This is why a lot of people are turned off by politics. So when does a second term President become "lame duck"? What a joke. Make shiet up that sounds right. If the GOP delays no matter who the nominee is, I hope Obama rallies his peeps for Bernie Sanders.
Elected officials have the power to do what they see fit, within the bounds of the law. The GOP Senators have the power to not approve anyone that Obama nominates for whatever reason. It is only a question whether there will be any electoral consequences. In this case, I wonder if the GOP Senate is kind of screwed either way. If they approve any of Obama's nominees, even a moderate that in any other situation would have been an easy approval (like Kelly and Srinivasan, who were approved for their Circuit Court positions by 96-0, 97-0 votes), they'll anger the GOP base who are already grumbling about Senate GOP. If they disapprove of such reasonable nominees, they hand Democrats the weapons to rally their voters.
In the case of life-time appointments, the death of a Supreme Court justice has important political consequences and is a matter of political discussion. The passing triggers a vacancy, which the President can now nominate and fill subject to a Senate vote. The result of this process, however it plays out, makes a difference to the direction of the country for many years to come, likely even decades. If we want to lower the amount of "grave dancing" in the event of any political official (regardless of the party & ideology), we probably should do away with lifetime appointments. There doesn't need to be an immediate political reaction when, for example, Ronald Reagan, passed because he no longer held a political office at that time.
It's an issue that is likely to rally support from both sides. When the Republicans took control of the house and senate, they did so running largely on stopping things Obama wanted. I'm not sure preventing the Supreme Court from swaying sharply to the left is something that would cost them votes. Those who would support the court swaying hard to the left wouldn't support a Republican anyway.
No need to go excusing your thoughts. You do not ask for compromise. You want him to act like a Republican by nominating a Conservative or none at all. Of course, when Obama nominate a liberal or a moderate and his choice doesn't get nominated, you will blame it on Obama for not compromising. This is well in line with you always placing the blame on Obama in the face of clearly stated and actions of obstructions during Obama's presidency. At least McConnell is honest. He just will not bring up a vote. Simple as that. He is well aware that it's a non starter to ask Obama to nominate a Conservative.
The GOP won the mid-term elections, which have relatively low turnouts and an older electorate-- and older people tend to vote more often in all elections. If I remember the numbers right, it's not so much that more GOP voters turned out, it's that fewer Democratic voters turned out in these mid-term elections. Younger voters tend not to pay attention to elections as much in those lower-profile years. This year, a number of Democratic voters also may not be super-motivated to vote for Hillary because of her rather centrist positions and ties to Wall Street. However, having an ACTUAL, as oppose to hypothetical (though likely) Supreme Court vacancy will probably focus the attention of these Democratic voters. I think this is true to a greater extent than it is for the GOP electorate, who tend to contain more frequent/likely voters anyway.
Look, it's okay if you don't understand how these things work, I'm not really expecting everyone to. When you are in the last year of your presidency and you need approval by the opposition party to get something done, you either propose something they'd find acceptable or you are just wasting everyone's time. Reagan nominated a left leaning moderate in 87 for the Democrat controlled Congress to approve for just this reason, but somehow now it's crazy to think that Obama would need to do something similar in a similar situation. If Obama happens to do the right thing by some miracle, it'll lead to a vote, if he doesn't do the right thing, it possibly won't lead to a vote. It's pretty obvious to most but feel free to whine and cry about "obstruction" as if it will further your political goals. Those Senators and Congressmen got elected for just that kind of thing in this instance. Obama inherited a Democrat controlled congress and did all he could to turn it into a Republican controlled congress and elections have consequences.
That's possible, but the groups that came out in large numbers for Obama in those two elections can't really be counted on to show up just because of an opening in the SC. They are super unreliable voters and I just don't think the supreme court is a "sexy" enough issue to get them to show up. They should stick to hiking the minimum wage to 20 bucks an hour or whatever and legalizing weed, that's what will motivate those kinds of voters.
Did Obama ever promote legalizing weed or a substantial hike in minimum wage? I don't recall these being the major issues in either 2008 or 2012 when he beat McCain and Romney. I think the Supreme Court is going to be plenty "sexy" when considering all the substantial changes that it has made, and can made, to issues such as reproductive rights, campaign finance, Obamacare, etc.
It is possible to mourn a man while celebrating the dimming of his ideas. Democratic discourse at its highest levels demands that of us. From all accounts, Justice Scalia was a witty man who loved life to its fullest. He will be missed by many people, and I hope everybody that loved him finds peace in their own way. I hope he rests in peace. With that said, respect for his death does not mean one should automatically respect his ideas. Justice Scalia stood for a rigid interpretation of the Constitution that bordered on fundamentalism when it came to justifying regressive beliefs--while often switching his views when it was politically expedient, such as when he carved out entire sections of the Voting Rights Act. His ideas are the last remnant of the link to the disaster that was the legal and economic reasoning of the Reagan Administration. I will openly celebrate the fact that it is likely whoever gets nominated in his stead will be more pragmatic and more data-driven, and less ideological. America is a worse place today because a man who dedicated his life to studying its ideals has died. But America will be a better place tomorrow because ideas like the one Scalia held will eventually fade. America and the Constitution are strong because the founders made pragmatism for the future their sacred principle. America is strong because the Constitution and its interpretation changes. Regulations are meant to be extensions of laws, laws are meant to embody the spirit of a nation: and what has always made America beautiful has been her willingness to live in the future.
Sympathy to Scalia's family and friends including the rest of court. From everything I've heard about him he was very warm, funny and personable and his long friendship with fellow justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg showed that. I didn't agree with him often but he was one of the great intellects of the last half century. Now onto the appointment fight. Obama absolutely should appoint someone else to the USSC. He was elected to a full term and is within his presidential prerogative to appoint who he wants to the court up to the moment the new president is sworn in. I would even say it would be a dereliction of his duty if he didn't nominate someone with almost a year before he leaves office. The Senate also has the prerogative to not approve his nominee and I agree with the posters who say that at this point the Senate Republicans probably don't see much political gain in approving one. Ted Cruz said this morning that he is going to filibuster any nominee. Moves like that will certainly appease the GOP base and especially in the primaries I think when it comes to the general though things will change. In low voter turnout midterm elections the GOP has done well playing strongly to their base in the last 20 years that hasn't worked out so well in all but one of the presidential elections. If they drag this issue out to the general it's gong to be questionable whether enough conservative base will turn out galvanized by this when this will also likely energize the liberal base while also playing to moderates who already view the GOP as a party of obstruction more interested in wedge social issues than governing.
I find it really interesting how you have conservative posters crying that Obama never compromised with Republicans and just rammed things down their throats while Liberals in the Feel the Bern thread are crying that Obama compromised too much with the Republicans and didn't negotiate with the left wing.
The novelty of getting to vote for the charismatic black man was the issue that rallied support to the polls in those elections.....in fact there were very few actual issues on the table during the first election but it didn't matter. Without Obama on the ballot, they need something to take his place if they want that demographic to keep coming out in record numbers....which is what the Democrats would need in an election against a non Trump Republican candidate.
Well, that's because those on the fringes of the extreme left viewed Obama compromising with moderate Democrats as compromising with Republicans.
While I respected Scalia's intellect there were a few times he did sell out his own principles for ideological expediency. Most of this opinions while I disagreed with him I could understand where he was coming from and was even entertained by his wit in them. He still sold that out though in Bush V Gore. Where he embraced a view of equal protection that went against views that he himself had opposed while overruling precedent for a result that further the party he wanted. Further a ruling that he should've recused himself from since members of his family were working for the Bush campaign. To me that greatly diminished any sense of consistency to principle that he prized.
As opposed to conservatives who from the start have completely opposed Obama to the point that even proposals that any outreach from him was dismissed. Conservatives have a very funny idea of negotiation. It's put out as unless it is exactly what we want, that means you aren't compromising. That isn't how negotiation works. In this very thread your own argument that unless Obama puts out a nominee that is palatable to the GOP Senate he isn't doing his duty. Have you considered that maybe if the GOP Senate doesn't approve a nominee from the sitting president they aren't doing their duty?
Under your theory, the easy solution is for the Democratic Presidential nominee to promise to nominate a charismatic black man, Barack Obama, to the Supreme Court vacancy if elected.
They've opposed proposals that were non-starters. There is no "compromise" on an issue that is a non-starter. As to what I said, he's wasting his time unless he puts out a nominee that is palatable to the GOP Senate which means no Justice would be confirmed and that would be his failure. Obama needs the GOP Senate to get a justice confirmed, the GOP Senate doesn't need Obama, they can merely wait him out, use the pending SC nomination in the election and put through a hard right candidate after a Republican wins the presidency. Pushing back against Obama is what got the GOP House and Senate elected in the first place, if Obama doesn't play ball, they can double down on it. Obama has been REALLY good when it comes to getting Republicans elected.
Well that would certainly be an interesting turn and would create a super polarizing election that would probably have a high turnout for both parties.
