Supreme Court Vacancy/Nominations

[knapplc]

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.

Yep. It would be hilarious if it weren't so detrimental to the country.

[Whistlebritches]

 

 

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.

 

In no way is Hillary qualified to be a justice of the Supreme Court.

[Saunders]

Republican governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval being considered for Supreme Court

 

Brian Sandoval, the centrist Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted by the White House for a possible nomination to the Supreme Court, according to two people familiar with the process.

Sandoval is increasingly viewed by some key Democrats as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election, saying the decision ought to be left to the next president.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest would not comment specifically on whether the administration was considering Sandoval, on the grounds that he did not want “to get into a rhythm of responding” to every report on a potential nominee. But he said that Obama was committed to finding “the best person to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court,” regardless of whether that person is a Democrat or Republican.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/?postshare=3641456337323027&tid=ss_tw

 

[zoogs]

https://mobile.twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272

[knapplc]

I would like to see everyone throw out past precedent and just do what's best for the country.

[Danny Bateman]

Shameless copy from a fellow on Reddit by the name of IUHoosier_KCCO:

 

mitch mcconnell in 2005: “Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.”

 

mitch mcconnell in 2016: "The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,”

 

IMO, the Constitution isn't explicit enough regarding the process whereby the Senate decides to "advise and consent" on a nominee. This allows the Senate to be able to interpret it at their whim in order to tip things in favor of their party.

Obviously McConnell seems like a hypocrite. But the Schumer and the Dems did the same thing in 2007, and Obama was a part of it.

Amending the Constitution would be the simple fix, but in partisan politics, nothing is so simple.

[zoogs]

NY Mag: Senate court blockade has never happened before

 

Schumer didn't do the same thing. He demanded the Senate get their way with a moderate candidate:

 

I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.

Biden didn't even do the same thing.

 

"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” Biden said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

I think this article makes a good point. It's not clear that the Democrats -- let's say somebody like Cruz were president now, and the late vacancy was from a liberal mainstay on an already conservative court -- wouldn't resort to the same tactics. Whether that's wrong is a matter of debate, I guess. Again, I don't expect the Democrats today would be better with the roles reversed. Although I would still think them to be in the wrong.

 

Senators have tried to pressure presidents into nominating moderates who were ideologically suitable. You can argue that that's wrong, too, or something. But they have never declared that they would not hold hearings on any nomination, as the entirety of the Republican membership on the Senate Judiciary Committee has done now.

 

You can argue they are justified; you can't argue that this has been done before. In fairness, this is a rare situation to begin with. The last two times a sitting justice died were 2005 and 1954; the closest election years were 2004 and 1952. There were other times when openings came up later in terms, as detailed previously.

[Sargon]

Obama will not get another SCOTUS appointment. Hip hip hooray

 

Why do I say that? Cuz Obama absolutely sucks that's why. Nothing he thinks or does is wise or efficient. The less he does the better. Hip hip hooray

[Danny Bateman]

Zoogs, good point about Schumer. I can clearly see the difference between McConnell simply denying any of the Repubs will play ball with any Obama nominee and Schumer attempting to advise that Bush appoint a moderate.

 

Initially, I viewed Schumer and the Dems as attempting to force Bush's hand and dictate the terms of the candidate. But I guess that is the Senate's job... to advise the President on whom they think would be a suitable nominee. That definitely falls under the umbrella of "advice and consent."

 

Regardless. on the surface this seems like it should be a rather cut and dried process, but it certainly seems there's quite a good bit of wiggle room for people to inject their own personal best interpretation of the Constitution and their best vision moving forward.

[StPaulHusker]

Obama will not get another SCOTUS appointment. Hip hip hooray

 

Why do I say that? Cuz Obama absolutely sucks that's why. Nothing he thinks or does is wise or efficient. The less he does the better. Hip hip hooray

I am going to ask a serious question. And it's not meant to be argumentative. I am always genuinely curious about people's opinions about a president.

 

How has President Obama negatively affected your life in order for you to think so little of him? Meaning, what policy, or lack thereof, did he implement or not to make your life worse over the last 8 years?

[QMany]

 

Republican governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval being considered for Supreme Court

 

Brian Sandoval, the centrist Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted by the White House for a possible nomination to the Supreme Court, according to two people familiar with the process.

 

Sandoval is increasingly viewed by some key Democrats as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election, saying the decision ought to be left to the next president.

 

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest would not comment specifically on whether the administration was considering Sandoval, on the grounds that he did not want “to get into a rhythm of responding” to every report on a potential nominee. But he said that Obama was committed to finding “the best person to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court,” regardless of whether that person is a Democrat or Republican.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/?postshare=3641456337323027&tid=ss_tw

 

 

Sandoval would be interesting! The GOP would be in a pickle considering he was nominated to the bench by George W. Bush and confirmed by the Republican Senate 89-0.

[NUance]

 

 

Republican governor of Nevada Brian Sandoval being considered for Supreme Court

 

Brian Sandoval, the centrist Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted by the White House for a possible nomination to the Supreme Court, according to two people familiar with the process.

 

Sandoval is increasingly viewed by some key Democrats as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election, saying the decision ought to be left to the next president.

 

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest would not comment specifically on whether the administration was considering Sandoval, on the grounds that he did not want “to get into a rhythm of responding” to every report on a potential nominee. But he said that Obama was committed to finding “the best person to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court,” regardless of whether that person is a Democrat or Republican.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/24/brian-sandoval-republican-governor-of-nevada-is-being-vetted-for-supreme-court-vacancy/?postshare=3641456337323027&tid=ss_tw

 

 

Sandoval would be interesting! The GOP would be in a pickle considering he was nominated to the bench by George W. Bush and confirmed by the Republican Senate 89-0.

 

 

Yeah. Somebody like that could be Obama's best shot at getting a nominee through the Senate. Interesting.

[BigRedBuster]

I continue to believe this is a situation where the Republicans might want to be careful what they wish for. I'm not convinced they are going to keep the Senate after the election. AND, if they lose the general election for the Presidency, this would be a disaster for what they want done as a nomination.

 

Their best chance for a moderate on the bench is if Obama nominates and they confirm before the election.

[Danny Bateman]

Sandoval saying he's not interested in a spot on the Supreme Court.

 

Interesting gambit on the President's part, but it may have just fizzled out. I think I believe that he wouldn't have actually nominated Sandoval anyway, though, and this was maybe just an attempt to show that the Republican Congress is willing to eschew their own party in an attempt to be obstructive and attempt to wait for a larger gain were they to gain the White House.

 

I'm sure they feel confident that President Trump will appoint "the best people" to fill any SC vacancies.

 

I hope this blows up in their faces.

[zoogs]

I agree with those who've said floating Sandoval's name was a way to signal especially to the public that they're looking for capable, respected moderates. I also think the nominee will have more judicial and less political experience.

 

Ultimately, I agree this is all 'sound and fury'. The GOP barely appears to have grips on their electorate. That this is an election year does put some undue stress on them because there is so much political opportunity in their reaction. They obviously feel they have to react this way and they're probably not wrong. But are they truly so committed in the face of anybody?

 

I can see how the President will nominate somebody capable and push broad popular support. The Democrats may mumble, but they already have abundant political cover. The Republicans will have to do the contorting: "Oh, fine, I guess since it's this person we'll hear it out. We had no idea it would've been someone like this given President Obama's record." That wouldn't really be atypical bluster; the nominee will get confirmed and we can all forget this ever happened.

 

It's like Iran and America. Both sides are pushing towards diplomacy and on some counts, there's the same respect and the same goals. But both sides have to go back home and dish out some "Rah rah, Iran/America is evil" to save face to their own constituents. It's kind of funny -- though not really -- the types of things Republican politicans have to say to 'save face' here, though.