constitutionalists they are- utterly hilarious in its level of patheticness.
a lame Duck President. . . . who is a constitutional lawyer Whose party more than likely will win the white house hhhhhmmmmmmmmm Maybe they should wait until the next President Maybe we have an idea who the next president should nominate to the Supreme Court Rocket River
He's lame duck. There's a reason why an SCOTUS confirmation hasn't occurred in 80 years during an election year.
