This has nothing to do with the Constitution or governing or protocol. As the debate tonight confirms, Republicans will obstruct anything they can until they get their way on everything. It's strictly politics and power. A delusional, extremist, right wing faction is basically holding the country hostage. They're like the old Communists, the only thing that works with them is shoving a fillibuster proof super majority down their throats.
Here's what I would do if I were Obama: Make a recess appointment to a quite Liberal judge who has served on lower courts and is nearing retirement. At the same time, send a young, solid middle of the road/slightly left nominee to the Senate. Repubs can either act on the nominee or let the recess appointment serve as long as possible, which I think would be well into 2017.
The two that he has put on the court are very liberal, by some measures, the most liberal on the court right there with Ginsberg. There's literally no chance that anyone even close to that liberal would be confirmed.
OK, so both of them were confirmed by Democrat-majority Senates. Fair enough. Probably best for Obama to nominate a moderate justice. Still, doesn't take away from the Republicans' kerfuffle on this.
That would be a good thing for Republicans, it would pretty much ensure they win the presidency so long as they don't nominate Trump and the recess appointment wouldn't serve for life, just till the end of the congressional session. The president really doesn't have any true leverage that won't kill his party in the election so if he's smart, he nominates a moderate that leans far enough to the right to be confirmed.
Understood. Well, it's going to get interesting, eh? As much as I lean liberal, I honestly do think Obama should take into consideration the conservative / Republican faction and nominate someone who has demonstrated the ability to be moderate. If anything, we're so divided in this country b/c we're so rigidly attached to our beliefs that we can't accept anything in the middle anymore. Sometimes, it leads me to question my beliefs on issues- like abortion, or state's rights. I will say that I'm much more a proponent of state's rights than, say, opposing gay marriage. That's just absolutely ridiculous to me. State's rights is a fairly good argument in many cases. Hell, it exists now. We in Texas have to go to ****ing Louisiana or New Mexico to gamble, so there's that. And if some of us choose to smoke mar1juana, we have to go to places like Colorado - and even in Colorado, you can't just go anywhere. For example, if you go to a place like Cortez, you'll find that they only have medical mar1juana dispensaries- which means you then have to drive 40 minutes east to Mancos, CO to find the closest recreational mar1juana dispensary. Well, that's what a friend told me, anyway.
Much of this thread is just political fallout of his death which is understandable but too bad. I disagreed with some of his philosophy at times but we lost a brilliant legal mind in his passing whatever your political believes may be. The writing in his opinions and dissenting opinions was always particularly great. Even when I'd read them going in disagreeing with his point he they were always amazingly persuasive and made me think.
The world is a slightly better place today. I hope both parties put on their big boy pants and fill his spot before the election.
The choice of nominee may not be based on whether the GOP will cinfirm him or her, but rather based on whether the GOP will suffer electoral cinsequences for rejecting this nominee.
Curious... given the GOP has claimed that 80 years of "tradition" shows that no USSC Justice has been confirmed, er, nix that, nominated in an election year, has there ever been (particularly in those same last eighty years... or ever, for that matter) an instance when a standing President chose not to fill a USSC vacancy, especially in the instance of a USSC Justice passing away suddenly? Seems the challenges caused by a split court (thus pushing back decisions to lower courts) would be a compelling reason to always make sure the open seat was filled. But our history is log enough that it will be interesting learn about past instances when a President chose not fulfill is Constitutional obligation.
Along with D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, I'd also look at Jane Kelly on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Like Srinivasan, Kelly also was unanimously confirmed and is seen as a moderate.
