0, they don't have to call Obama to confirm him. Now that Hillary has won the presidential election and the Democrats have seized the house and senate, maybe they confirm the left wing guy in order to prevent a further left wing guy.
I don't think the Republicans will change their stance, as they will pretend there is hope (not to mention I don't think it would help them in their senate races).
Don't underestimate Trump. That has to be the lesson learned in the last year. You don't think it will help or hurt? I think it hurts to continue blocking him since most people (according to polls) support a hearing.
The Repubs would be wise to call Obama's bluff put this moderate Republican type guy in. He is probably a vote to continue the buying of elections per Citizen's United.
I doubt very much that he'd support Citizen's United from the bench of the Supreme Court. I know he had a favorable opinion of some kind in the past, but don't know much about it. Do you know the details? Whether he ruled alone, or was in a panel? What the context was? And you keep calling him a Republican. What is he, exactly? Those records are public, I believe. I'm genuinely interested.
Don't underestimate Trump made sense when he was leading in the polls and the Republicans were pretending there was a silent "establishment" wing just waiting to get Rubiomania that would overtake him. Clinton is beating him handily and has a solid hold on the core democratic base., too solid for Bernie and untouchable byvTrump
Trump identified potential nominees to the supreme court and they all appeal to the GOP. I had to say that I think Bobby is right and the senate is going to hold out and box out Garland. They'll probably make a case to bring him back into the fold if Hilary wins but she could opt for someone more to the left. Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees.html Spoiler Good Summary from All Things Considered
on another note, The Supreme court ruled 7-1 to overturn a conviction of a black man whose prosecutors struck every black juror from his trial because of racial motivations. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/u...rity=true&contentCollection=meter-links-click TLDR: The prosecutors highlighted the names of black prospective jurors on one list with a “B” and, on another list, ranked them against one another, in case “it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors.” Even after the notes were revealed, prosecutors continued to concoct far-fetched explanations for their behavior which Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. called “nonsense” that “reeks of afterthought.” He noted, for instance, that the prosecutors removed a black prospective juror for being too young, even though they did not strike eight white people who were about the same age or younger. They claimed another black man was unacceptable because his son had been convicted of “basically the same thing” as Mr. Foster, although the son’s crime was stealing hubcaps, not murder. “The focus on race in the prosecution’s file,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.” This in turn plainly violated a 1986 ruling barring the exclusion of people from juries because of race — a practice that “harms not only the accused whose life or liberty they are summoned to try” but also “public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice.” Funny thing is the 1 justice to dissent with the majority was Clearance Thomas who is the only black supreme court justice. Full opinion's: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...ion=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click
Heard on NPR yesterday that it was day 67 since Obama's nomination of Garland. 67 days is the average time it takes to pass/fail a nomination, according to NPR.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-merrick-garland.html Republicans are always making positive history these days.
This story has dropped out of the news cycle but I suspect it will pick up steam again especially if the next USSC term opens up in the fall with still only 8 Justices.
My sense is that if Clinton wins they will simply let the court have 8 justices and not approve anyone that isn't a conservative by their standards.
Cough Benghazmailserver cough Cough impeachment cough First couple as presidents + First couple impeached as presidents + ???? Chelsea = dynasty
I would comfortably bet that Republicans retain the House, there are enough home-owning whites in non-union jobs with a full slate of benefits and decent credit to vote against any kind of tax hike or clamor for big entitlements. Combine them with whoever the hell voted for Trump in the primaries and the basic appropriations and seniority logic, GOP is fine in the House. Obamacare, as popular as it is, might end up like the Army-McCarthy hearings, after which the DNC kept the House for 40 years.
Well well well. Remember back when that the republicans said it was all so important to not have the Supreme Court opening filled by a "lame duck President"? That it was only correct for the NEXT President to be able to choose the Supreme Court Justice? Well, I guess the republicans who said that were simply lying. That it was simply partisanship. http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/12/gop-at-odds-over-post-election-vote-on-obamas-supreme-court-nominee/ I suspect this movement will grow at a faster and faster pace as the likelihood of a Clinton win. And while I am fully supportive of Garland as USSC Justice (at least partially in respect of the way he has stuck with the republican stonewall), at least part of me would support his withdrawing as a candidate, allowing Clinton to choose a USSC Justice of her own liking.
If I'm Obama, that needs to happen before the election. Make the statement that the nominee will be withdrawn once the next President is elected. (or he can use that card to push through TPP after the election)
