The U.S. Supreme Court

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said President Obama should nominate someone to fill the court's vacancy in a Wednesday interview with Phoenix television station KSAZ.

"I don't agree," O'Connor said of Republicans who believe the next administration should be responsible for a nomination. "I think we need somebody there now to do the job and get on with it."

O'Connor, who was the first woman appointed to the nation's highest bench, agreed it's odd to have a vacancy in an election year. But, this is the President's role, she said.

"You just have to pick the best person you can under these circumstances, as the appointing authority must do. And it's an important position and one we care about as a nation, as a people," O'Connor said. "And I wish the President well as he makes choices and goes down that line. It's hard."

It would be more than a year for a vacancy. New president wouldn't nominate anyone until they took office. Even if they said before the election who they'd pick, it doesn't happen officially until after the inauguration. And then you have to go through the weeks and weeks of the confirmation process. That seat would sit empty until at least April 2017.

You all know this, why am I wasting space? I can't get over how silly the GOP is acting over this.

Clearly the most fair solution is just to wait for a Republican president and a Republican congress and a far-right wing nominee, then let them onto the court with no debate. I think we can all agree that would be most equitable to and considerate of all parties involved. In fact, to be really fair, we should probably just appoint a Republican president now, to avoid the waste of an election, then let them run things unobstructed for a while. Then after 8 or 16 or 24 years of GOP, we can have a fair, open debate about whether or not to hold another election, depending, of course, on the quality of the democratic nominees, because we wouldn't want to undo all that progress.

really want democrats to start fighting on this

Don't you see? If they fight back then they concede it is a fight worth fighting! Which legitimizes the batshit illogical GOP. So the best bet is to stay mum and not shake the cage too much.

i do think it's worth waiting to let obama nominate someone and see if Grassley holds a hearing

really want democrats to start fighting on this

Fighting on what? Seems like McConnell and co. are getting a lot of shit to me from most quarters.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/17/upshot/scalia-supreme-court-senate-nomination.html

at this point, "only" 30 of the 54 republican senators have said that the senate should not confirm an obama nominee, and it appears that some of them are still changing their position on the issue

my point is none of them should be saying obama can't nominate someone

even one or two saying it is fucking crazy

agreed there. i mean,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013

that was absolutely idiotic on every level

whoops, i meant to link to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis_of_2013

I don't even totally understand what the hell they thought they were doing with the debt ceiling crisis. With the Supreme Court the stakes are at least clear to me, and they are very high for conservatives, so given that and in light of their past behavior I am not at all surprised that they will fight any way they can on this.

I don't even totally understand what the hell they thought they were doing with the debt ceiling crisis.

they were taking the credit rating of the U.S. hostage in an attempt to force democrats to agree to massive budget cuts

or at least, the craftier GOP members were doing that, i think. the dumber GOP members, whose number was far greater than i previously thought, apparently didn't even understand what the debt ceiling was, or the implications of defaulting.

anyway, sorry for the derail, but just saying that yes they are crazy, and they have been crazy and i like to fart

starting to think more and more that the #1 problem with regards to the government in this country can be xplained by saying simply: it's congress's fault

no it's not a derail, i like it, i just dunno what there is to do

It's gop's fault, really.

yeah. after the 2013 idiocy i think a lot of people thought that republicans might pay a price in the 2014 midterm elections. but then they didn't pay the price. no one remembered or cared. it's frustrating.

The people who should've cared stayed home in 2014.

feel like the dems are not even close enough to being organized the way repubs are and this is a consequence

hmm it's almost as if something happened sometime before the midterm elections to shield the GOP from electoral losses in the House

xp

It seems like we need a Berniewave type counterweight to the tea party - a small core of dedicated and enthusiastic idealists can make a big difference in off year elections where turnout is low. But I don't know whether his base can translate to that.

i think it can

White House had a conf call yesterday urging 'activist' groups (after all they've done for them) to go full-throttle the GOP for obstruction, they apparently didn't need much encouragement

I feel pretty certain Obama will make his nomination and there will be a hearing for them, less certain that they will be voted through. I get that certain republican senators have to block this as much as possible if they are up for re-election in a conservative leaning state, but don't know if that's enough to totally block. The more resistance they put up, the worse it will turn out for them in the long run.

This is pretty great

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/opinion/scalias-putsch-at-the-supreme-court.html?smid=tw-share

x-post --The Republicans have been blocking and putting up resistance for years now, and they succeeded in getting control of the Senate and widening their House majority. Am not sure how obstructing worsens things for them in the short or long run.

Only a handful of Republicans voted for Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. That has not hurt them.

basically, it opens up the following scenario, which is extremely risky for long-term republican prospects:

1. If Obama puts forward a middle of the road nominee who gets blocked, dems will absolutely hammer republican senators, which can be an absolute detriment to senators running for re-election in liberal leaning states.

2. In a scenario where Trump and Clinton get their parties nominations (not at all a longshot), republicans will be facing depressed turnout, which could lead to even bigger losses in the senate, plus a landslide victory for Clinton.

3. If this all comes to pass, and I don't think any of this is a stretch, they will then be faced with possibly losing the senate and a new democratic president who will then nominate someone more liberal than Obama's original choice.

This is basically the nightmare scenario for republicans, and their resistance to a moderate nominee will help make it happen.

Except that democratic president would be Hilary Clinton?

she would definitely nominate someone pro-choice, at least.

I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but I don't think there's any reason to assume that Clinton would not go for a more liberal choice (than the presumably safe moderate choice Obama may put forward) if given the chance.

When are we going to abandon the fantasy that not being "reasonable" hurts Republicans?

I don't get that impression about her - what areas would they be better on? I'd expect them to be much more corporate-friendly for a start.

xp I'd be amazed if Obama nominated someone anti-choice?

any democratic appointee would be broadly pro-abortion rights

there are a lot of reasons to assume Clinton would not go for a more liberal choice, one of which being that most evidence suggests she is to the right of Obama

this is all tea leaves at some point as it's impossible to know how a justice would vote on everything

should we start a new thread? This one's huge.

I think if I were a die-hard GOP Senator, I might prefer to take my chances on winding up with either a Republican president-nominated or Clinton-nominated justice than accept an ostensibly moderate Obama nominee who might be secretly more liberal than he lets on, as I imagine a lot of judges with SCOTUS aspirations are today.

I don't buy Moodles's "nightmare scenario" at all -- I seriously doubt obstruction on a supreme court nominee is going to dramatically sway the electorate (not to mention that it will make the base happy). Maybe I have too little faith in the electorate.

this is all tea leaves at some point as it's impossible to know how a justice would vote on everything

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/cph/3a30000/3a37000/3a37300/3a37338r.jpg

http://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/john_paul_stevens-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

Fwiw I think Moodles's idea was that the Clinton nom could be more liberal and get through because of this new Democratic Senate that's part of the scenario. I have no idea which of the two is more 'left' in their heart of hearts but certainly in that scenario you subtract all the 'well Obama will want someone he thinks he can get past the GOP...' stuff. Also, if you're a Republican you probably don't think of Hillary as a centrist/conservative the way she might get discussed round these parts. Dunno if it's a nightmare scenario, but it has to be running through some senate brains at least as much as we're entertaining it here.

That said, I'm curious - *does* the Republican base have a consensus on whether Hillary or Obama is more liberal? I sort of figured they were framed as, yknow, two equal signs of the apocalypse.

The R base thinks Obama is The Most Ruinous President Ever. If Clinton is elected she will automatically inherit this title. This is as close as they will come to an opinion on which of them is more liberal.

"I don't buy Moodles's "nightmare scenario" at all -- I seriously doubt obstruction on a supreme court nominee is going to dramatically sway the electorate (not to mention that it will make the base happy). Maybe I have too little faith in the electorate."

i do buy it as being pretty plausible, to the extent that a repub senator in a blue state could be punished for his party's actions, esp if Trump is the nominee. but i don't know how many senators up for re-election this year fit that description. and a million other things will happen between now and election so who the fuck knows.

i don't know how many senators up for re-election this year fit that description

there's a few. Portman in OH for one.

yeah. after the 2013 idiocy i think a lot of people thought that republicans might pay a price in the 2014 midterm elections. but then they didn't pay the price. no one remembered or cared. it's frustrating.
― Karl Malone, Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:34 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

gerrymandering, man.

should we start a new thread? This one's huge.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, February 18, 2016 12:48 PM (45 minutes ago)

we should probably just use the new scalia replacement thread tombot started

xxp pat toomey up for reelection too

he's probably gone no matter what tho i gotta think