If, as seems reasonable, Greg Sargent is correct that the spectacle of Senate hearings on an Obama-nominated Supreme Court Justice will empower hardliners Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the Republican Establishment has a powerful incentive not to allow them.
At this point, though, we’re almost to the point where the Establishment should just give up on the prospect of having anyone other than Trump or Cruz as their nominee. We’ll soon know more when we get the results from South Carolina’s primary, but right now it looks very likely that Trump will win there, possibly in a walk, and that Cruz will come in second place. Among the also-rans, only Marco Rubio seems to be showing any life. And, after watching him get eviscerated by Chris Christie in New Hampshire, do the Republicans really want to hitch their wagon to the remote hope that Rubio will surge to win the nomination and then prove a match for the Democrats’ candidate?
Part of the problem with this whole plan to reject any Obama Supreme Court selection is that the Republicans are looking so unlikely to get their act together in time to win in the fall.
We can debate where this whole subject falls on the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t scale, but I’m not convinced it helps the Republicans’ cause in November to simply refuse to consider any nominee by declining to give them the courtesy of a hearing and a vote. The logic of it is that the Republican base will be so dejected if partisan control of the Court is lost before the election that they won’t turn out. If, on the other hand, they think control hangs in the balance, they will turn out in droves. They won’t turn out to vote for a nominee they might hate or distrust, but they’ll turn out to keep the Court from flipping to a liberal majority.
That makes a lot of sense, and I’m sure that they would experience different turnout numbers depending on which road they take. But base mobilization is more of a midterm strategy than a general election strategy. The Republicans have only succeeded in winning the popular vote once in the last twenty-eight years (in 2004), and they barely won the Electoral College that year. They need to change the shape of the electorate in their favor, because their base just isn’t big enough.
And, consider, since 2012 they’ve definitely done damage with their prospects with Latino and Asian voters. They’ve further alienated the academic/scientific/technical/professional class with their anti-science lunacy. They’ve lot the youth vote over a variety of issues, including hostility to gay rights. They’re doing everything they can to maximize the black vote. Muslims will vote almost uniformly against them despite sharing some of their ‘family values.’ Women won’t be impressed if Cruz or Rubio are the nominees because they both oppose abortion including in cases of rape or incest. They’ll be unimpressed with Donald Trump because he’s a sexist, womanizing boor. I don’t think any of these groups will be more favorably inclined to the Republicans if they block Obama’s nominee without a hearing.
Realistically, as this point they almost have to go with Trump because his fame and lack of orthodoxy will change the shape of the electorate. It’s not likely to change it favorably, and many life-long Republicans will bolt the party, perhaps never to come back. But it will change it.
Unless John Kasich catches fire there’s no hope of the GOP rebranding in a way that will undo the massive amount of damage they’ve done with the persuadable middle. Jeb would present a softer face to the party, but there’s no way a Bush is winning the general election in 2016.
The way I see it, the best deal the Republicans are going to get is right now. Obama will compromise with them. He might pick a relatively moderate Justice if he has assurances that they’ll be confirmed. People have mentioned Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, for example, who is a pro-choice Republican. He might pick someone older, like George Mitchell. He might pick a colleague of theirs. I think Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is his best option. The Republican senators like her and she’s no radical.
But, if they lose the general election, which the wise among them must know is becoming almost a certainty, they’ll also lose a bunch of Senate seats. They’ll be in a much weaker position to block Clinton or Sanders’s nominee or (if necessary) nominees. And they’ll probably have to deal with a nominee who is further to the left and much younger.
Why not use their considerable power now to get some real concessions rather than roll the dice on Donald Trump or Ted Cruz being our next president?
And, as Greg Sargent points out, who knows who Trump would nominate? He was pro-choice until he decided he needed to pretend otherwise if he wanted to win the Republican nomination. Why trust him?
So, it’s really down to Ted Cruz.
Cruz or nothing.
That’s how they want to go.
Except they universally loathe Ted Cruz with the heat of a thousand supernovas.
It sucks to be a Republican senator.
Reading this, despite how angry it makes me that Republican Senators would deny Obama what I think is irrefutably his nomination to make and be approved, I almost hope they refuse to consider it and suffer the consequences.
“the consequences” are practically nil. The fact that there is an open seat has effectively killed any hope of sanguinity in the lib/left/progressive ranks. AG’s feared no turnout will not happen because there is nothing at stake except the presidency (maybe from some other reason, but not that one).
THE BASE rules the R’s at this point. We’ll see what happens when Kasich gets a chance at a semi-favourable (or at least the 40% of the R primary voters who haven’t drunk the Trump/Cruz koolaid). But from here on out it isn’t going to be pretty.
Whether or not there is a constant drum of malfeasance in the Senate doesn’t mean diddly/squat for any of these voters … or candidates.
That’s precisely what gives them incentive to give in. A moderate on the court is a huge problem for their vote suppression plans, but a wildly energized Dem electorate voting for a Supreme Court seat after 300 days of blatantly offensive obstructionism might be worse.
A few days ago I thought there was no way anybody would get confirmed before the election. But with O’Connor strongly saying it’s Obama’s nomination to make, I’m not so sure. It’s going to be very painful for the Republicans to refuse this.
To Boo: Obama is not nominating a Republican politician, period. It’s gonna be Sri. (p.s. – why do you think O’Connor’s so on Obama’s side?)
They can’t give in. The Base has no political sense whatsoever. These turkeys actually believe that they are still the majority in this country … after being unable to defeat “the Black Guy” twice in a row.
If Grassley allows the committee to hold hearings on whoever is nominated he is toast. If McConnell says anything but the most obstructionist crap he can think of he is toast.
Nah, the tiger is burning brightly and the riders have begun to lose their grip.
This is precisely why the Republicans are so fucked. It’s every man for himself as they run, hair on fire, from a sinking ship. Republican majorities can hold up in a minority of Senate seats for a while. They can hold up too in a majority of House seats for now. But one by one, places once winnable and moving out of reach. Right now, it would take a major, unexpected cataclysm to put the White House in play.
I agree with you …
That’s perfectly logical. Fortunately for us, the GOP base isn’t. If the Republicans consider and accept a moderate Justice, that would show that they actually care, at least a bit, about the ideals their party supposedly stands for. But doing that will enrage their base, and probably get a good number of them thrown out of office. Is their ideology more important than the perks of their job? Guess we’ll find out.
I was unsurprised at how fast McConnell & others came out with their pronouncements from on High that the Blah in their White House had no right to nominate another SC Justice. No. Not surprised.
However, I also thought: they’re likely to end up hoist on their own petards.
Teh stoopit, it burnz.
Constantly pandering to a very very heavily propagandized base that no longer deals in factual reality can get you painted into some mighty tricky & sticky corners.
To tell Obama not to nominate anyone. All they had to do is hold hearings and then hold together as a caucus to vote no to confirmation. As Obama himself filibustered Alito and voted against Roberts’ confirmation he really has little room to complain that the Republicans won’t confirm his nomination.
As I have been following Obama’s political career since 2004 I thought back then he would come to regret those votes should be become president. While I don’t agree with either one’s judicial philosophy but there is little question that both were qualified to be on Supreme Court.
Good points. I think Republicans are incredibly stupid to pick this particular place to take a stand. When Obama puts forth a telegenic, obviously qualified Latino or Asian or African-American candidate, and the Republicans refuse to even provide a hearing, it’s going to take a politically desperate (for them) situation and make it worse. When you have to draw an inside straight on all the swing states to have any chance at the presidency, it’s not a great idea to screw yourself in purple and red leaning states like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Virginia and the one-you-can’t-live-without, Florida. Majorly idiotic move. Proceed, imbeciles, proceed!
The goal here is not to deny an Obama nominee, but to deny all nominations by future democratic presidents. If Ginsberg gets sick, then the Court goes to a 4-3 conservative majority. THAT is the goal. Sure, Roberts will complain to them that his legacy is being harmed, that those decisions are compromised, but Republicans won’t care. And neither will Roberts or Alito in their heart of hearts. Their goal is what it’s always been..win by any means necessary.
If Obama in any way sends up a compromise, it will be treated as his other compromises, it will be refused. The Republicans are not interested in compromise. He should nominate the same person he would have with a Democratic controlled senate.
.
It appears that the window for this sort of rational calculation was shut pretty fast by Coach McConnell, and he doesn’t seem to be walking his decision back. He immediately told the base what it wanted to hear and to renege on it now would be catastrophic. Is the base in charge or isn’t it?
While you can say that their “base just isn’t big enough” to win the WH, is this what KKK Rover thinks (and privately tells anyone)? That we will never know, but as far as I can observe, the High Command thinks all they need to do is find the missing white voters, those who sat out 2012, while scheming to suppress minority/youth voting in swing states. If they actually think their (all white) base is now too small ever to win again, then they are behaving as a completely deluded operation (mindlessly and senselessly alienating vast sections of the electorate while gaining little), and nothing they do will make the slightest difference.
If the Repub base is already too small to win, then surely depressing it further by letting the hated Obammy name St. Scalia’s successor and lose the Supreme Court would be the (admitted) end of the ball game. And they now have no possible way of spinning the confirmation an Obama nominee, so it simply is not going to happen. I will be surprised if they hold hearings on the nominee, there’s no upside, and they will just play the refs as usual—and get at least as good a barge of parrot-like stenography from the useless corporate media as they have already gotten.
We’ve just had some terrible polling out for Hillary, with her supposedly running neck and neck with the whole Repub field, so patting ourselves on the back for holding the WH seems a tad premature. After watching the general Repub delusion over Rmoney, they’ll believe anything about their chances, as long as they think their monstrous base is fired up.
So get ready to memorize the phrase “affirmed by an equally divided court”, we’ll be hearing it for a while. And we shall see which side of our irreparably divided nation cares more about control of the institution that now does more to govern the country than any other…
They’re clearly not calculating in terms of the presidency. Guys like McConnell are sacrificing the presidency to save their own limp, spotted behinds.
Here, Alabama, have some Shariah Law.
Barack is just sticking it to them at this point.
And I’m sure this guy is a great judge, but the lunatics won’t see it that way.
The Republican total obstruction strategy on the Supreme Court nomination is the same as a defendant with the evidence stacked against him refusing a plea deal, hoping against hope that his attorney will pull a rabbit out of a hat.
I don’t think Obama is going to deal at all with Republicans. He is going to nominate a leftist judge with impeccable qualifications. That is what turns the screws on McConnell the tightest.
I think he hopes Republicans block the nomination. I sure hope so. If they do, everything we now think about the 2016 election will go out the window. Whatever damage the candidates in both parties do to each other on the way to the nomination, Barack Obama will insert Republican obstructionism into the campaign.
The Republicans have not paid a price for their childish and irresponsible behavior since Gingrich started all the nonsense. We’ve seen how that behavior has flowered in the past seven years and how damaging it is for the Republic. This is an opportunity to make them pay. Make this the election issue, win it big, and we will see the Republican party behave very differently after the election. What’s left of it.
There is a sweet spot between a qualified jurist Republicans might approve and a qualified jurist who is to the left of Earl Warren. A reasonable choice Republicans reject. That’s what Obama is (or should be) aiming for.
Step back and watch the Republicans commit suicide. If this becomes the central issue in the campaign, I can even imagine the House flipping and I cannot in any other scenario.
Given that when he was Senator he filibustered Alito and voted no to confirm Roberts, both of whom had impeccable qualifications, they have an easy way to push back on his obstructionist charge. All they have to say is we are only doing what you did when you were a Senator. I told my parents back then if he ever becomes President those no’s could bite him in the backside and here we are.
The Republicans are not filibustering, they are rejecting any nominee in advance without even knowing who it would be. A filibuster is a sanctioned senatorial procedure; these guys are refusing to carry out their constitutionally designated responsibility. Preventing the president from doing what he’s supposed to do,is a violation of the separation of powers.
I was responding to the post above mine saying what Obama needed to do was send a liberal judge who was impeccably qualified and just dare the Republicans not to confirm.
My point was IF he does that and then complains that they didn’t confirm his nomination they have a easy pushback – they are only doing what he did back when he was a Senator.
As for what I think will happen. I think the Republicans will eventually allow a vote and stick together and vote no. Obama, because of his previous votes, will have little recourse but to let the issue die.
I know you were saying that, and yes, they probably would use that argument. But what I meant was that it’s LAME, for the reasons I stated (and which I hope the President would point out).
Do you think they have an easy push back on obstructionism? Let ’em try. I think Obama will win the fight going away.
Even if I thought there was a chance Obama would lose I would urge him to take on this fight. This is exactly what is needed to break the gridlock in Washington. Make ’em pay. Through the nose.
Actually he would get more juice out of it by nominating a moderate, very, very learned and respected constitutionalist. Someone with as little ideology as possible. The less political the person is, the worse the Rs would look. It’s a win/win situation. In the unlikely event that any Obama nominee is confirmed, I think a guy like David Souter would be a breath of fresh air for the Court. If not, the next president, unlikely to be a Republican, will have a crack at it.
And this would encourage fallaway Dems to vote? Another moderate on the court? Squishy on how many hoops women can be put through? Pro-corporate?
An ideological lefty would definitely encourage turnout — from Republicans.
For good Democratic turnout, the main thing is the presidential candidate. That’s why I support Sanders.
I think you underestimate the outright hatred that conservatives have of libruuls, who aren’t real Americans the way they are, and who are, in fact, trying to destroy America from the inside.
I don’t think Republican voters stay home if the USSC nomination is one of the spoils of the 2016 election.
Note well that Republicans can pretty much always GOTV, whereas Democrats are pretty much hit-or-miss.
I’m still not sure which way an empty court seat influences the election.
Depends on who is the nominee.
Trump is not well like in certain parts of the R community.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430126/donald-trump-conservatives-oppose-nomination
http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2015/12/01/5-reasons-will-not-vote-trump/
and others.
I agree that this fight will help get out the vote on the right, but as you point out, the Republican base always shows up.
I worry about both Hillary and Bernie in this election for different reasons. But they won’t lead this fight. Obama will turn out his vote for either one of them. They can run a positive campaign while Barack goes to war. How can anybody on the left not love this idea?
Paint this as the last straw in a long list of examples of Republican obstructionism. Let ’em defend Bill Clinton’s impeachment, the debt ceiling fiasco, the government shutdowns and threats to shut down. Let them defend stacks and stacks of stalled nominations. Let them defend their efforts not to stop Democrats but to stop the effective governing of the United States. Let them defend gridlock.
“Suppose,” Barack will say, “The 2016 election is as close and disputed as the 2000 election. The Court made the wrong decision in 2000, in my opinion, but at least it was a decision. What would happen if that happens this year?”
The only way to stop the endless gridlock in Washington is to make the Republicans pay a price at the polls for this kind of nonsense.”
I hope Obama comes out and campaigns hard, because regardless of his centrist/center-right/neoliberalcon credentials (depending on who you’re asking), he is pretty popular with Democrats, and has been a decent President, which is often more than anyone should expect, given the world and the US Empire as it currently operates.
Obama will do his best no matter what. If his nominee is confirmed as his others were confirmed, he will do whatever Hillary or Bernie asks him to do.
He will be a much more effective campaigner for Hillary because he does not endorse most of what Bernie wants to do. He will be as enthusiastic as he can be just like most Democrats who would be running with Bernie would be. What does he say when anti-establishment is surely anti-potus? “No, I don’t think it is a good idea to reopen the health care debate, and no, I am not a socialist. But I think a democratic socialist is far preferable to a Republican.”
If the Republicans block the nomination, the fight is going to be between the President of the United States and a Republican party that is refusing to accept its constitutional responsibility. It is not okay for the senate to leave a supreme court vacancy to exist for two court terms any more than it is okay to shut the government down, or hold the debt ceiling hostage or impeach a president over a blowjob.
As soon as McConnell makes it clear Republicans are going to block him, Obama will rip them from one end of the country to the other pretty much non-stop. “They have to be a taught a lesson or we will have gridlock forever,” He will say. “Vote blue, up and down the ticket.”
It will have nothing to do with the candidates for president except that the Republican candidate will be on the wrong side. In fact it probably works better if he doesn’t mention Bernie or Hillary at all. This is above usual politics. It isn’t about voting for Barack. It is about ensuring that the American democracy works the way it is supposed to work by throwing the obstructionists out.
P.S. A decent president? How many presidents have you experienced? Eisenhower is the first I can remember. Obama is not just the best President of my lifetime, he is by far the best.