If he put forth a right leaning nominee they would be confirmed.....but people know that won't happen. Since he's not going to do that, they'll oppose anyone he puts forward because duh.....but go ahead and act like if the situation was reversed it would be any different. The mindless hypocrisy gets annoying after a while.
Why in the bloody hell would a two term Democratic President, and recognized Constitutional scholar do that? I mean why would you even face the arduous task of running, and survive the stress of serving if you were just going to regress the State of the Court? Sh** man, this is the political fight worth taking to the mat. This is the legacy maker. (it could set up a revisit to unlimited campaign donations) And the thing is it might not have to yield a Justice, it might just have to concern people enough to end the delusion. Not yours of course, not Texans either but this populism thing is bringing out voters, the anti-tea party if you will. (and matter and anti-matter cancel each other out). Sam, you should have a lot more to say on this topic. I want Matt Taibbi all up in the process too.
If he doesn't, then he won't get any say in who is the next justice AND he'll motivate conservatives to get to the polls and that will likely lead to a very conservative justice being put on the bench. His options are right leaning moderate, or outright right winger in a year. When it comes to rallying the liberal vote, this isn't really giving anything away for "free" so it's very unlikely that the boring old supreme court would get those kinds of voters out....at least not in the numbers of "THEY GON TAKE AWAY MY GUNZ" voters will get out. If he's smart, he nominates someone that the Republicans approve of, if he's not, he makes this an issue in the general election that will doom his party and lead to a conservative justice.
Could be, but are there more right-wingers to motivate than the number FAUX has been horse-whipping for 8 years? We know there is an untapped horde of youth that have not voted since 2008. It will be great to see what the guys with the big brains strategize. I's say I'd go moderate left, like the President, and fight it out. I'm 90% sure we will have a Democratic President elect, so then I'd appoint Obama. And just keep hammering the message, these guys owned against the public interest, we cam work together to do better for people. I'd go without 9 on the court until the 2018 votes. We would probably get some decent wins with 8.
Except no one outside of the President's inner circle knows who he is going to nominate. You're again relying on speculation as though it were fact. You don't seem to have a very good understanding of what motivates the other side. There are many issues before the USSC that Liberals care about and the possibility of another Citizens United, more restrictions on abortion, and more permissive government surveillance are going to get liberals fired up.
The numbers from the last 20 years show that the GOP base is shrinking. They've done poorly in high turnout presidential elections even while they've been winning low turnout mid term elections with turnouts under 40%. I'm sure a USSC appointment battle will motivate their base but it will also motivate the other side. I'm not sure there is enough GOP base to counter a large Dem turnout.
Again, he could shock the world and nominate a center right candidate, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Since he's not going to do that, no one will be confirmed. Simple as that. Yeah, I could see them going the route of scaring people into thinking that they are about to lose their abortions, but I'm just not sure how effective that would be given that the current SC wasn't going to do that and there's no chance anyone as conservative as Scalia would be placed on the bench. Just about no matter what, the court is going to get more liberal, so that "They're gonna take yer abortions" talk might not work. The real danger is that the court swings to far to the left which is why it is likely to motivate the right more than the left. No matter what it's going to be crazy because of who the candidates for president are. You have a Socialist and a criminal (who shouldn't be eligible to be president) running for one party's nomination and a completely delusional megalomaniac billionaire, a Canadian (who shouldn't be eligible to be president), and Marco Rubio running for the other party's nomination. There's not many of those candidates for president that any party is going to seriously be able to get behind.
The one advantage that Obama has is that he gets to make the first move in this situation and the Senate has to react to whoever he nominates (approve, disapprove, or stall). I'm sure there are guys working for the White House (and the Democratic Party, and probably the Bernie and Hillary campaigns) armed with research and poll data trying to figure out which candidate would result in the maximum electoral/PR benefit. Yeah, there just seems to be more of the "untapped voters" on the Democratic side, given the low-turnout/high-turnout dynamics of the past few elections. If the Democrats can say "if Hillary (or Bernie) doesn't get in, [this thing you like] is gonna get taken away for a generation because of the Scalia replacement", it should motivate people who are not necessarily big on Hillary or Bernie to turn out.
I thought about it for a couple of days and I decided I really don't care if it's a liberal or a conservative that gets appointed. I have a lot of respect for a number of the liberal and conservatives on the current lineup. I am somewhat concerned, though, that a President Trump or Cruz or Clinton would not be as wise and discerning in picking their liberals or conservatives as many of their predecessors have been. But, will it move Roe v Wade or Citizens' United or whatever other pet decision people want to overturn? I'm happy to let those come out as they may. I do think Obama has a bit of a gambit to play, though. He can choose a fairly conservative liberal and let the Republicans gamble. They can take the more-palatable nominee now, or wait to see if they win the presidency -- if they win, they can get a real conservative, but if they lose, they'll by forced to take a much, much more liberal candidate.
Interesting point in the second paragraph. Will be interesting to see what President Obama decides to do.
you might as well nominate this person that graduated last in his law class at southern university 2007. donald trump president palin VP and this guy:
Even if Obama elected a conservative judge, the Republicans would rejected it. This isn't about WHO Obama selects, it is only about WHOM is doing the selecting. Republicans are so backed into a corner that they can not concede anything that might look like a victory to the left or face massive backlash from within their own party. They have been radicalized to the point that any kind of cooperation is poisonous unless it looks like a total victory. They are trapped in their own minefield they have created.
The whole process is moronic. No, of course the sitting president with 10% of his total term remaining (20%+ of this term ... The mandate he was given most currently) shouldn't nominate a replacement. Of course not! In fact I say if half the term has passed that dude should really just be on vacation the rest of the time. lol. What a moronic process and dumb ass debate. The Supreme Court is in need of a nominee. The President should make such nomination and that nomination should be given fair shake.
i could not have said it better. how much longer does this 2 party system need to go on before it runs its course? in my opinion the republicans do more idiotic things, but the democrats are far Far from immune. perhaps if there ends up being a more liberal supreme court eventually the political process in this country can be more opened up and few more parties can start to be represented at some point.
It's actually working just as it was intended to, you just have some on the left that want to throw a temper tantrum about it because they can't simply force things to happen. Funny enough, the exact same thing would happen if the situation were reversed, but people like yourself would have been given a different opinion on the issue then. The people have given a mandate to the congress to block appointments to the SC that they don't deem in the best interest of the country. A lifetime appointment to the SC is one of the biggest and most important things that can happen in our system of government and the people will have their voice heard. First by the president they elected when he nominates someone and then secondly when the congress says yes or no to that candidate. If they can't come to an agreement, the clock will run out and the people will get to put a new president in office and hopefully that new president will be able to succeed where the previous president failed and successfully work with congress to get a justice confirmed. That's how it's supposed to work.
Obama is the president of the united states he can appoint who he wants. He has no obligation to pick a right leaning person. That's ridiculous.
His death was a false flag operation carried out by the GOP. They know Obummer can only legally serve 3/5th of a term so there is no way for him to appoint anyone in time. The result will be large evangelical turnout and a Cruz victory by a landslide, wherein he appoints Jesus himself to the court. No ****ing way will Jesus let gay marriage stand and he was a well-known proponent of the 2nd amendment back in his day. It's quite the feather in the cap for the Republicans.
