Back on February 15th, I told you that the Republicans would never confirm a replacement for Antonin Scalia. This wasn’t rocket science, but it wasn’t common wisdom at the time.
Eight days later, the Republican leadership in the Senate has confirmed that they won’t even consider any nominee from President Obama. They won’t meet with any nominee. They won’t have any hearing for a nominee in the Judiciary Committee. They won’t have a floor vote. Nothing.
Absolutely no one will be acceptable to them. The president could nominate the 83 year old elder statesman George Mitchell and they won’t give the courtesy of having lunch with him. The president can nominate the popular Republican governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval, and they won’t give him a hearing. The president can pick Senator Amy Klobuchar who sits on the Judiciary Committee and her colleagues will give her the cold shoulder.
Obviously, any of those picks would make this unreasonable stance by the Republicans a lot more uncomfortable for them, but they don’t care.
The Democrats will not convince them that this is a political liability because they believe, probably correctly, that their base will be utterly demoralized if a pro-choice Justice replaces Scalia before the November elections.
If they hold out and win the presidency in November, they will be able to overturn Roe v. Wade in two easy steps.
First, they’ll replace Scalia with an anti-choice Justice. Then they’ll convince Justice Kennedy to retire and replace him with an anti-choice Justice. With Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and these two new Justices, they’ll have the five votes that have eluded them since Souter and Kennedy turned out to be traitors to the cause.
They’re so close now that they cannot give up.
So, they won’t.
Clearly they’ll try. I still think they’ll pay a price. We tend to assume they get off scot-free when they behave unreasonably. I don’t think that’s true. In mid-terms, which skew in favor of those who turn out most loyally, they pay no price. But this is a presidential election year and plenty of folks are turned off by this crap. I believe they’ll pay up and down ballot.
They may pay for it. But that depends on whether or not anyone can stop Trump.
In any case, they don’t care. They’ll roll the dice and take their chances.
The only hope is that Obama nominates someone who they simply can’t deny a hearing. And that could be achievable, maybe, but only by breaking the will of enough senators. I think Klobuchar and Sandoval are the two best prospects for that purpose.
Sandoval would be a political disaster because it would demoralize Democrats. Klobuchar maybe. She’d be hard to refuse hearings on but relatively painless to vote down if they did yield on having hearings.
My money’s still on Srinivasan, although less so as he may refuse. Obama’s offer is a risky one for a serious candidate – by being at the center of the Republican fight against the Constitution they become hated by Republicans and loved by Democrats. It’s a guarantee to a seat if the Democrats get the bifecta in the near future, but a guarantee of no seat if they don’t.
I don’t see why Obama would nominate someone that the people don’t know or that the Republicans wouldn’t be personally embarrassed to snub.
They’ve already said that they’ll simply refuse to even have lunch with his nominee.
They’re trying to create a wall. They don’t want this discussed, debated, covered by the media. They want a one-day stories that never again sees the light of day. I don’t think it’s at all certain they can pull it off. So much depends on the quality of Democratic messaging. Obama needs to pick someone who catches the popular imagination or that of a core constituency. Scalia was a great example of this. Italian-Americans didn’t care about his politics.
they plan on keeping their promise.
You know how this is supposed to work, right?
Ordinarily, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, would come over to the White House and go over names until they agreed on someone who Grassley could agree to vote out of his committee. That gives Grassley a huge amount of influence.
He’s giving that up and saying that he won’t participate in this conversation. He won’t give a single name. He won’t accept a name. He won’t meet with anyone. He won’t vet anyone. Just forget it.
So, we’re already in la-la land.
Now you need a nominee who is willing to be humiliated like this. And it has to be someone who will hugely embarrass Grassley. You won’t even meet with the Republican Governor of Nevada? You won’t give your colleague Amy Klobuchar a hearing?
Other than that, there’s really no hope of breaking Grassley’s will on this.
Humiliated? By being a good soldier for the cause? There’s no shame whatsoever in being a team player.
I don’t see why anyone from a state that Obama won would play games at a time like this. Oh well, it’s his career.
From the underbelly of Nevada politics (and Politico): “Privately, however, the campaign is more blunt. “Brian Sandoval is a total piece of toxic waste. His endorsement would literally be wasted,” said one Cruz adviser closely familiar with the campaign’s strategy in Nevada. “Sandoval would be the kiss of death for any conservative.”
Sandoval is the GOP’s Marlboro man, great pics, not much else going on. Having Obama nominate him is akin to the hug to the blob of goo from New Jersey, they’ll turn on him quicker than Trump turned on the Pope.
And who is Obama interviewing….Sandoval.
Saw one place today with Republicans saying the number of judges is not specified in the Constitution, so we could look forward to some stacking if they don’t get it this time.
Sandra Day O’Connor.
I hate her, but I’d love to see Republicans refuse to offer a hearing.
That’s just it — Obama should nominate someone whom they simply can’t deny a hearing.
Of course whoever that nominee is, they WILL deny him or her a hearing.
That will save their face before the true believers, but will just destroy them with everybody else.
To refuse to even consider, say, a highly distinguished, non-political jurist, will help to further diminish the ranks of moderate Republicans.
Or they are hoping that Obama will cave and give them a right winger, just not a raving loon. I think when I looked it up that Scalia was confirmed 97 – 0. Obama has not been good at giving the finger to Republicans.
We should hope that he does not nominate somebody. It has to be someone acceptable to this Senate. We may have a better chance next January when there may be a Progressive President (1% chance) or a pro-choice President (50% chance) or Senate that would filibuster (?? chance). Odds look really bad for getting a Progressive Justice though (less than 1%, requires Sanders as President and Democratic Majority without enough LieberDems to vote against the nominee).
Frankly that’s my concern. What’s it to Obama? He’d a made man now and will go forth to become a squillionaire. What does he really care about the make up of the SC? It really has little impact on him or his family going forward.
I’d rather see Obama play hard ball, and he has sometimes done that. But not often enough for my liking.
Look at what he has played hard ball at and what he has walked away from. It paints a picture. I’d rather you looked at the record and drew your own conclusions than present mine.
That would require Americans to care about scotus and dems to be able to hang it around their necks.
Dicey propositions those.
I don’t watch the networks or really read NYT or WaPo…so who are you arguing with? Was this something anyone seriously argued? Even my officemate at work knew they wouldn’t, and he gets his news from fucking CNN.
Okay, seabe.
Why don’t you find me any pundit from the 15th or before who so categorically predicted that they would not relent.
Hey man, I shared your post (this one) on social media because it gets to the point without any bullshit. But I seriously don’t know who you’re arguing with. Was there a lot of waffling from people who normally get it correct? Or are we talking about Joe Scarborough’s gang of man children who eat Trump’s ass with a spoon?
Everyone I saw was suggesting that the president could get them to back down.
Booman, right now you are looking way smarter than any retired neurosurgeons. Still, Obama has to nominate his normal first choice, no matter what, then we will see your prediction in real time. Right now it is still prediction.
The 2nd and 3rd acts of this play could tilt some windmills…
I guess the point is that the pundits who are always wrong thought the senate would back down but none of the netroots did. So to us on this blog the proposition they wouldnt is non controversial.
Oh, this isn’t about abortion. The Republican power-brokers don’t care much about abortion. This is about voter suppression and being able to ignore laws they don’t like.
NYT ran an article over the weekend that supposed the McConnell is more interested in protecting rollbacks to campaign finance law (which, from a legislative standpoint, is the only thing pre-Obama anyone can really remember him being vociferously for or against).
It’s about turnout.
There are obviously different reasons why different right-wingers don’t want to see a left-wing Supreme Court. But the base is demanding this and if they cave it will fit right into the narrative that is causing the right to devour their leadership.
And the base is highly motivated by this game that’s been played on them, including especially on abortion (see Souter, Kennedy, Harriet Miers).
They’re not having it anymore. There’s nothing McConnell can do.
I see it as a matter of self-preservation and it’s every ass-wipe for himself. No one wants to go one-on-one with a tea bagger. Much easier to stand up to the wimpy media. If it fucks them at the presidential level, that’s a price they’re willing to pay. More than willing if the nominee is Trump or Cruz.
Oh, yes. It’s every Rat for himself.
I am not sure if this is a dead duck. I see the Republicans in a corner. They have no way out.
So, there will be a huge campaign. Obama needs to nominate a highly qualified, thoughtful, and legally sound candidate. That candidate will sit in the offices of Republican senators and basically be shown waiting. Plenty of campaign ads, especially in IL, OH, PA, IA, and other states where the Senator is up for election, and somewhat vulnerable.
More pressure can be put on by Reid, by going into full delay mode.
Could be a lot of fun.
Who is the person who will agree to go sit in the Senate hallway being humiliated hour after hour?
A liberal I’d want on the court.
And that gets you what?
If you’ve told me anything, it is that Republicans will not approve a new Supreme Court nominee until a new President is sworn in. Regardless of it being a Republican, or Michael Moore.
If there is a liberal judge who is willing to put their ass out there, nominated by Obama, then that judge is a liberal who will be a liberal I would trust to sit on the USSC. And that liberal could talk to HRC/Sanders to be put right back up for the nomination as soon as HRC/Sanders is elected, if she/he is elected.
There are no guarantees, but I think it would be fair..Obama could work with the two next Democratic candidates to pick a nominee…since he won’t get to appoint the justice anyway, right?. And once the new Democratic president is sworn in, it’s a big fat “fuck you” to the Republican party, which will deserve it.
Or, to put it another way, if you’re going to tell the Republican party to fuck off, then at least nominate a real, qualified liberal, and then work to get then nominated and appointed in 2017, after they were shown to be fucking losers about it.
That’s a kill shot.
More importantly, that liberal can only increase voter turnout – perhaps for both parties – but generally speaking, high voter turnout during presidential elections = Democratic president.
A liberal willing to put themselves out there and who can also be the face of the 2016 election for the Democratic party, is someone that deserves to be on the court…not some Republican governor.
Republicans have no integrity, hence, no shame. So, why the hell try to shame them by nominating a Republican? How well did it work with Gregg, Hagel, and especially LaHood?
It doesn’t matter to Republicans, and the rest of the electorate doesn’t know the difference between a Chuck Hagel and an Ashton Carter. There is pretty much nothing extra to be gained by nominating some 400 year old centrist, or a Republican governor.
I’d love to see Obama go out as a fucking boss with his stonewalled nominee put right back up and appointed. Then, get Obama up there next, IMHO.
I prefer dataguy’s scenario.
There’s no point in Obama nominating an ideological liberal right now —- that person won’t get a hearing anyway, and the mere nomination would only be red meat for the Republican campaigns. A highly respected, scholarly, non-ideological nominee, on the other hand, would prove once again and even more convincingly that the Republicans are total jerks..
More likely it would be a socially liberal pro-corporate judge that the big donors would pressure the Republicans to confirm. Obama could say he saved abortion and the board rooms will tighten their hold on the American people.
Snark, right?
Remember, whoever it is is not even getting a hearing.
No, not snark. I think you can still find Republicans like that in the Northeast.
I agree with this 100%.
someone concerned about the Rs sabotaging our democracy
Oh, come on, Boo. You are being obtuse. Are you aware of the number of persons who were asked to be ambassadors who have sat in rooms waiting for 300 days, 400 days? THere were quite a few. Some just got confirmed recently.
There will CERTAINLY be a highly qualified lawyer who would be hugely jazzed to be nominated, and that person will accept the nomination under full understanding of the war to come. My only hope is that background research is done with extreme care. We don’t want someone with a shadow in their past.
Exactly. And Obama is awfully good at this sort of thing — he’s certainly had a lot of practice! But this one takes the cake.
I don’t know of anyone who was. Now some people, including me, thought the Rs would relent and allow a committee hearing and a floor debate only to filibuster but that isn’t the same as confirming someone.
For that matter I still think they may end up backing down and allow at least a committee hearing only to filibuster the nominee. At that point they can say we are only doing what the President did to Alito.
Frankly by refusing to consider any nominee the Republicans are playing this all wrong. They had the perfect ammunition to hoist President Obama on his own petard and instead they overplayed their hand.
I think what it was is that a number of Republicans were intelligent enough to WANT to relent, but in the end all they could do was give out a few puny squeaking sounds for a couple of days, and then the memo arrived.
Camussie, they ALWAYS overplay their hand. Since the days of Gingrich at least, it’s all BANZAI, all the time. They just can’t help themselves.
The President should put forth who he wants.
Period.
No sympathy and just fight for it. Take it to them.
I’ll be shocked if that’s not precisely what happens.
And I won’t be surprised if Obama gets his nominee confirmed, either.
I’ll be surprised. But thing is, who is going to sacrifice themselves for the cause?
I don’t think it’s that big a sacrifice. I mean, it’s not agreeing to do stoop labor for 3 months. It’s agreeing to have your nomination of the highest legal position in the country trumpeted across the country for months, to become a bone of political contention, to go down in history books, and very possibly either to become a Supreme now … or later. It’s a high honor to be nominated, especially by a president who will be, I imagine, remembered extremely fondly.
Not such a terrible chore. Instant celebrity and incredible validation, and the cost is just listening to unhinged Republicans be unhinged at you personally. Hell, the book deal alone is worth the hassle.
You or your family. I think its worth it, but Im not a sitting federal judge so I dont have much to lose. Also theres no guarantee you get renominated later if the dems dont take the senate, are afraid youll be a millstone around their necks or arent willing to axe the fillibuster for scotus judges.
My thoughts exactly. Gaming the system quite frequently ends up costing you more than the no response action would have.
The only time you game the system is when you are desperate and have nothing to lose … like McCaskil in MO.
This shit’s making me agitated.
GOP voters are being riled up by groups like Family Research Council and Freedom Works Foundation etc. – outfits that are making money off this issue.
GOP polls are constrained by their need to keep the above on board with their actions.
Backing down would seem like smart politics as far as the coming election goes (with a new presidents freedom to act should the Senate be of the same party) – but the need to satisfy FRC etc. is probably a higher or at least more urgent priority.
It’s early but Dems simply must strike back somehow. Failure to do so is demoralizing.
I say Obama should offer to cease all deportation of undocumenteds since that’s a campaign issue and he’s apparently not president anymore, and leave it up to the people to decide.
It may be what he will do but not what he should do. His whole history is that Republicans stone wall, Obama offers concession after concession that they categorically reject, finally Obama gives away away absolutely everything except the name and Republicans take it or when the Democrats held the Senate, the republicans just decline to filibuster a bill that gives them everything. Democrats hail it as victory.
Yeah. Exactly. What’s it to the D Team? it’s win-win for them no matter what. And they’ve made it blindingly obvious that NONE of them give a flying sh*t about the proles. We are less than zero to them.
Yeah, I loved the way President Obama “gave away” the cuts to Defense Department spending that he gained in the budget sequester.
So the Republicans are lowering themselves once again to be the most rotten sh*ts ever. IOW, yet another day ending in “y,” and btw, the sun rose from the east this morning and my shower water was wet.
MY Q: what the hell are the Ds gonna do about this?
It’s win-win for them in any case. Will they triangulate and hide behind the skirts of their GOP “brethren”?? And sit on their thumbs?
THAT’s what I want to know.
Such obvious “win-win” opportunities for DEM pols don’t come along that often. However, they aren’t so good at reading them either. There are precious few things that a solid majority of Americans agree on these days, but one of them is a respect for “fair play” which includes following standard and accepted forms of the “rule of law.”
The GOP handed DEMs such an opportunity with the Terri Schiavo issue. That matter had been handled by the state courts which most people accept where it belonged and most people don’t appreciate interference by federal lawmakers and officials for a single individual. Such an easy win. But no, DEMs cowered and cringed under their office desks in fear of the big, bad, pro-keeping dead people alive with machines. Not even Catholics or a Pope favors that. That public sentiment was strong enough that the GOP lost credibility, but all that DEM cowering and cringing added to their reputation of being wimps.
Obama only needs to go public and say, “The Constitution says that the President shall nominate judges to the Supreme Court. As your President, I nominate X. Senators must now fulfill their Constitutional duties and act on this nomination. The American people don’t appreciate a “Do nothing Congress” on such important matters and we’ve have far too much of this over the past seven years, but on this one I’m not going to remain silent if they don’t act expeditiously and appropriately.”
Truman did quite well in ’48 using that “do nothing Congress” line (although, they were doing quite a lot and all of it was bad).
Wordier: A Responsibility I Take Seriously – President Barack Obama.
Do question including this:
How many or what percentage of cases accepted by SCOTUS don’t fall into “the law is not clear” category.
That said, it does strike me as weak to be considering a sitting GOP governor for a SCOTUS nomination. But wouldn’t be a first for Obama.
No, it’s beautiful Marie. A Republican governor from Nevada that they Republicans are going to refuse to even give a hearing to.
And it’s exactly Obama’s style. Nine tenths of the so-called capitulations he made to the Republicans, that progressives are so pissed off at him for, never actually happened. That’s because the Republicans wouldn’t accept those capitulations. But Obama knew beforehand that they wouldn’t. So it just wound up making THEM look like assholes to the vast swathe of Americans in the middle.
This is not going to happen either. But it will be another nail in the coffin of the GOP.
Obama has pulled off this manoeuver repeatedly.
Except Obama isn’t bluffing and all those proposals that the GOP rejected aren’t acceptable to any self-respecting Democrat.
Now if the DEM PTB really played eleven-dimensional chess (which I’ve not seen any evidence that they do), this could be a brilliant move. Float Sandoval for SCOTUS, get rank-and-file DEMs on board, GOP rejects, and DEM PTB and rank-and-file DEMs become outraged that such a fine man was rejected. Next step? (get a big out of the box for this one.)
The DEM PTB don’t know from eleven-dimensional chess, that’s Obama’s thing. What you say in your second paragraph is pretty much what he’s doing.
And no, those proposals are NOT acceptable to any self-respecting Democrat. Unless they appreciate eleven-dimensional chess.
Perhaps I was too subtle. Once DEMs are down with Sandoval and railing against the GOP Senators for not allowing a hearing for a man Obama chose, what’s next for Sandoval? That’s the eleven dimensional chess aspect.
He just spiked the ball as far as Dems taking an interest in saving the court, however.
That too. However, I was considering this move as the first step towards a “fusion” ticket. Plenty of DEMs were suggesting that in ’08; ie. a Clinton/McCain ticket and this time around we’re hearing speculation that a Clinton/Bloomberg ticket would be just peachy. Or should Clinton not get the nomination, an independent Bloomberg/Clinton ticket. All of those are dreadful ideas IMO b/c they don’t prop up any of Clinton’s deficits and don’t make her any stronger in the “purple” states or with any demographic.
A Clinton/Sandoval ticket would fill in all her gaps, scoop up everything she needs, and both could run as their authentic selves.
Those “Aristos” are dancing as hard as they can, aren’t they? Will they avoid the mobs for a few more decades?
The Clintons only need to get through another eight years at most. Their family dynasty will be set for a couple hundred years.
So THAT’S why Scalia had to go. (LOL … or is it ? … tune in to the next thrilling episode of “Tales of the New World Order” , brought to you by Goldman Sachs.
OT:
BWA HA HA HA HA H AH HA
ALLLLL about the G-R-I-F-T
………………………………………
Does Ben Carson Suspect His Campaign Was a Scam?
“We had people who didn’t really seem to understand finances,” he said. “Or maybe they did–maybe they were doing it on purpose.”
DAVID A. GRAHAM 6:03 AM ET POLITICS
For months, reporters and political operatives (including me) have been pointing out that Ben Carson’s campaign bears many of the hallmarks of a political scam operation. Now Carson seems to agree. On CNN on Tuesday, Carson discussed his year-end staff shake-up:
“We had people who didn’t really seem to understand finances,” a laughing Carson told CNN’s Poppy Harlow on “CNN Newsroom,” adding, “or maybe they did–maybe they were doing it on purpose.”
It’s a remarkable statement–especially because he’s so blithe about it
Dr. Ben doesn’t understand finances either. Sheesh — From my review his 6/30/15 and earlier FEC filings made it clear to me that it wasn’t a campaign but a fundraising grift mill.
Felicitous coinage.
It’s a larger issue at play here. Republicans are increasingly dispensing with democratic norms necessary for the functioning of the constitutional system. See here. This is a slow-moving nullification crisis.
Put this together with all the other shit that’s happening…we’re tipping over into a real shit-storm that no-one can see the other side of.
Yes. You echo my concerns. This is really treading into some pretty bad territory, imo. And as usual, the rubes are being lulled to sleep by all the Reality TV Drama of it… of course, handled intentionally that way.
What is happening is dispensing with some of the last shreds of what we fondly like to call our “Constitutional Democracy.”
By baldly stating that the R Team simply will NOT do what the constitution directs is, imo, VERY serious. And not in a good way.
All those R dittoheads can be sitting around fapping to how fabulous this is, but in the end, however this pans out, it is simply NOT good for them or any of us in the peanut gallery. The pols and the 1% don’t give a sh*t bc it won’t affect them… they will always be in a win-win position.
Not. Good.
To be redundant: What the EFF is the D Team going to DO about this? Sitting on their thumbs and whining about the mean-bully R-Team is not good enough.
This is serious stuff.
yes
no-insider-info hunch here, but I’d be surprised to see Kennedy go along with step 2 of that program (at least any time soon), without which it fails.
Also fails without filibuster-proof GOP majority in Senate, no? Short of deployment of the nuclear option? (Which, sadly, doesn’t seem at all unlikely if the other dominoes are all aligned; and perhaps even if they’re not — the wingnuts are that extreme.)