Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post subject: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:01 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 12406
Location: The things, they hurt
So. Hooboy. I don't see how Obama gets out of this one. He could probably nominate Darth Vader and Congress would still block him for being too liberal. And if the nomination carries through to the election, I wonder if that would make Republicans who hate Cruz or Trump hold their noses and vote for them anyway because the prospect of Hillary or Bernie nominating a supreme court justice would be too horrible for them to contemplate.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:20 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:42 pm
Posts: 1021
Yahoo Messenger: bluecloakgirl
AOL: bluecloakedgirl
Location: Colorado
They're not going to block anyone from being too liberal, McConnell has already stated that no one Obama nominates will get in. I foresee a yearlong poop.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:57 am 
Offline
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:50 am
Posts: 1898
Location: Deep in debt, shallow on time.
When I heard about this, my first reaction was "Hey, there goes the Republican lock on the Supreme Court..." My second reaction was "Yeah, right, like the Repubs are going to let a timely nomination occur in an election year. They've been holding up federal court judges, much less a Supreme..."

So... Election 2016: Supreme battle!

Stuff just got real. Say what you want about how much power the office of the President has at this point, this is the big, lasting statement of Executive Power... a lifetime appointment to the court which is the highest power in the legal system. I think this might be the turning point of this election, how the candidates (and parties) react to this new factor in the cycle.

Does this energize the base on both sides? One side only? Does it drive fearful conservatives to the polls the same way same sex marriage drove them to the polls in 2004? Do liberals care enough to come out and vote knowing the makeup of the Supremes hangs in the balance?

Can Sanders use this opportunity to energize the base to his advantage? Can Cruz or Rubio use Trump's mixed record on policy to show that nobody knows what he would do? Can Hillary get mainstream and independent-ish primary voters to come out for her by saying Bernie would appoint someone too lefty? What's going to come out of the Donald's mouth now?

Also, the balance of the Supremes is really different even now - a guaranteed conservative vote is gone, and a tie means a win for nobody in the Supreme Court - it's like it never happened.

This is going to be... EPIC!

Oh, and just for the record, I have only good wishes for his family - whether you agreed with him or not he was a father of 9 and they'll surely miss him.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:43 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2699
Website: http://kitoba.com
Location: Televising the revolution
It's a dangerous game to play. Sure it will play well to the base, but it might hurt the GOP candidate in the general. They don't gain anything blocking Obama's nominee if Sanders or Clinton gets in. If anything they might prefer Obama's candidate to that.

On Obama's side, the question is whether to nominate someone more liberal or someone more likely to get confirmed.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:03 pm 
Offline
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:50 am
Posts: 1898
Location: Deep in debt, shallow on time.
kitoba wrote:
On Obama's side, the question is whether to nominate someone more liberal or someone more likely to get confirmed.


Nope. There are R's in the senate that would rather ritually sacrifice their firstborn children to Satan than confirm an Obama nominee in this situation. Their hope is for a Republican in the Oval Office next year, and they will foot drag until November to make sure their guy gets to nominate the new Supreme. It has no downside for them to dirty up this process.

In fact, it might cost a few of them their seat if they did confirm. As Kea said, Obama could nominate Lord Vader and they'd call him soft on crime.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:19 pm 
Offline
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:50 am
Posts: 1898
Location: Deep in debt, shallow on time.
Went over to The Blaze to see what the Glenn Beck lovers were saying...

They had an interesting article which named recent Attorney General Loretta Lynch as a possible nominee. Seeing as how she just survived a nomination fight so recently it might be difficult to throw a huge fight over her since they've already given the thumbs up on this person before.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:53 am 
Member of the Fraternal Order of the Emergency Pants
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 3167
AOL: drachefly
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Right, though that's a different kind of position. There were a few judges appointed to the second highest court with approval votes like 97-0, including Sri Srinivasan (sorry others, his name is really distinctive and I'm working off memory). There's even less wiggle room there.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:10 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2699
Website: http://kitoba.com
Location: Televising the revolution
baconbotsforever wrote:
Nope. There are R's in the senate that would rather ritually sacrifice their firstborn children to Satan than confirm an Obama nominee in this situation. Their hope is for a Republican in the Oval Office next year, and they will foot drag until November to make sure their guy gets to nominate the new Supreme. It has no downside for them to dirty up this process.


It doesn't have to be unanimous. They just need a handful of R's to break ranks. Moderates in contested elections might not want to come across as obstructionist in an election year.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:24 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2266
Location: Vienna, Austria, EU
I think the best machiavellist choice for Obama now would be to nominate someone who looks like a blatant compromise candidate but who never the less irks the hard core republicans. Ideally someone who has some base in the republican camp. Something like a log cabin republican, a libertarian or a social conservative who supports government health care.

That means the Republicans are forced to decide between accepting the candidate or alienating some (fringe but probably still important) part of their base.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:02 pm 
Member of the Fraternal Order of the Emergency Pants
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 3167
AOL: drachefly
Location: Philadelphia, PA
I think a highly-qualified moderate would be good enough with much less risk.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:27 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 12406
Location: The things, they hurt
It probably won't matter who he nominates, the Republicans have decided to go for a blanket ban on any Obama nominee. The merits of any particular judge won't matter, they're just going to insist that Obama should not get to nominate any more judges whatsoever. I've heard it argued that they do this because they're no longer worried about losing the moderate vote. The biggest threat to sitting Senate Republicans are primary challenges from even more right wing candidates, and compromising with Obama in any capacity is political suicide.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:42 pm 
Member of the Fraternal Order of the Emergency Pants
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 12:00 am
Posts: 3411
AOL: Dodger724
Location: Relative Obscurity
Of course, the obvious reason they want to delay is so a hypothetical Republican president can be the one who picks the nominee. But I'm pretty sure a Democrat is going to win this year (ESPECIALLY if they nominate Trump) so this plan is really just going to backfire on them. And then finally the Supreme Court will have a left leaning majority.

People are floating the idea that Obama might be nominated once he leaves office*. That would be hilarious! Although it occurs to me there might be a law that forbids any former President from working at all? Is that just private sector? Or any sector?

*This situation actually has a historical precedent: See William Howard Taft.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:28 am 
Moderator of DOOM!
Moderator of DOOM!
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 12:00 am
Posts: 6794
AOL: gregnier
Location: Do not taunt Happy Fun Mod.
Twitter: BaronJayne
Dodger77 wrote:
People are floating the idea that Obama might be nominated once he leaves office*. That would be hilarious! Although it occurs to me there might be a law that forbids any former President from working at all? Is that just private sector? Or any sector?

*This situation actually has a historical precedent: See William Howard Taft.
nope. totally possible. Obama after all specializes in Constitutional Law.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:52 pm 
Offline
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:50 am
Posts: 1898
Location: Deep in debt, shallow on time.
gregnier wrote:
Dodger77 wrote:
People are floating the idea that Obama might be nominated once he leaves office*. That would be hilarious! Although it occurs to me there might be a law that forbids any former President from working at all? Is that just private sector? Or any sector?

*This situation actually has a historical precedent: See William Howard Taft.
nope. totally possible. Obama after all specializes in Constitutional Law.


I would pay money to see that confirmation hearing. I would, however, say from an arguing cases before a judge standpoint he's not well qualified. I'm not aware of his ever having actually argued a case in court. Also, expired law license (2007). It would be fun to watch though.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Replacing Scalia
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:17 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 12406
Location: The things, they hurt
While that would be an epic troll, Obama's not even superficially qualified to be a judge. It would be as embarrassing to the Democrats as it was to Bush the time he tried to nominate his personal lawyer Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.

Anyway, the Republicans are probably gonna block any Obama nominee even if it backfires on them and they end up with a Clinton or Sanders nominee. Because when they're facing a primary challenge from the hard right, nuanced arguments such as "I accepted Obama's moderate because that would be better than a Sanders pick" would go over like lead balloon. The optics of "noble defeat" play better than pragmatic compromise. Plus a liberal supreme court might be good for the Republicans electorally because it energizes the base. I think they are cynical enough to sacrifice decades of constitutional influence for temporary electoral victory.

Top 
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ] 

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: