Sucks for Sandoval he has to pass on the job of a lifetime because his own party won't support him. The next president, Democrat or Republican, won't nominate him, so this was his only shot at it.
Its crazy that the GOP leaders are saying they won't even consider a nominee in an election year. That means that in 25% of a presidents term a new appointee shouldn't be considered? And people wonder why people hate politicians.
It was never a real shot at it. Just a leak to make it seem like Obama would be willing to nominate a moderate.
Then why didn't they call his bluff if it wasn't real? They could have scheduled a Sandoval hearing for late in the term, and, should they lose the White House and Senate (which, frankly, they probably will), they could at least send a Republican instead of the gay Puerto Rican Blasian communist that Obamaillary really wants to send in order to take their guns away and outlaw religion if they lose both I guess the GOP is just as ****ty at gambling as it is at governing? Or maybe there was some trouble...with the House's role in the nomination & confirmation process....
It would be great if someone asked a Cruz, if elected, whether he intends to only work the first 3 years of his term, taking the final year off. It's such a fundamentally stupid position.. I mean, nothing surprises me - but that's one that feels like no one is genuinely buying.
McConnell better not make any decisions in his last year in office either. I don't want the will of the people to be oppressed by him.
I think McConnell had to take this stance because resisting an actual nominee on the merits would likely look very bad for his party. Obama is likely to pick someone ideologically moderate and have all of the usual qualifications--- and if he picks a member of a minority group (be it Hispanic, Black, East Asian, South Asian) or a woman, the visual of all these white men in the Repbulican Senate talking negatively about the candidate is going to be 10 times worse than just looking like total obstructionists against Obama.
It's probably about time to try and make a deal with the president. Hillary WILL be the next president and the Republicans are pretty likely to lose both the house and senate after backing Trump.
[BREAKING] Obama to nominate Merrick Garland for SCOTUS. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/obama-supreme-court-announcement/index.html
They both have a chance. Garland is arguably the more "moderate" candidate who probably had the best chance should a hearing actually happen. As it stands, this is all theatrics. The Republicans will refuse to hold a hearing and we'll hear about this for the rest of the year.
None of them have any chance. I doubt anyone who thinks they have a strong chance at a nomination in the future would even accept right now. For example, if Srinivasan thinks he could get nominated if Clinton wins, why would you waste your won chance now?
I would've liked to Srinivasan too but I think this is Obama calling the GOP's bluff. He's putting forward an older moderate and letting the GOP know this is the best they can expect or risk having a more liberal appointment from the next president.
Obama trolls the GOP again: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the longest serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered his own thoughts on who President Obama should nominate to fill the seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last week. “[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man,” http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/03/16/3760727/who-is-merrick-garland/
Just out of curiosity, if Obama nominates someone (and either the Senate Republicans ignore their duties and don't have a hearing at all... or they do hold a hearing and don't confirm the nomination), is there any rule that says that that same nominee can't be put forth again later (by a subsequent President)?
No, but but I think it's unlikely. The worst case scenario for a nominee is that they start attacking you in the media, Fox News starts turning you into a communist sympathizer, etc. Maybe you even get hearings. If they don't get nominated ultimately under this president, I can't imagine the next president just staying in lock-step by putting back up the last president's nominee. They will want their own person with a fresh slate.
I just don't even see how Fox News or anyone else for that matter would take the tact of attacking any of these nominees. They've already been given overwhelming bipartisan support in the past, so it's not like they are in any way controversial nominees. It's more that the Senate Republicans are opposed to the idea of any nominee coming from Obama.
Not to be too crude or reductionist, but that'd make 4 jews and 5 catholics on the supreme court. That said, he looks like a fine candidate. Obama is apparently following the strategy I expected -- daring Congress to pass on a moderate and gamble they don't have to take a Clinton appointment. I expect Republicans to decide they have more to gain they do to lose by gambling though. If they win the presidency, they can easily install an arch conservative. If they lose, they can still be intractable enough for Clinton that she won't be able to appoint someone very liberal. As to whether he can be renominated -- he's been through it once already. He was nominated to the DC circuit in Clinton's first term but was blocked by Congress. After Clinton was reelected, he renominated Garland and was confirmed. Hillary Clinton might want to nominate her 'own' candidate, but given his history with Bill Clinton, he could be spun that way anyway. Still, I think she opens with someone more liberal to punish Congress for blocking Garland in the Obama term.
