Cory Booker doesn't seem to rule out an appointment to the Supreme Court https://t.co/fZ4wdwpoNy via @nickconfessore
— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) February 14, 2016
It’s nice to see Corey’s press secretary working on V-day, but my guess is that Obama will nominate the anti-Corey Booker. He’ll pick the most innocuous, closest to the center but still reliably liberal, mild-mannered, worker-bee federal judge, perhaps a Bush I or II appointee who has evolved a bit. It will be someone with a long and solid legal career and little or no political history. Maybe Hispanic or Asian or any other minority that needs another reminder that Republican lip service doesn’t mean shit.
I agree with Tim F. that McConnell will regret not holding hearings, but maybe Mitch knows that a few of his caucus who are facing tough races might fold like a cheap suit and vote for the Obama nominee. If McConnell had held hearings, though, and if the nominee had been voted down, then he could have legitimately invoked the six month rule named after a racist Dixiecrat who wanted to exact petty revenge against LBJ for the Civil Rights Act, thus adding another chapter to the glorious history of the world’s most deliberative body.
El Cid
Maybe the Thurmond Rule is to hold off on Supreme Court nominations until your secret nonwhite love child becomes public.
gene108
So far McConnell’s instincts on obstruction seem pretty damn good for advancing his agenda* / picking up Republican seats all over the place.
I’ll believe it’ll cost him come Wednesday, November 9, 2016, if the Republicans lose control of the Senate.
* His agenda being getting his dream job of being Senate Majority Leader.
WaterGirl
I’m one of the people who thinks the president will find a way to get this done, and with a candidate he wants. Call me crazy, but that’s what I believe.
WaterGirl
OT, but mistermix, did you see all the comments on your post yesterday? Wondering if you plan to respond to those.
Ultraviolet Thunder
@WaterGirl:
Yeah. Seems like a lot there that needs answering.
kindness
Republicans aren’t even faking a premise of a democracy any longer. From her on out until the elections it’ll be total war. And when a Democrat wins in November, that Democrat will immediately be declared as having stolen the election and not being the ‘real’ president.
lihtox
I kind of like the plan that Obama put up a crazy-liberal (but legitimate) candidate for the Republicans to shoot down, before giving them the candidate he really wants. Overton-window it!
BGinCHI
1. Nominate a boring centrist, who the Republicans obstruct, hurting them even further in the general election, causing there to be no confirmation.
2. Democrats win the Presidency and Senate majority in 2016.
3. Nominate and confirm the most liberal motherfucker available.
4. Restore some goddamn sanity to the legal branch of government.
Hildebrand
@WaterGirl: If Obama can actually get someone on the bench, would that not rank as one of the greatest achievements for a President in their last year in office?
On another note – will this be the straw that breaks the camel’s back regarding President Obama’s ‘divisiveness’? How can anyone in the media ever peddle that knavery ever again with this preemptive rejection of any nominee? How can they possibly see this as Obama being unwilling to work with the Congress? I know, how could they ever believe this before. But this case is categorically different.
Frankensteinbeck
No way in Hell that Obama, a president defined by looking ahead, carefully chosen priorities, and love of the constitution, is going to squish on a Supreme Court pick. It’s entirely against his nature. We’ll get someone he thinks is perfect, like Sotomayor or Kagan. They’ll be dedicated to law and the constitution as it exists, which will make them look initially moderate next to frothing ‘we don’t care about precedent’ nutcases like Scalia, but in practice will turn out to be strongly liberal.
Betty Cracker
SCOTUSblog thinks they’ll nominate Loretta Lynch.
cokane
i think a nominee gets through under Obama. He’s going to appoint a relative liberal. Hell, he knows what’s at stake, all he needs is someone just a hair to the left of Kennedy. I find it hard to believe Republicans would be able to justify a 300+ day absence, and as others have noted, their power position might be weaker in 2017. Further, the court’s going to be basically liberal in Scalia’s absence, at least relatively so.
They’ll try to obstruct for a while, but it’s a loser issue for them. Eventually someone gets in, probably during the summer.
SarahT
@Ultraviolet Thunder: Yeah you right
Betty Cracker
@WaterGirl & @Ultraviolet Thunder: If y’all mean the “has-been” issue, he updated the post to address the push back.
bluehill
I hope this does cost McConnell, but I’m somewhat skeptical that voters outside of the bases of both parties view Supreme Court nominations as having much of an impact on their daily lives. I look at Kentucky and they elected someone who vowed to cut Medicare, which they apparently did not want given their anger after they learned he was actually going to do it.
The impact of SC decisions is harder to trace. Voters don’t vote for SC judges only the senators who every now and then get to select a SC judge. I look at the Citizens United and shake my head when I hear some repub voters complain that there’s too much outside money in politics. Do they realize how that happened?
JustRuss
@Hildebrand:
Hahahahahahahahaha! Have you met our media? For those who worship at the alter of Both Sides, nothing is unpossible.
Cacti
@Betty Cracker:
Merrick Garland has been my gut feeling so far.
Corner Stone
I sincerely hope we get two memoirs when Obama leaves the WH. The expected presidential President Obama version, the one we all can see this man writing about his time in the WH.
And the No Fucks Obama version where he calls out every bullshit thing that was said or written about his presidency and the Congress.
Villago Delenda Est
@Frankensteinbeck: This is because this country was FOUNDED by “liberals”, by definition.
jcgrim
Corey Booker is a poor choice. He sold Newark’s most vulnerable children to private profiteers & the damage he inflicted on millions of families is shameful.
From Glen Ford of The Black Agenda Report
Corey Booker is a poor choice. He sold Newark’s most vulnerable children to private profiteers & the damage he inflicted on millions of families is shameful. From Glen Ford of The Black Agenda Report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdPACwRgw04
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Cory Booker, Bless his heart.
@Betty Cracker: Seems unlikely given her recent appointment as AG, but I’d be all for that
peach flavored shampoo
No offense, but have you just arrived in the US and seen our “mainstream” media? They’ll “justify” it by having every Limbaugh, Boortz, Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly, etc on their radio programs screaming this. They’ll have Drudge and the NY Post and WSJ write about the need to “wait”. It’ll become “common understanding” that anything other than a 300+ day wait is Obama overstepping his boundaries.
Dems just cant compete with the GOP radio & TV propaganda. Unpossible to fight it; it’s too relentless.
Villago Delenda Est
@JustRuss: The very serious villagers will fall all over themselves to lick up Yertle’s splooge on this.
They are utterly worthless.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Corner Stone: I can’t imagine some enterprising publisher hasn’t sounded out Key and Peele about “Luther: An Angry Memoir of the White House Years”, and if not, why not?
ETA: that would be one to get in audio format, unbleeped
dr. bloor
@Hildebrand: Have you been watching any teevee since Mitchie’s pronouncement? It’s already a matter of rock-solid fact and Jesusy faith among Corporate Media that any attempt on Obama’s part to exercise his constitutional duties during his last year in office is divisive and nation-wrecking.
mistermix
@WaterGirl: Yes I updated the post with my response – I left the house after posting and was out for a couple of hours, so I didn’t get into the comments.
cokane
@peach flavored shampoo: bullshit. Obama has won two elections, by safe margins. They seem to be fighting that propaganda effectively. And all the major league level brinksmanship has been won by Obama, debt ceiling and government shutdown fights. The only problem with Dems is turning enough MF’s out to the polls in non prez years, that’s partly a propaganda problem, but not a left-right propaganda issue, just a poor understanding of the power of congress.
cmorenc
@kindness:
If Clinton is the dem nominee and wins the general election in November, the hard-right (including tea-party GOP congress critters) will claim her “felony criminal actions transmitting classified information via her unsecure personal email server” and her “lying about it” are disqualifications that render her immediately illegitimate. If Sanders is the dem nominee and wins the general election, they will ramp up the stonewalling and obstruction and outright institutional sabotage to levels that make even what they’ve done the last seven years to Obama seem mild.
The GOP is putting up such a fight with total-war ferocity right now because they realize that unless they can win and hold all three branches for the next four years, their dream of imposing a reactionary revolution that wipes government back much closer to what it was pre-New Deal (i.e. the good old days of the glibertarian 1890s and 1920s) and erecting permanent electoral and institutional barriers against losing electoral control, they are doomed and the US is headed toward a permanent (albeit lighter) version of European social democracy.
Heliopause
I’ve been reading this particular bit of liberal wisdom over and over for a couple of days now and it’s still a head scratcher for me. Why does anybody think that this bit of GOP obstructionism is the one that finally does them in? When they’ve long been an explicitly obstructionist party and keep, you know, winning elections?
mistermix
@BGinCHI: I think this is the way to do it. That’s why I’m a little skeptical about Lynch, though she would be an excellent Supreme.
nominus
Call it the Jade Helm Rule: Anything and everything can be traced to a conspiracy
https://twitter.com/search?q=Obama%20Scalia%20donor&src=typd
WaterGirl
I posted this on the previous thread but it is more on topic here.
I called my low-information-voter sister just now. I asked if she had heard a supreme court justice had died. YES. She volunteered that she wondered how he would be replaced because those guys get a lifetime appointment.
I asked if she had heard that the republicans are saying they won’t replace the supreme court justice until Obama isn’t president anymore. She had not heard that. I asked if that would make a difference to who she would vote for; she got really squishy and said she can’t impact any of that stuff anyway, so she just doesn’t think about it.
:: sigh ::
Dork
@Heliopause: My favorite comments (from other lefty blogs) are the ones that say things like “they can obstruct, but it’ll kill them at the polls”. Yup, just like it did in 2010 and 2014.
Obama’s not getting his SCOTUS through McConnell, unless Mitch flips parties.
Roger Moore
@Hildebrand:
They just have to buy the Republican framing about putting it to a referendum with the upcoming election. One thing the Republicans have been very good at is coming up with cover stories to give a superficial, media-friendly sheen of reasonableness to their radicalism.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
would Lynch have to resign to be considered? she could also be renominated. IANAL but what I’ve read about her is extremely impressive.
Just Some Fuckhead
Down with mistermix! Up with freedom!
raven
Pups at the top of the stairs.
Mike
I think @Joshtmp http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/playthings is onto it. IE, that McConnell is playing the long game, to “normalize” this behavior so it becomes acceptable to the MSM. He’s still pushing the Overton Window rightward. Mitch doesn’t plan on ever losing the Senate, so he can do this and throw red meat to the base….YMMV.
gvg
@Betty Cracker: most of the angry comments seemed to be after the update. I think people took it as “sorry you were offended”. Mistermix was saying the poor word choices were hurting Hillary while he made poor word choices that reflected badly on Bernie.
I don’t think Corey is a good choice. He has been too Wall Street before this.
The super delegates are meant to prevent a repeat of McGovern. It would be a disaster if they normally did something to override the primary voters. The exception is if some last minute thing came out and the candidate with the most delagates was now unelectable ala VP mental issues. Then the fact that they can change their vote would be called for.
I really do have issues with Bernie not having been a Democrat until recently. Explanations haven’t really made me feel OK with it. I will vote for him if I have too but I really don’t like it as someone living in a state where the Dems organization just seemed to have died about a decade ago even though we still have voters. There are plenty of local issues where we need more dems in office…and Bernie has never cared. And if he does win, what if some other purer than thou types go their own way until they need us?
mistermix
@Heliopause: You’re right that there will be no one thing that will be the death blow to Republican obstructionism, but at minimum this will be a campaign issue: Why did he refuse to let the Senate do its job? Why not allow an up or down vote? Why won’t go to work and do their job? etc.
Just Some Fuckhead
@mistermix:
Apparently Mitch McConnell now takes marching orders from backbencher Ted Cruz.
Corner Stone
@dr. bloor:
They aren’t even posing the hypothetical on this, it’s just a statement that gets no pushback. “The next president’s SC pick will blah blah blah.”
Jim, Foolish Literalist
This won’t “break” or “annihilate” Republicans, but people pay more attention to the Supreme Court, and they pay more attention in election years. Partially because of things like this:
Google suggests Henry McMaster is the Lt Gov of SC and former state AG.
NonyNony
@cokane:
Also, and perhaps more importantly, convincing Democratic voters that state, county and city level elections are important.
Gaining control of the government from the bottom up has been the GOP agenda for decades. People proclaiming the death of the GOP are way early because at the state level in most states they’re the only game in town. Not because they have a majority, but because their voters vote in every election and they can always find somebody to be a warm body to wear the (R) tag for every single seat. Dems don’t have that and until they figure out a way to counter it the Republicans are going to be able to keep running the same playbook they’ve been running – hold one piece of the government as a veto point and make sure nothing gets done until they can hold every piece and do exactly what they want.
Immanentize
I don’t think Lynch will be the nominee — but I could be wrong! She has not been a Judge which, in the olden days didn’t matter so much but matters a hell of a lot right now. I agree that complaining about ‘obstruction’ is a tired and weak waste of time. But putting up a minority candidate on whom the republican members of congress and base voters go all nativist and racist is a very likely outcome of any nomination. Remember all the “Why can’t Obama find a white guy to nominate when he nominated Sotomayor?
Yutsano
@Immanentize:
Neither was Elena Kagan.
Anya
@nominus: We’ll just wait for the press conference from Texas Governor calling for an investigation.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
OT: HRC gonna be on the Tweety show tonight. IF they keep this up, they’ll have as many rare exclusive one-on-ones as Hayes has with Bernie Sanders
bluehill
@WaterGirl: This is exactly my concern. SC nominations motivate the bases, but I don’t think low-info voters care as much, because the impact is less direct and the ability to affect the selection is also less direct (i.e. electing Senators). Look at dem turnout during mid-term elections. We lost the senate in this last one, which is obviously more consequential now.
raven
@cmorenc: no shit Dick Traccy
Napoleon
Wouldn’t one issue with Lynch be that she may not be able to vote on a bunch of cases involving the administration due to having conflicts?
The Dangerman
@Heliopause:
Me, too.
The reason why McConnell came out so fast and said NFW is this is pure win for the Republicans as long as the Media doesn’t call them out on this shit – and if you think THAT will happen…
Matt McIrvin
@Betty Cracker: Ha ha! She was the first name I thought of as a wish/joke.
Immanentize
And if I have time later, I will tell you the story of my dinner with Scalia, J. and his wife in Austria. Or the time he wrote in an opinion that the death of my father wasn’t a good reason for a sixty day continuance in a death penalty case where the inmate had no attorney.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/498/1301 Fun times!
But you know — he was a towering mental giant and funny/sarcastic so all good.
gvg
@raven: when you said pups on stairs I thought you were going to post this video which I saw a few days ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gghfoRKVPCo
mistermix
Here’s a good candidate: Sri Srinivasan – confirmed 97-0 by the Senate. The question is whether he would want to give up any chance of being a Supreme by accepting a nomination which will almost certainly be blocked.
Immanentize
@Yutsano: True, but there is a huge difference between Solicitor General and Attorney General in the law world — the former has a different place in the firmament. So, SG’s that became Supreme Court Justices include Jackson (who went off to be the chief Nuremberg prosecutor for the US), Thurgood Marshall (how I revere that man) and Kagan. The only ‘modern’ AG I can think of was Tom Clark? Also, Kagan was the Dean of some law school, I think.
dr. bloor
@mistermix:
Here’s his problem: You don’t tell POTUS you’d rather wait until next term, when you like your chances more. You get one stab at the brass ring.
Tenar Darell
@Hildebrand:
I think one of the worst things that ever happened to reporters was getting access to money & respect. If it wasn’t destroying so much of the basic reporting that we need at the local level, I’d say that the entire system of journalism which we currently have deserves to DIAF.
(Of course, I don’t watch cable news, I avoid local tv news except for the weather, & I try to stick to text based sources so I don’t go out like Tony, screaming at TV or something. So I’m a complete outlier in terms of being able to comment from experience on the phenomenon of the MSM going so squishy they can barely fact check on their own anymore. I do read a lot of media criticism, but that’s not hard if you hang out around here ;-)
Steve from Antioch
Is Scalia’s wife still alive? Was she with him? Was anyone with him that night?
What was this “party” he was attending? Who else was there in this party of 40?
I ask not because I think there was some conspiracy to kill him, but because I assume he was there as a guest of ALEC or some other corporate douchebags and that they supplied him with a whore for the evening.
(Reposted from another thread)
Frankensteinbeck
@The Dangerman:
I agree this is pure win for the Republicans, but so were all the confrontations up until now where he came out with categorical political rejections and ended up folding. It’s why we have a budget right now. I don’t know why he’s been caving when it looks like he has all the cards, but it’s a strong argument he’ll keep doing it.
Betty Cracker
@raven: So cute! You can really see the different personalities in that photo.
Librarian
I don’t think it’ll be Lynch. Because she’s AG, she’ll be accused of being Obama’s “crony.”
JPL
It would seem that the so called family values party, could use better names for their rules. They have the Hassert Rule and now the so called Thurmond rule. The so called Thurmond rule, didn’t leave a vacancy on the court, so that’s a stretch.
Brachiator
@Hildebrand:
What they say: Obama is unwilling to work with Congress.
What they mean (polite version): Obama won’t do what we want.
Villago Delenda Est
@Dork: You forget. This is not an “off year” election. People turn out in Presidential election years, much more than in the mid terms.
Napoleon
@Steve from Antioch:
Per a NY Times story today he slept alone that night, he did not answer an 8:30 wake up knock on the door and it was a couple hours later when the inn owner entered the room that he found him dead. It was pretty clear from the story that he passed in bed in his sleep and that he had been dead for some time.
Immanentize
Pierce recommends Obama nominate Anita Hill, just for maximum Fury Road effects:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42165/scalia-succession/
Immanentize
PS, Scalia, J.’s wife is a very kind, intelligent, inquisitive human being — an Irish Catholic woman who grew up in the Boston area — who loves her children very much. Opposites attract.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Napoleon:
Hopefully they won’t bury or cremate him in an election year. Just prop him up on the Supreme Court bench and let Clarence Thomas ask the questions and make the jokes.
Matt McIrvin
I think that if Obama nominated Lynch it wouldn’t be to actually get her nominated, it’d be a “screw you, too.” The question is whether that’s the optimal strategy.
Bill E Pilgrim
@Immanentize: I read his piece seconds before I cam here and I’m still laughing out loud. A brilliant choice. God that’s funny.
PIGL
@Corner Stone: how is it possible to pretend any longer to United States of America is a functioning democracy? its looking more and more like a failed state, to me, riven by internal conflicts of interest that cannot be resolved.
oldgold
Article II, Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the TERM OF FOUR YEARS …” (caps supplied)
Article II, Section 2: “… he SHALL NOMINATE, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court..” (caps supplied)
Article II, Section1: ” ..he SHALL take the following Oath …will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution..” (caps supplied)
Article IV: “The Senators. …SHALL BE BOUND by an oath of Affirmation, to Support the Constitution..” (caps Supplied)
The above makes it exceedingly clear that President Obama has a constitutional duty to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia and the Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent on his nominee. McConnell’s position not to consider ANY individual nominated by Obama as a Justice of the Supreme Court is grossly unconstitutional and an objective violation of each Senator’s constitutionally required oath of office.
McConnell’s position is so brazenly unconstitutional, that it is, in effect, an overt attempted political coup of our constitutional republic. The issue should be framed as such.
raven
@gvg: Oh cool! I actually would rather that they not come up here.Lil Bit just finished 4 months of limited duty with her ACL surgery so I carry her back down when she sneaks up. Bohdi is starting to have hip issues so I bought him these steps so he could get i and out of the bed!
Brachiator
The Republicans have been wedded to obstructionism for Obama’s entire presidency. They have no reason to let up now. And this will also be considered the beginning of the obstruction of any Clinton or Sanders presidency.
And even if you consider the so-called “Thurmond Rule,” it’s February, not June. These bastards not only make up the rules, they revise them at will to suit their own purposes.
raven
I see we are back to full throated chicken little fucking freak out. I’n sure ya’ll would be happier if he hadn’t bought the farm!
dr. bloor
@Just Some Fuckhead: Can’t find the cite, but apparently the family declined an autopsy and he has requested cremation.
Full-Bore Crazification Factor now set to eleventy-billion.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@WaterGirl:
Neither does a single drop of water.
Except in North Carolina, where a single snowflake is capable of knocking a car off the road.
Ripley
@Steve from Antioch:
David Brooks?
Brachiator
@oldgold:
This is standard operating procedure for McConnell and the Republicans.
From a June 2012 news story:
This is going to be a nasty and unnecessary battle, and the Democrats need to make sure that it is an easily understandable campaign issue during the November election.
Just Some Fuckhead
@raven:
Why did Scalia wait for an election year? If he would have gone to the Great Quail Hunt In the Sky 47 days ago, we could have had us a new liberal Supreme Court justice.
Steve in the ATL
@Napoleon:
The late Associate Justice Scalia established the precedent that a justice need not recuse himself even where there is a flagrant conflict of interest
dr. bloor
@Just Some Fuckhead: The obvious conclusion here is that he’s been a stiff for months now and his handlers have been running a Dave or Moon Over Parador-type scam.
Just Some Fuckhead
@dr. bloor:
I like the idea of a gray and rotting Scalia sitting on the bench in support of a dead and mouldering Constitution.
Just Some Fuckhead
@dr. bloor:
Is it possible Scalia actually perished at a weekend at Bernie’s? Is that the big cover-up here?
Corner Stone
Fuck me. MSNBC asking Ben Ginsburg if Obama “should” put forth a SC nominee…
Corner Stone
“Polarizer in Chief”
HAHAHAHAHA
Matt McIrvin
@Just Some Fuckhead: ….riiiiight, that’d totally have happened.
ruemara
We are so fucked in this country.
cokane
@NonyNony: this too, great point. Still amazes me that, Ferguson, MO had basically a mostly white govt and then ppl were shocked that govt employees didn’t give a shit about the interests of the black community.
Bill E Pilgrim
@mistermix: Certainly no raging progressive to be sure, to the point where Think Progress wrote
…
So the theory is that the Republicans can’t object, but then of course the book on what Republicans can or can’t/ might or might not do pretty much had to be torn up the day that they made an insane talking parrot the actual nominee for Vice President.
danielx
Already rumors circulating about how the Texas plutocrat who invited Scalia down there was a major Obama contributor, etc etc, argle bargle.
Matt McIrvin
@cokane: “If you think black people might be poorly represented by having basically no black people in their government, why, YOU’RE the real racist!”
Repeat, da capo al fine, forever and ever.
Baud
@danielx: If I wanted to cover up a murder of a high profile conservative, I’d choose Texas.
Hildebrand
@Roger Moore: Isn’t this bit of obstructionism a different beast altogether, though? This is now a decorum issue, and the media hates when politicians do something that isn’t quite cricket, won’t this actually get some of the fainting couch dwellers all a dither?
Steve from Antioch
@Napoleon:
Let me ask you this: If Scalia had died two nights ago while getting his knob polished by mexican prostitute, what story do you think you would read the next day?
Bill E Pilgrim
@Heliopause:
Yeah exactly.
There is never peak wingnut. There is just more wingnut pique.
Onward and perpetually, they are in a fury of outrage about something, Obama’s existence as President in this case, escalating, forever and without end.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Betty Cracker: Interesting.
That reminds me of criticism Obama was getting a few years about having few women in positions of power in his second term (compared to his first). He said something like “just watch”. I wonder if that is still part of his thinking.
Given the grilling that the Teabaggers tried to give LL during her confirmation hearings, it would be delicious for him to nominate her for SCOTUS. She would be a great pick.
Cheers,
Scott.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Steve from Antioch:
Brilliant and witty Scalia dies to reaffirm dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.
Snarkworth, short-fingered Bulgarian
@WaterGirl: Wow. Maybe your sister thinks “lifetime appointment” refers not to Nino’s lifetime, but that of the president who appointed him? Have you told her Reagan’s dead?
Napoleon
@Steve from Antioch:
Same one, perhaps. I think the story is that was his first night at the place, ever.
Napoleon
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Well done sir, well done!
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@raven: It is funny that the SCOTUS Teabagger majority being reduced by one is somehow good news for the Teabaggers, isn’t it?
:-/
Cheers,
Scott.
Lee
I’ve only read a couple of articles about it, but so far I like Sri Srinivasan for the nomination.
Honestly don’t care that much and I’m confidant that whoefver it is will be a great pick.
nominus
@Anya: Honestly, I’m just waiting. Abbott cannot resist making a fool of himself while thinking he’s a great statesman. Remember that our governor tends to post breitbart stupidity on his Facebook wall, didn’t tell the Jade Helm wackos to stuff it, and called for a constitutional convention so that the states could tell the federal government what they’re not going to do. I truly would not be surprised if Abbott actually gave this enough consideration to keep it alive for a few days.
My other favorite conspiracy theory is that it was actually Cruz supporters who did him in, hoping to block Supreme Court action on Trump’s birther lawsuit against him. Not lying. There are living breathing humans who actually think this. Yes, I know people might argue with the definition of human, but nonetheless…whatever they are, they are in business of mining Comedy Gold.
sparrow
@Librarian:
Totally agree.
Heliopause
@mistermix:
I think that it will at best be a marginal issue to any potential swing voters, and in fact there might be an argument to be made that obstructing Obama’s nominee will fire up base turnout.
sparrow
@oldgold: This is so good. I just put it on Facebook (attributed here) and got a LOT of likes. That probably just says something about my friend group, though…
Snarkworth, short-fingered Bulgarian
Why is my moderate comment in moderation?
Betty Cracker
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Anhedonia ain’t just a river in…oh wait. Never mind!
catclub
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I would be in favor of him as a SC judge if NJ gets Rush Holt as much better senator. I doubt it is happening.
Steve from Antioch
@Just Some Fuckhead:
heh
Thoroughly Pizzled
When Obama submits a nomination it will be sincere. All his work as president has aimed to show that government can be good.
oz29
The President has a huge problem from jump — finding someone who will agree to be nominated. The kind of people who are qualified to serve as Associate Justices are not the kind of people who serve very well as pawns. Even if he did have a willing pawn, he is not going to nominate someone to make a political, philosophical, or other point at the possible expense of that person’s reputation or career.
WaterGirl
@bluehill: I do think that Independents will care about this issue, though, so at least there’s that.
Immanentize
Here is another idea I hadn’t considered but just looked up. Obama could make a recess appointment for the remainder of Congress and appoint someone at the same time. Maybe the same person, but could be different people. William J. Brennan, my most favorite ever Justice (Marshall was #2) was appointed in a recess appointment by Eisenhower keeping the Court contingent at 9.
redshirt
I don’t see why if Obama nominates someone and they don’t get a hearing, they can’t be nominated again.
Now, if they get a hearing and are rejected, that’s different.
WaterGirl
@JPL: Last Week Tonight showed a clip last night of the turtle speaking in the senate last time this came up, blasting democrats for whining about this particular rule. In that case, the republican president got to select their nominee and he was voted in by the senate, including democrats.
I hope that clip gets distributed far and wide. It makes the turtle look absolutely ridiculous.
El Caganer
@Napoleon: Where was Dick Cheney when this went down? Did he shoot a judge in Marfa just to watch him die?
Baud
@Immanentize: This zombie lie needs to die. It can’t happen because the Republicans will not go into recess.
bemused senior
Mark Kleiman described how this could be done despite the recent anti-recess appointment SC case. See reality based community blog post. Someone at Balkanization suggested Senate Republicans could thwart this by redefining “session” in the rules, but that sounds even more out there than other unlikely scenarios.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Immanentize: The Congress is in “recess” until February 22, at least for some values of “recess”. (I don’t think it’s close enough to be a “real” recess to risk it, myself. See the “adjournment resolution” link for the text.)
Obama has a few days if he wants to try this approach. It’s hard to believe that McConnell will give him another chance (if he even gave him one in this case).
Cheers,
Scott.
Baud
@bemused senior: If you can link, I’d love to read it.
WaterGirl
@Thoroughly Pizzled: “When Obama submits a nomination it will be sincere. All his work as president has aimed to show that government can be good.”
THIS.
dr. bloor
@oz29:
“Hi, this is the President of the United States. It’s going to be a messy fight and there’s certainly a chance of being shut out, but I’d be honored and pleased to place your name into nomination for a seat on the most powerful court in the land. Lifetime gig.”
I’d wager the list of highly-qualified jurists who would say “No thanks, Mr. Most Powerful Man On Earth” is exceedingly short.
Frankensteinbeck
@dr. bloor:
It makes a difference that it’s out of character for Obama to nominate a ‘pawn’. If he asks someone to do it, he will do his best to get them passed. They won’t be throw-aways.
Baud
@WaterGirl:
@Frankensteinbeck:
Agree.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
OT: anybody watching Trump? I watched for a few minutes, thinking that if he’s spoken a complete sentence, one that could be diagrammed by my fifth grade teacher, I’ll eat my hat, and I swear he said that none of his competition could negotiate a deal with the lumber companies
dr. bloor
@Frankensteinbeck: Oh, I agree entirely. He’s not going to jerk anybody around, he’s not going to send an obvious sacrifice up to the Hill. He’s also not going to pass on the responsibility of making a nomination.
My point was that you don’t really say “no” to the offer if you’re at all interested, because the offer is a once in a lifetime proposition. Any potential nominee–up to the top of the list–would be foolish to think that the seat will (a) be waiting for him/her at the beginning of the next term, and that (b) she/he will be at the top of the next POTUS’s list. Sucks for the nominee that the ride will be rocky, but you go to Court with the nominating process you have, not the one you wish you had.
Immanentize
@Baud: Lie, shmie. Why does everyone want to call everything a lie these days? It is so un-Presidential.
The Senate is currently in recess. True, from the 22nd on, the Senate could — could — stay in session. But Obama certainly could make a recess appointment (so not a lie), but I understand he has said he won’t.
Baud
@Immanentize: Because it’s not a possibility unless the GOP is dumb enough to allow it (maybe they are!). If there is a recess, Obama can fill every vacant federal office and judgment for the rest of his term. I can’t imagine the GOP would be that dumb (but maybe they are!).
And if people believe it’s a real possibility when it isn’t, they’ll blame Obama for not pursuing it.
cokane
@oz29: just no. That aint Obama’s MO. My best guess is that he will nominate the most qualified candidate his team sees (i’m sure they already had a list), with maybe some minor political consideration for avoiding anyone seeming extremely liberal.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Baud: Here is at least one version:
See the original for embedded links.
Cheers,
Scott.
Immanentize
@Baud: I think of it a bit differently — it moves the Overton window our direction and then Obama will again be adult and judicious and he will look excellent. I don’t think anyone will blame Obama for acting like an adult during this Republican coup-ette.
But a boy can dream, can’t he?
Baud
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Thanks. Interesting read. In the age of stage coaches it might have worked. But I think Senate Republicans will happily come back to Washington every 10 days to put the screws to Democrats and Obama.
Baud
@Immanentize: I don’t see it. Obama attempting a recent appointment no one thinks is legitimate would be harmful IMHO.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
SCOTUSBlog: Is a recess appointment to the Court an option?
catclub
@cokane:
This is one of the large failures of the Obama administration. I acknowledge that they were busy with other things in 2009-2010. They did not get nominees pushed through minority stall tactics in the senate.
Now they should know better. And they should have a list of Appeals court nominees ready to go on day one of 2017 if there is a democratic senate majority. For either Clinton or Sanders.
catclub
@WaterGirl:
I doubt he cares.
Immanentize
@Baud: No I meant talking about it as an option — not Obama actually doing it. In other words, I think there is value in spreading the (zombie lie) possibility without POTUS acting on it. It will make the Republicans nuts. Already people are jumping up and down about what Shumer may have said in 2007.
I know Obama never would never do it (and might well be prevented), but it would be such a Hall of Fame Troll move.
Immanentize
@Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism: Thanks — good link
D58826
@catclub: What makes you think the GOP will be any more amenable to a Hillary/Bernie pick than an Obama pick. Unless the d’s pick up 60 seats somewhere along the way the GOP could, theoretically, block a SCOTUS appointment until the next GOOPPER moves into to the WH and names someone that Cruz/Rubio will approve of..
I’m not saying it will happen but without the 60 votes the GOP will be in no hurry to approve a nominee in 2017.c
oz29
@cokane: Seriously? With the ideological weight of the Court for the next 2 decades hanging in the balance, President Obama is too pure-of-heart, too kindly, too virtuous, to play hardball?
The man did not become President of the most powerful nation in this planet’s history because he is extra-gentle when he hugs kittens.
Baud
@Immanentize: If I believed that progressives could talk about it without expecting it to happen, maybe I’d feel differently.
GregB
Are there also Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest and David Duke Rules that the Senate adheres to?
oz29
@GregB: There is Jeff Davis’ desk . . .
cokane
@oz29: it’s not about playing ball at all to him. this isn’t a game, it’s a supreme court nomination. he isn’t going to use it as a political football. he’s trying to accomplish shit that helps human beings, not just run up the score in the media for the home team.
the man was the editor of the fucking harvard law review. i’m sure he thinks, rightly, that there’s bigger things to his job than short-sighted maneuvering. and are we really fucking wanting a president who thinks about the Supreme Court nominations as moves on a fucking game board? I swear some people take the half-witted and meaningless babble on cable news talk shows and internet social media way too fuckin seriously
sm*t cl*de
@Just Some Fuckhead:
His family asked for no autopsy, and cremation, but perhaps Jeb Bush will over-rule them.
catclub
@D58826:
The filibuster would go. It might be an opportunity to kill secret holds and other senate ‘traditions’ as well.
oz29
@cokane: Yeah. Some people sure are dumbasses.
For the life of me, I have no clue what being the editor of the Law Review has to do with nominating Scalia’s replacement. Even being editor of the Harvard Law Review doesn’t mean he has some peculiar veneration for the noble traditions of the Court that are beyond the estimation of some mere member of the Order of the Coif at Boalt or the dude who graduated 97th in his class at Purdue. It just means he remembered the holding of Pierson v. Post when everyone else had to look it up and he was an excellent writer.
Obama is in the last 350-some days of the last job he is ever going to have, and he has the opportunity to permanently alter the course of American jurisprudence. He is about to make a political appointment to one of the most highly politicized bodies on earth. Making a political move is more than “short-sighted maneuvering”; it will potentially be the difference between a short term liberal majority and a long term liberal bloc. So, yeah, I want a president who is looking at the end-game strategically.
Tom Q
@catclub: Seconded. I fully expect, if Hillary is elected, that the Senate will also go Democratic. If the Pubs then use the filibuster as a last-ditch way of blocking a Supreme Court appointment, the Dems will say, fine, you’ve proven your commitment to obstruction is total; we’ve already gone halfway with eliminating the filibuster for all other judgeships, it’s an easy step to extend it to the Supremes in this hour of need.
No way Dems let it continue ad infinitum. No chance in the world.
cokane
@oz29: you seem to have lost the thread of this conversation or just want to cleverly disown your original comment that spawned this subthread.
I originally replied to a post where you said no one who wants to serve as justice is going to accept a nomination at the moment, then implying that maybe some “pawn” need be nominated as a political ploy. This is flat out wrong.
Despite all the current bluster, a drawn out nomination fight is almost certainly likely to end in Obama appointing a justice. No vacancy has been open this long since the mid 1800s. Therefore, Obama is going to nominate the person he thinks should be the justice. It’s odd how easily some liberals take seriously conservative bluster.
Citizen Scientist
Sen. Toomey has now stated that President O. has the right to nominate someone for the SCOTUS, but that any of his nominees will be doa. I really hope that a$$hole gets tossed in the fall. Luckily, it sounds like even a lot of conservatives here have no use for a senator that carries wall street’s water, pays only lip service to veterans, and has no real legislative accomplishments.
oz29
@cokane: I guess we need not worry about you editing the Harvard Law Review. I simply stated that Obama’s biggest problem will be finding someone willing to stand as the nominee, since likely suspects might not like to be drawn in to this particular political mess. It is, and will be, a mess. Obama has many options available; I’m not convinced that he will ignore political realities in favor of some apolitical altruism.
cokane
@oz29: You’re really stuck on a relatively minor detail in preceding arguments, it’s telling of your capacities.
What you’ve simply stated is still BS though and just illustrates a total inability to put yourself in a prospective nominee’s shoes. No one labors a decade or two or more in law as these candidates will have and then passes up their shot because the nomination is going to be contentious. SCOTUS nominees are all alike in being pretty damn ambitious motherfuckers. You don’t get to the top otherwise.
Second, no nomination for the foreseeable future is going to come without a political mess. Dogged, implacable Republican obstruction will be a feature of federal politics for the next decade if not more.
Shortribs
@Frankensteinbeck: I agree Obama wouldn’t nominate an actual throw-away candidate but I’m curious if he’d nominate his 2nd choice 1st taking the odds that if she or he is blocked then his next nominee might fare slightly better.
Marc McKenzie
He’ll pick the most innocuous, closest to the center but still reliably liberal, mild-mannered, worker-bee federal judge, perhaps a Bush I or II appointee who has evolved a bit.
Oh brother….he can never be good enough or pure enough, right? Sheesh….
shomi
“Sarah Palin is totally going to run for Prez” mistermix is making predictions again.
So we know that is totally NOT going to happen.
Eric
@catclub: What about Russ Feingold? Sure, you risk letting Johnson hold onto the seat from Wisconsin, but that might be reason enough for the GOP to move the nomination forward.