Supreme Court Vacancy/Nominations

[Sargon]

R's want an R in the Court. This year they can't get one. Next year they can get one. They won't vote one in this year.

[QMany]

They could also lose their majority in the Senate. It might be wise to at least entertain a vote if Obama nominates a moderate.

[HuskerNation1]

I don't think it's accurate to say that no nominee will be approved. In fact, history says otherwise.

 

The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0

 

There are over 300 days between now and the end of Obama's term. That means he could nominate three different people, all of whom would be at or nearly tied with the longest it has ever taken for a Supreme Court nominee to be approved, in succession, between now and the end of his term.

 

Failing to approve a reasonable candidate - or, as the link in the OP seems to indicate, three successive candidates taking historically long times to approve - would be seen as obstructionist by the voters. It would be disaster for the Republicans. I would nearly guarantee they will not go down that road.

 

Well Obama could nominate someone that strictly interprets the Constitution like Scalia was and is not an activist judge. If he does that, I think he could get another justice through. Now the question is...would Obama do something like that, or would he try to put through another activist justice like Kagan and Sotomayor. If he really feels strongly that its vital to have a 9th justice this year, he would nominate a new Antonin Scalia.

[Sargon]

They could also lose their majority in the Senate. It might be wise to at least entertain a vote if Obama nominates a moderate.

 

 

 

They will not lose the senate by avoiding any and all Obama nominees. It's the opposite. They risk losing some seats if they again act in their semi-regular stupid, weak, loser fashion.

(He won't nominate a moderate either, but that is beside the point)

[zoogs]

Very spot on about the Republican Party there. It's no place for stupid, weak, losers who compromise.

 

I'm far less interested in the personal politics of an Obama nominee (well, unless he is another Scalia or Thomas, I suppose) and far more interested in their credentials. Take someone smart and capable. Maybe someone who adds diversity to the Court. Someone who isn't ruled by their ideology. Someone who isn't merely a policy instrument for party positions.

[zoogs]

Another thing, it's been a successfully stacked conservative court for a while. Balance will be good.

 

Of course, the Republican side has never wanted balance either. When a Republican president nominates a justice who isn't hardcore for their platform, that justice is decried as a traitor, and the nomination repudiated as abject failure. Oh, the shame of Anthony Kennedy. The betrayal of John Roberts (really, though?!) The travesty of David Souter.

 

When George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace the outgoing Sandra Day O'Connor -- often a swing vote in later years -- it was harshly repudiated almost entirely by a hysterical Republican Party that didn't think she had enough conservative street cred. And so O'Connor was replaced instead with one of the most conservative justices on the court ever since in Samuel Alito. Obama's two nominations to date were replacements for Souter and Stevens, both of whom had been nominated by Republican presidents but were by the time they left considered to be in the Court's liberal bloc. Thus, W's final nomination marked a tipping of the scales for the past decade.

 

Lest we be at all unclear about the pretty blatant motivations at play in this arena today.

[Sargon]

Unclear? That must be a joke I've been totally clear.

 

D's support leftist judicial activism.

R's disapprove of leftist judicial activism always, and they should

R's should NEVER confirm a D if they have any possible way to avoid it. This year they can avoid it and they will.

 

You can give history lessons until you are blue in the face. Victory is the only goal. Bush this Miers that blah blah blah.

Confirm a conservative or lose. It's that simple. The often not so bright R's aren't going to make that stupid blunder this year.

[Moiraine]

Unclear? That must be a joke I've been totally clear.

 

D's support leftist judicial activism.

R's disapprove of leftist judicial activism always, and they should

R's should NEVER confirm a D if they have any possible way to avoid it. This year they can avoid it and they will.

 

You can give history lessons until you are blue in the face. Victory is the only goal. Bush this Miers that blah blah blah.

Confirm a conservative or lose. It's that simple. The often not so bright R's aren't going to make that stupid blunder this year.

Lose what?

[StPaulHusker]

I for one hope Conservatives con't confirm any nominee. It might just be the final nail in the coffin they need right behind selecting Trump as a presidential candidate to finally make them see they are so f'd up.

[QMany]

Barack posted on ScotusBlog:

 

A Responsibility I Take Seriously

 

The Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It’s a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead.

It’s also one of the most important decisions that a President will make. Rulings handed down by the Supreme Court directly affect our economy, our security, our rights, and our daily lives.

Needless to say, this isn’t something I take lightly. It’s a decision to which I devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation, and serious consultation with legal experts, members of both political parties, and people across the political spectrum. And with thanks to SCOTUSblog for allowing me to guest post today, I thought I’d share some spoiler-free insights into what I think about before appointing the person who will be our next Supreme Court Justice.

First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified. He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity. I’m looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.

Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role; who understands that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law. I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

But I’m also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. There will be cases in which a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment. That’s why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.

A sterling record. A deep respect for the judiciary’s role. An understanding of the way the world really works. That’s what I’m considering as I fulfill my constitutional duty to appoint a judge to our highest court. And as Senators prepare to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to consider the person I appoint, I hope they’ll move quickly to debate and then confirm this nominee so that the Court can continue to serve the American people at full strength.

[Danny Bateman]

I for one hope Conservatives con't confirm any nominee. It might just be the final nail in the coffin they need right behind selecting Trump as a presidential candidate to finally make them see they are so f'd up.

 

I think you might be right, and it'd be funny in a schadenfreude kind of way for about 2 seconds, and then it would be tremendously sad.

 

Repubs better be careful here. If they do ignore an Obama nominee and the Dems do manage to win the election, they're going to get an even more liberal judge than he would likely nominate.

[VectorVictor]

 

I for one hope Conservatives con't confirm any nominee. It might just be the final nail in the coffin they need right behind selecting Trump as a presidential candidate to finally make them see they are so f'd up.

 

I think you might be right, and it'd be funny in a schadenfreude kind of way for about 2 seconds, and then it would be tremendously sad.

 

Repubs better be careful here. If they do ignore an Obama nominee and the Dems do manage to win the election, they're going to get an even more liberal judge than he would likely nominate.

 

 

This +100. That's why I suggested that if I were thinking about the long game for the GOP, they reach a compromise to put Hillary on the Supreme Court. Take her out of the Presidential race going forward, and a GOP win actually looks plausible and possible. GOP wins, they'll get at least two nominations in the next four years, which would eventually give them their conservative Supreme Court they wanted.

 

But again, this would require thinking about the big picture, long-term goals, and compromise--none of these things are in the GOP's wheelhouse any longer.

[Sargon]

Hillary SCOTUS. Compromise. LOL. Compromise is long over and Hillary will soon be a felon.

[StPaulHusker]

Hillary SCOTUS. Compromise. LOL. Compromise is long over and Hillary will soon be a felon.

Keep dreaming.

[zoogs]

SCOTUSblog is a cool site. I was reading another testimonial from a former Scalia law clerk. The more you read from people who have known him, the more you get the impression that he was on the whole a wonderful and caring human being. I disagree with a few of the things he's written and many of the things he appears to have fought for, but I do get the sense that his presence on the Court will really be missed. I'm not sure I could say the same for Alito or Thomas.

 

It's a little problematic though that for one side here, the nominee has to be a hardcore ideological scion in their own party's favor to even be considered. And they're the ones railing about compromise.

 

The setup lends itself very naturally to becoming a partisan gridlock issue. I kinda wonder if there aren't better ways to go about it.