US Politics: Jousting for SCOTUS nominees

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tywin,

 

Quote

 

I wonder what happens first, the court goes back up to 9 Justices or falls to 7?

If Obama was smart he'd nominate Senator Klobuchar. She has the best chance to get through.

Who is Sen. Kolbuchar and why do you think that Senator has the beat chance?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I don't think a liberal Senator whose stances on contentious issues are publicly known has any chance under present circumstances.

I'd love to see her nominated- but only to start a fight.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

She's more center-left than bleeding heart liberal. She's widely respected by her fellow senators including almost all Republicans. She serves on the judiciary committee. And she's widely speculated to be a future candidate for the presidency, and she'd make a strong candidate, so it gives Republicans the opportunity to rid themselves of that possibility.

[Guy Kilmore]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

 

Who is Sen. Kolbuchar and why do you think that Senator has the beat chance?

Senator from Minnesota.  Also one of the few when you look at those ideological charts tends to fall at number 50 on the most liberal and most conservative.  (In her recent Senate Bid, she had some conservative groups actually running ads to support her.)

Of course, I don't know if I want to lose my state's Senator.

[polishgenius]

He should nominate Glenn Close and William Fitchner.

[MerenthaClone]

Not Jane Kelly?  She was endorsed and championed by Sen. Grassley, who currently chairs the Judiciary committee.  She was also unanimously confirmed last time she was appointed, so anyone who is refusing to confirm her now will have to explain their about-face.

 

e:  She's also the star of a lot of XCOM 2 campaigns, as she's given to you as a promoted Ranger if you play the tutorial mission.  It'd be hard for the republicans to argue with her views on illegal aliens and 2nd amendment rights, given that.  

[Fez]

Bad move for Obama to nominate any Senators. Their seats are just too valuable to give up. Democrats would probably hold her seat, it is Minnesota after all, but why risk it? There's more qualified candidates that have no potential downside like that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

An interesting story from Dave Axlerod:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html

From the article:

 

Quote

"I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation," said Scalia, then in his 23rd year as the court's leading and most provocative conservative voice. "But I hope he sends us someone smart."

A little taken aback that he was engaging me on the subject, I searched for the right answer, and lamely offered one that signaled my slight discomfort with the topic. "I'm sure he will, Justice Scalia."

He wasn't done. Leaning forward, as if to share a confidential thought, he tried again.

"Let me put a finer point on it," the justice said, in a lower, purposeful tone of voice, his eyes fixed on mine. "I hope he sends us Elena Kagan."

I was surprised that a member of the court would so bluntly propose a nominee, and intrigued that it was Kagan, the former Harvard Law School dean who was appointed solicitor general by Obama to represent the government before the Supreme Court. Though she had worked on policy in the Clinton administration and had a reputation for pragmatism, Kagan plainly would be a liberal in the context of the court.

Later, I learned that Scalia and Kagan were friends, though I suspect she would have been as surprised as I was at the brazenness of Scalia's suggestion.

Each was a graduate of Harvard Law School and had taught at the University of Chicago Law School, though in different eras. They were of different generations, he the son of an Italian immigrant, she a Jew from New York City's left-leaning West Side. But they shared an intellectual rigor and a robust sense of humor. And if Scalia could not have a philosophical ally in the next court appointee, he had hoped, at least, for one with the heft to give him a good, honest fight.

 

Interesting.

[Kalbear]

She probably was a big opera fan too

[ThinkerX]

Ok...something I have been thinking about...

1 - Obama nominates somebody for the supreme court.

2 - Republican ruled congress says not just 'no,' but 'hell no!' with all the bells and whistles we have come to associate with the republican party.

3 - They keep on saying 'hell no' right till election time and beyond.  But, even as they do so, they become less and less popular 'at home.'

4 - Result: Obama does not get a supreme appointed to the court - but the republicans, ENTIRELY through their own actions, loose multiple seats in congress. 

Plausible?

In connection with that...

1 - Republican congress refusing to confirm an Obama appointment is based on the notion that the next president will be a republican.  But consider the front runners: Clinton (D), Sanders (D), Trump (who the bleep knows), and Cruz (detested R)

2 - So by refusing to confirm Obama's pick, they have the choice of essentially dispensing with filling the 9th slot, or with three of the four front runners for POTUS, being forced to consider candidates that are STILL unacceptable.

[zelticgar]

ThinkerX,

I think your original set of 4 steps is unlikely. I could eat crow on this but I'm almost certain that all the talk of freezing the nominee is posturing. Once an actual nominee comes into the equation we will have a better sense of what will actually happen based on who that person is and what their background is. Its entirely possible Obama nominates someone who is deemed acceptable by the moderates within the GOP. If this happens it would be pretty easy to frame an argument that the original GOP hard line stance forced Obama to nominate a more middle of the road person. Then everyone goes home claiming a win.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Bad move for Obama to nominate any Senators. Their seats are just too valuable to give up. Democrats would probably hold her seat, it is Minnesota after all, but why risk it? There's more qualified candidates that have no potential downside like that.

Senator Klobuchar is very popular among her colleagues. They would have a hard time denying her a vote.

As for us Minnesotans, we just reelected Al Fraken with a 10% margin. I wouldn't sweat it.

[sperry]

I think to get someone through, Obama needs to nominate a well-respected long-standing circuit court judge. Someone who no one can question their actual qualifications, and also throw a bone to the Republicans by not nominating someone who will be on the court for 40 years.

[Commodore]

this is when filibustering Alito comes back to bite you in the ass

and the phrase "well-respected" needs to be outlawed as a passive-aggressive appeal to popularity

[TheKitttenGuard]

22 minutes ago, Commodore said:

this is when filibustering Alito comes back to bite you in the ass

and the phrase "well-respected" needs to be outlawed as a passive-aggressive appeal to popularity

I really enjoy when prior events with little or no relation to a current event is used to justify what the Republicans were going to do anyway.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Good idea Ser Scot. we should have Sri Srinivasan joust with Mitch McConnell for entry into the sanctum. My money is on Sri.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I really enjoy when prior events with little or no relation to a current event is used to justify what the Republicans were going to do anyway.

Don't you remember when the Democrat Majority Leader said there will be no vote right after the previous Justice died?

50 minutes ago, Commodore said:

and the phrase "well-respected" needs to be outlawed as a passive-aggressive appeal to popularity

My guess is you feel this way because your favorite politician is widely hated by his peers.

[Commodore]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

My guess is you feel this way because your favorite politician is widely hated by his peers.

nah, more like because it's a logical fallacy

[A Horse Named Stranger]

16 hours ago, sperry said:

I think to get someone through, Obama needs to nominate a well-respected long-standing circuit court judge. Someone who no one can question their actual qualifications, and also throw a bone to the Republicans by not nominating someone who will be on the court for 40 years.

To be honest, I don't get it why Obama or the Democrats should play into that conservative feeling of entitlement. I mean those crybabies like Cruz who go on whining, the next Potus should pick the next justice, it can tip the balance of the court etc. *sob*

Yes, it will tip the favor. Just because there was a conservative majority on the supreme court for the last couple decades, doesn't mean it has to stay this way forever. 

Guys, news flash. You lost two elecitons in a row. That Obama gets to pick a final supreme court justice now, isn't really his problem and it shouldn't be. Complaints should either be addressed to god (if you believe in him/her/it (pick the pronoun of your choosing)) or to Scalia,who dared to die nearly a year before a new President can be sworn into office. 

I mean for guys like Cruz, that poses a whole new dilemma. If god welcomed Scalia back home into his heavenly kingdom before the election. Then maybe, just maybe, he wants to see a liberal majority on the supreme court.

[Commodore]

Obama is free to nominate, Senate is free to reject, and voters can reward/punish them accordingly

Right now there are definitely 2 and likely 4 justices that think a handgun ban is constitutional. That's a precarious enough civil liberties threat to justify a GOP senate not taking up any Obama nominee. And the voters that put those senators in office will likely agree.