Yeah, 100% it'll be F the balance then. Trump will find the most extreme to the right candidate he can find and everyone on the right including the politicians will applaud him/her right on through. And it will be because of Trump. If it were an ordinary GOP president they would do like Obama did and nominate a moderate republican...because yes, Garland WAS a moderate. Anyone thinking otherwise must be way far right for thinking of him as anything but. So many liberals were pissed at Obama for Garland...was he right down the middle, no, but no one was. The GOP did not suggest anyone else for Obama to appoint, right? And you know what? The right will pay for this, the country will pay, because in the end they tore apart a moderate liberal administration (Obama) and shifted the left even further left. When the democrats get power again (because they will the power always shifts, whether it is 2018, 2020, whenever...) it won't be the moderate Clintons and Obamas but the progressives, the Berniecrats, and they will play for absolute keeps. In the end the country suffers because no one wants to go to the table and negotiate anymore. It's all about getting as much power as possible so that you can ram your agenda and policies down the throat of the country and this will only create more divisiveness because no matter who holds the power or who has won you still have to govern the losers, you still have to take account their concerns too.
Don't misunderstand what was being said back then, it wasn't "don't oppose this candidate due to balance", it was "don't force a rule change over this nomination due to balance, save it for the next one". Democrats weren't going to be able to stop the Gorsuch nomination no matter what, but they could have forced the nuclear option of removing their filibuster if they continued to foolishly obstruct. If Ginsburg dies and the Republicans still have control of the Senate and the White House, I fully expect it to require the "nuclear option" to get a nominee confirmed. I'll understand why Democrats will seek to obstruct, but it won't matter in the end because they won't have the power to do so.
I think for democratic turnout the fact that Clinton ran on "Trump is terrible, vote for me" had much more of an effect because to many voters Clinton was terrible too. It's like putting on a boxing match between two terrible fighters...people simply won't watch it and that's what Democratic voters did. She did have issues that democrats cared for but she didn't advertise them nearly enough. Trump ran on the wall, immigration, and yes the SCOTUS. Clinton ran on "Come on now, I dare you put this guy in office." And do you agree that this should happen? That should Kennedy retire or Ginsberg retires that the Trump administration should put another far right judge on the court? That the Dems should force the nuclear option? In a perfect world, should Ginsberg retires (I just say that because I'm not comfy forecasting death on old people) the GOP nominates the most moderate liberal they can find, do you think any party should have a super majority in the court like that? I don't even mind the GOP keeping the 5-4 advantage as long as there are moderates that can be swayed, unfortunately, with who is president, he will find the most conservative judge he can find and it won't fare out well for the American Public or the country.
I completely agree, it's why I ended up not voting. I long considered voting for Hillary, but I just couldn't bring myself to support her even as a protest vote so I just abstained entirely. I can understand the idea behind trying to maintain balance, and I would agree that it would be nice if they would nominate moderates to replace moderates, but let's face it, we saw that it wouldn't be that way if the other party was in power. Hell Obama attempted to replace Scalia with a liberal even with a Republican majority, there's no doubt that he'd have picked a nominee in the vein of Kagan, Sotomayor, or Ginsberg if he had the Democrats in control of the Senate. For me, I don't care about who is picked so long as they are libertarian leaning and pro-civil liberties. I don't want a justice that will strip the 2nd amendment, I don't want a justice that will allow abuses of the 4th amendment such as the Patriot Act. Lean right, lean left, just don't lean authoritarian.
This is the issue with our politics today, there is no trust on the other side. I have no delusions. I know that if the Democrats had the power to they would do the same thing. I do think Obama had every right to nominate Garland and not maintain the 5-4 conservative balance but the GOP should have voted on him and they would have every right then to say no to his nomination and suggest other judges. That's what should have been done. Instead, they denied Obama the nomination completely. But I'm under no delusions here, this has been going on for too long, the tit for tat, and you could argue (as I know you would) that this is the Democrats fault in the first place because of Reid eliminating the filibuster so that they are just reaping what they have sown and you would be right there...just like if the Democrats win Congress or Senate or both they will, I presume, obstruct, and nothing will get done and they will have taken that strategy from the GOP and the GOP will be at fault for demonstrating its efficiency. I have said that I don't really care about Gorsuch, he replaces Scalia who was very much to the right, so it's whatever. I do care about the GOPs strategy to get him in though and I think Democrats saw that strategy and it won't be the last time we see stuff like that so I'm more worried about Kennedy or Ginsburg being replaced than anything else. Without Kennedy we would not have had the same-sex marriage ruling for example and you won't find many people that disagree with the ruling right? In the end, SCOTUS judges should be qualified and dedicated to the law of the land. I personally understand why they came to this decision. I don't agree with it but I understand the decision.
I fully agree with you that Obama had every right to nominate whoever he wanted for the position, and I think it would have been better to get an actual vote on it, but given that there was nowhere near enough votes for it the entire process that would lead up to a vote would be nothing more than a massive waste of time. When they told Obama that they weren't even going to go through the process with Garland it allowed him the ability to withdraw the nomination and suggest a different judge that would entice the Senate to go through the process with. I agree that Kennedy was instrumental in the same sex marriage ruling which I was in favor of, and that's a good reason to want moderates on the bench....but it's hard to trust your successors to do the same and that's why we always lose this prisoner dilemma
Thomas is right, nationwide injunctions issued by a single person are a dangerous concentration of power with no constitutional basis
Disagree, strongly, and more so in the future. The judicial has to act as a check and balance against an executive branch running a muck... especially since the legislative branch has abandoned that role of protection. And if the USSC won't protect us... then lower courts must step up.
[Premium Post] This is a well-reasoned post, thank you for your contribution. For all the bellyaching going on currently from the libs, we can all rest assured that they'd be extolling the virtues of the judicial process if there were one more ideological liberal on the court and one less honorable conservative thinker. For goodness sake, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg vote purely based on their feelings. It's like the Constitution doesn't even exist with them. Representative of the liberal mindset however -- feelings and emotions guide them, not reason and logic. GOOD DAY
