U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

Now that they've announced their position, the less that Senate republicans say about it, the better off they'll be. The more the democrats can goad them into defending themselves, the better off the democrats will be.

If the nominee appears as someone who should be perfectly acceptable to both sides, then voters in the mushy middle, when forced to think about it, will become angry at Republican intransigence. The only voters who'll agree with this stonewall nonsense are voters who already hate Obama and are beyond reach.

Voters are already mad at gop about this, including yr mushy middle independents

A majority of those surveyed — 54 percent — said they believed Obama would nominate a liberal justice and that his pick would tip the balance of the Supreme Court. And nearly 56 percent said justices should follow the original intent of the Constitution, in the mold of Scalia.

"Our findings show that a majority of U.S. voters share the concerns of the GOP in regard to tipping the ideological balance of the Court and the need for the next Justice to strictly interpret the Constitution," the memo reads.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/senate-supreme-court-scalia-220552

"The survey found almost unanimous awareness of the death of Justice Scalia"

Wait, who the fuck did they ask?

Strimple found that 54 percent of those surveyed were more concerned about a liberal justice being chosen to replace Scalia

It does seem like a high number...

Cornyn, like the vast majority of his 54-member conference

... they just asked senators, didn't they?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/03/antonin_scalia_s_death_has_changed_the_way_the_supreme_court_and_conservative.html

Reuters reported Friday that President Barack Obama has selected three top candidates to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

According to Reuters, Obama is considering Paul Watford, Sri Srinivasan and Merrick Garland.

from the Slate article:

In an incredibly short time frame we have seen, for instance, a major antitrust appeal from Dow Chemical settled for $835 million last month, when the company determined that it wasn’t worth the risk to spin the wheel at a 4–4 court. Having only last month granted a completely unprecedented stay in a challenge to President Obama’s new environmental regulations—before the case had even been adjudicated in a lower court—Roberts batted away a similar request challenging a different pollution regulation without comment last week. Not here, he seemed to be cautioning Michigan and the other states that wanted to challenge the law. Not anymore.

Consider, too, that in New York this week a key gun rights group opted to drop its challenge to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s SAFE Act—the big post–Sandy Hook gun control initiative—out of a concern that it could not prevail at the high court without Scalia on the bench. According to the New York Daily News, a National Rifle Association board member explained that the challenge had been halted en route to the court because “it’s just the wrong time.” His lawyers advised that “going forward could damage the case because the High Court at the very least would likely deliver a split 4-4 decision that would leave the law in place.”

Obama is considering Paul Watford, Sri Srinivasan and Merrick Garland.

again not surprising, Obama leading with the guys who are most likely to embarrass/cause problems for the Senate GOP.

I want Sri to get the nod so I can hear senators try to pronounce 'Srinivasan' during the hearing

and their undoubtedly ridiculous questions about hinduism

"Where were you on Christmas Day?"

I'd give him points if he recycled Kagan's answer.

i guess i'm in the tank for watford, though he seems the least likely of the final three

"again not surprising, Obama leading with the guys who are most likely to embarrass/cause problems for the Senate GOP."

Srinivasan sure, not so sure the other two fit that mode.

Kelly for example strikes me as a lot more likely to be embarrassing (esp. given her Grassley connection) than Garland or Watford does.

An analysis of the ways in which libs need to dampen the enthusiasm for Ginsberg

Last term, in the mostly unrelated case of Davis v. Ayala, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a lengthy concurrence condemning solitary confinement. He described the new and growing awareness that solitary confinement caused massive harm and closed by inviting a challenge to the practice: “In a case that presented the issue, the judiciary may be required, within its proper jurisdiction and authority, to determine whether workable alternative systems for long-term confinement exist, and, if so, whether a correctional system should be required to adopt them.” Most notably, Justice Kennedy made no reference to any particularly vulnerable group, instead suggesting that long-term solitary confinement may be unconstitutional for all. Justice Ginsburg did not join the concurrence.

Kennedy was the only justice on this concurrence--Ginsburg joined Sotomayor's dissent. The case wasn't even about solitary. What a weird thing to accuse her of. The only remarks about solitary in the entire opinion are his.

I like Ginsberg fine as a justice, but Stevens was the best liberal justice we've had in the relatively short time I've followed the court at all. I reflexively hate (1) hero worship (2) ironic hero worship (3) SCOTUS fanboyism (4) white dorks using hip-hop references in a simultaneously smug and self-deprecating way, and (5) brown-nosey mainstream democrat types trying to make it seem really cool and radical to just be a moderately progressive person. So the Notorious RBG stuff rubs me the wrong way.

otm

booming post

(and ginsburg is great, in a vacuum)

I don't think Stevens' jurisprudence has gotten the attention it deserves; I'd love to read a long-ass article.

Yeah, totally would read. In law school he was the guy whose opinions had me writing otm in my margin notes the most.

I like Ginsberg fine as a justice, but Stevens was the best liberal justice we've had in the relatively short time I've followed the court at all. I reflexively hate (1) hero worship (2) ironic hero worship (3) SCOTUS fanboyism (4) white dorks using hip-hop references in a simultaneously smug and self-deprecating way, and (5) brown-nosey mainstream democrat types trying to make it seem really cool and radical to just be a moderately progressive person. So the Notorious RBG stuff rubs me the wrong way.

Well said. She's great and all but stuff like this just furthers the overall cluelessness abt USSC matters among the general public.

I should probably take some time to get to know Kagan's and Sotomayor's jurisprudence a little better, but as I've noted I find Supreme Court nerdery to be a drag, although it's probably in my professional interest to act otherwise.

did you read Ginsburg's eulogy for Scalia? one of his assets was preferring her over Mario Cuomo for the seat.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273166-obama-may-announce-scotus-nominee-wednesday-report

ffs, not the 63-year old, please

Obama should just nominate a baby -- long career ahead, limited judicial record to pick apart.

Noted elsewhere - everywhere? here? - but one upside to Trump winning the nomination is it pretty much sweeps the legs out from intransigent GOP SC opposition.

Obama should nominate 12 different potential Supreme Court justices, then make them run around in a room talking at once. The GOP won't know who to oppose!

xp: why, Trump couldn't be convinced to nominate a conservative Justice? Or you mean because he can't win.

Trump would probably pull a Blagojevich and auction off the SC seat to the highest bidder.

Also, because of the gloom and doom about what a Trump nom would do to the GOP down ticket.

In seriousness, I think Trump would probably agree to nominate a "true conservative" in exchange for the right endorsements/backing, because I truly do not think he gives a fuck as long as he wins.

Oh he'd totally nominate a Miguel Estrada.

or Erik Estrada

reuters tweets that it's Srinivasan

Cnn is saying Garland.

FOX is saying Bork.

AP, NYT, WaPo all say Garland. Too old!

My people are telling me Clarence Clemons:
http://i.imgur.com/I3FLJYm.png

Called it.

The U.S. Supreme Court

Anyway, what's the story with Garland?

I mean, I am going to vigorously oppose him, but please lay out a case.

another member of the tribe on the court

Hmm:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/

Judge Garland's record demonstrates that he is essentially the model, neutral judge. He is acknowledged by all to be brilliant. His opinions avoid unnecessary, sweeping pronouncements.

Of the three principal candidates "“ the other two being Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Judge Diane Wood "“ Judge Garland would also likely have the most immediate influence on the Court. He is well known to the Justices and is likely the most respected by them collectively, particularly the more conservative Justices. The fact that Judge Garland is not only extremely intelligent and respectful but exceptionally careful and quite centrist would mean that his views would have particular salience with, among others, Justices Kennedy and Alito.

To the extent that ideology plays a role in the nomination "“ and it obviously plays a material role "“ the other side of the coin of the factors that would in part drive Judge Garland's likely influence is the fact that, on questions on which the three principal candidates would disagree, he would generally be the least liberal.

from 2010 obv

if republicans have a brain cell between the bunch of them they'll take garland as a gift and confirm him immediately