Will a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed before the year is out?

[Panhandle Progressive]

By 12/31/16 will SCOTUS have 9 members?

[7,052,770]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Obama gets it done. Divide and conquer.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Not unless McConnell has pre-approved the nominee in talks with Obama.

[Orser67]

Grassley's openness to holding hearings makes it a look a little more likely than it did yesterday, but I would still definitely bet against it.

[°Leprechaun]

I am listening to Obama answering questions, he isn't promising to nominate someone who is moderate, and says don't make any assumptions. He also says he will appoint someone who is qualified. No surprise there. The politics isn't the fault of either party. Basically so far he isn't saying anything that we don't already know. He comments that the Senate won't confirm a nominee, even if they are voted out of committee. He sounds a little frustrated at the whole process. He is appealing to the original intent of the founders. He is talking about that process as outlined in the Constitution.

[Vosem]

No, and it's perfectly conceivable for the seat to languish open for many years.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Pretty much the only way I could see it happening was if they pull the West Wing strategy - Ginsburg or Breyer retires, and Obama puts up one liberal for that seat and one moderate right-winger (Sandoval, for instance) for Scalia.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Possibly after the election if the Dems retake the Senate. If that happens, then the lame duck Republican Senate might approve whichever moderate Obama is likely to have nominated before the election to avoid what they would consider an even worse replacement being put forth by the next President and getting thru the new Democratic Senate.

[ShadowRocket]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes for several reasons. I expect that Obama will pick someone fairly moderate and noncontroversial to back the GOP into a corner. With a Trump nomination looking likely for the Republicans, Hillary Clinton becomes the odds on favorite to be elected President come November. And I think she'll have strong enough coattails, and Trump will be a problematic enough candidate, that the Democrats will be able to retake the Senate.

In this scenario, its better to confirm the more moderate candidate during the lame duck. Instead of waiting until after next January when a President Clinton will have more leeway to pick someone more liberal.

[Badger]

Initially I was doubtful, but already a few Republican senators are saying, well, let's see who Obama picks and go from there. Given Obama's almost sure to appoint Sri Whatshisname, I think Obama sees an opening.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Pretty much the only way I could see it happening was if they pull the West Wing strategy - Ginsburg or Breyer retires, and Obama puts up one liberal for that seat and one moderate right-winger (Sandoval, for instance) for Scalia.

Has to be a pro-life originalist like Scalia one to preserve the balance. Sandoval is not pro-life.

[Zioneer]

Honestly, it's a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing; they'll confirm a nominee in a few months at worst.

[Figueira]

How moderate is Sri Srinivasan anyway?

[Iosif]

If Obama nominates someone uncontroversial and if by the summer it looks like Trump or Cruz are set for a thrashing the senators in competitive races might get angsty and Republicans might want to cut their loses.

Maybe.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Initially I was doubtful, but already a few Republican senators are saying, well, let's see who Obama picks and go from there. Given Obama's almost sure to appoint Sri Whatshisname, I think Obama sees an opening.

This.  The Republicans made a big mistake by immediately claiming they'd oppose anyone Obama nominated, regardless of qualifications.  Lindsay Graham's "If President Obama nominates a well-qualified liberal, I'll block a vote on him.  If Hillary Clinton nominates a well-qualifed liberal, I'll vote for him" (or words to that effect) line is an example of the sort of thing that plays right into the Democrats hands and should make it pretty easy to delegitimize the Republican party's opposition to whomever Obama nominates in the eyes of the general public. 

Plus, if this drags on, sooner or later folks like Joe Heck, Kelly Ayotte, and Pat Toomey, etc are gonna be forced to say whether they'd vote for a pro-choice nominee and there is really no good answer to that question for folks like them.  Portman is really lucky that Strickland screwed up his own answer to that question badly enough that he probably doesn't have to worry about the Roe vs. Wade issue quite as much as some other Republicans, but Tammy Duckworth is already beating Kirk like a piñata over this issue.  Ron Johnson is another one who is quite vulnerable to such attacks (the Republican nominee in Colorado will be too).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I wouldnt count out Strickland,  blacks like to vote for Dems in Ohio, Portman Im predicting to lose.

But, Grassley is begining to crack and may hold a hearing on Sri and a handful of GOPers may vote to confirm the choice.