The U.S. Supreme Court

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

...and gerrymandering is irrelevant to senate races, right?

yes, 2 senators to the state. everyone votes.

don't see why they would "pay a price"? GOP voters love that obstructionist stuff and Dem voters don't vote Republican. plus that was a year later and lol American attention spans.

i meant "pay a price" in the sense that repub voters don't show because of Trump and Dem voters are more motivated to vote them out because of the obstructionist stuff

oh, right, the senate. duh.

just to be clear, I don't think obstruction hurts republican senators in conservative states

right those guys are prob safe no matter what

it could hurt them in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, maybe others

dems need to flip 5 to take control?

to me, the most sane path that senate republicans could choose if Obama puts forward a totally moderate and unobjectionable nominee, would be to let at risk senators in conservative states oppose, but ultimately to provide enough votes for the the nominee to get confirmed. There's a very good chance this won't happen and I think it will be republicans who would lose out over the long run as a result.

IL, WI, FL, NV, PA, NH, CO, OH, NC, AZ all have possible/likely seat flips. seems v doable (the last 2 obv the least likely).

And people aren't assigned party membership at birth.

I get a pretty strong sense that Obama would like to be further left on a lot of issues but can't get anywhere because of a GOP wall of bullshit, and that Clinton will face the same wall of bullshit, and won't necessarily do any worse, but doesn't feel any pull to the left - certainly not further than she'll need to get a second term.

oh, and the NV seat is a D incumbent. the rest are R tho. xp

Obama's Scalia Replacement The Poll

the other thread referenced above

I get a pretty strong sense that Obama would like to be further left on a lot of issues but can't get anywhere because of a GOP wall of bullshit

I don't get this impression at all. I think there are specific policies that Obama actually publicly ADVOCATES and cannot get accomplished due to the GOP wall, but in terms of Obama's actual politics I don't think they're much further left at all (and I think this borne out both in his public statements, his actions, and by whom he's surrounded himself with).

Obama's Scalia Replacement The Poll

the other thread referenced above

― curmudgeon, Thursday, February 18, 2016

I'm on that one too but it's fairly specific.

Obama would like to be further left on a lot of issues

did you ever see a dream walllllking / well i have!

also dngaf

strenuously, effortfully dngaf