should Ginsburg (and maybe Breyer) retire

[freepcrusher]

so that Obama can get in two "quickies" in case he loses?

[Napoleon]

If you have this fight near the election it is bound to be bad.

[Torie]

Certainly not!  They have miles to go before they sleep. They're invaluable!  

Moving right along, both in all events would finish their term at the end of June, and the Pubs would indeed delay confirming anyone who was not clearly a real moderate and a real swing vote. The gloves would come off, and Harry would have a fit as the Pubs play the filibuster card, leaving him in a position as to whether or not to can it, which would indeed be poetic justice. Any more liberal nominee might get 50 votes anyway, given how much stress some of the Dem incumbents are under.

So no.

[Lief 🗽]

They need to retire ASAP, and Obama needs to replace them with 25-year-olds just out of Berkeley.

[opebo]

They need to retire ASAP, and Obama needs to replace them with 25-year-olds just out of Berkeley.

Yes!

[Wonkish1]

They should have, but both said they didn't want to leave yet.

In another 2 months time it'll be to late.

[Torie]

They need to retire ASAP, and Obama needs to replace them with 25-year-olds just out of Berkeley.

Perfect! I really like that plan!

[opebo]

In another 2 months time it'll be to late.

How's that?

[Wonkish1]

In another 2 months time it'll be to late.

How's that?

Because primary season will get started and so will Obama's election cycle. It takes a few months for the candidate to be picked, moved through committee, etc. And you have summer recess right before the elections.

The Senators aren't going to want to vote on something that high profile before the election. And if they try to save it until lame duck and the GOP will accuse the Dems on screwing them over and will just delay it until they take over in January.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Collins, Snowe, Graham and Lugar supported Kagan. Brown probably would have if he was in the Senate. Kirk might support a nominee.

That would be 6 and get them to 59 if all Dems stay together.  

Lamar Alexander supported Sotomayor, but not Kagan.

There may be those who would vote to break through a filibuster and not for the nominee. Alito only got 58 votes to confirm but 75 voted to stop a Dem filibuster.

Of course Thomas only got 52 votes.

[krazen1211]

Wouldn't matter. The Schumer rule kicked in a few months ago; Obama's power to appoint Supreme Court justices expired on July 27th, 2011.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of course not; no nominee appointed now will get out of the Senate until January 21, 2013.  The Republicans would see to that.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Collins, Snowe, Graham and Lugar supported Kagan. Brown probably would have if he was in the Senate. Kirk might support a nominee.

That would be 6 and get them to 59 if all Dems stay together.  

Brown was in the Senate. He voted against.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Collins, Snowe, Graham and Lugar supported Kagan. Brown probably would have if he was in the Senate. Kirk might support a nominee.

That would be 6 and get them to 59 if all Dems stay together.  

Brown was in the Senate. He voted against.

Ah my bad. Thanks.

Not sure he'd do the same this close to an election though. It would be a great way to help himself in his race by voting for a Dem nominee.

[Wonkish1]

Of course not; no nominee appointed now will get out of the Senate until January 21, 2013.  The Republicans would see to that.

Bingo!! But as I said above, I bet Obama would still have a 2-3 month window from now. Once that passes the process takes to long. You go to recess and once you're out between Republicans thinking their so close, if they can just hold out a little longer and some Dem senators that would, but prefer not to vote on SCOTUS nomination a couple weeks before they face election and the nominee would be held up until the new congress took over in 2013.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obama could probably get a nominee through now if and only if it the need to appoint someone was clearly not due to someone resigning specifically so Obama could appoint the replacement.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Obama could probably get a nominee through now if and only if it the need to appoint someone was clearly not due to someone resigning specifically so Obama could appoint the replacement.

Ginsburg could plausibly resign, given her age and health status.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I hope both live on through January 2013/2017 so Romney/Rubio can appoint a replacement.

[krazen1211]

Of course not; no nominee appointed now will get out of the Senate until January 21, 2013.  The Republicans would see to that.

Bingo!! But as I said above, I bet Obama would still have a 2-3 month window from now. Once that passes the process takes to long. You go to recess and once you're out between Republicans thinking their so close, if they can just hold out a little longer and some Dem senators that would, but prefer not to vote on SCOTUS nomination a couple weeks before they face election and the nominee would be held up until the new congress took over in 2013.

Anthony Kennedy was nominated in November 1987. Beyond that you 're not going to find examples of election year nominees succeeding; Fortas of course failed.

Schumer changed the rules anyway.

[nclib]

What is the specific rules change? If a vacancy happens, isn't the President supposed to fill it as soon as he/she can get a nominee that the Senate will confirm?

That said, I think it would look like a power grab (not to mention Obama will probably win in 2012 anyway).

[freepcrusher]

Wouldn't matter. The Schumer rule kicked in a few months ago; Obama's power to appoint Supreme Court justices expired on July 27th, 2011.

so my question is why didn't they retire in 2011? Its hard to know whether anybody of that age can make it to 2017.

[krazen1211]

What is the specific rules change? If a vacancy happens, isn't the President supposed to fill it as soon as he/she can get a nominee that the Senate will confirm?

That said, I think it would look like a power grab (not to mention Obama will probably win in 2012 anyway).

The stated Schumer policy is that no Supreme Court nominee should be confirmed after  July 27th of the 3rd year of a Presidential term except under 'extraordinary circumstances'.

He said so himself on  July 27th, 2007.

[Skill and Chance]

Of course not; no nominee appointed now will get out of the Senate until January 21, 2013.  The Republicans would see to that.

Bingo!! But as I said above, I bet Obama would still have a 2-3 month window from now. Once that passes the process takes to long. You go to recess and once you're out between Republicans thinking their so close, if they can just hold out a little longer and some Dem senators that would, but prefer not to vote on SCOTUS nomination a couple weeks before they face election and the nominee would be held up until the new congress took over in 2013.

Anthony Kennedy was nominated in November 1987. Beyond that you 're not going to find examples of election year nominees succeeding; Fortas of course failed.

Schumer changed the rules anyway.

How did Schumer "change the rules"?  There were no Supreme Court retirements in Bush's term after 2006 anyway.  Reid probably couldn't get a vote at this time, but what does it have to do with Schumer?

That having been said, I think the Dems would be in a vengeful mood over 2009-10 if the Republicans have full control in 2013.  I'd expect them to vote unanimously against basically anything a President Romney proposes beyond the naming of a monument (remember, the average House Dem would be way left of Obama after more seats are lost).  That probably also means using the filibuster as liberally as the GOP did under Obama if they still have 41.  

[Skill and Chance]

Wouldn't matter. The Schumer rule kicked in a few months ago; Obama's power to appoint Supreme Court justices expired on July 27th, 2011.

so my question is why didn't they retire in 2011? Its hard to know whether anybody of that age can make it to 2017.

I don't know.  Maybe they truly enjoy their jobs.  Would Scalia and Kennedy retire for a Republican in 2013?

[krazen1211]

How did Schumer "change the rules"?  There were no Supreme Court retirements in Bush's term after 2006 anyway.  Reid probably couldn't get a vote at this time, but what does it have to do with Schumer?

That having been said, I think the Dems would be in a vengeful mood over 2009-10 if the Republicans have full control in 2013.  I'd expect them to vote unanimously against basically anything a President Romney proposes beyond the naming of a monument (remember, the average House Dem would be way left of Obama after more seats are lost).  That probably also means using the filibuster as liberally as the GOP did under Obama if they still have 41.  

Quite simple.He stated that in the unlikely event of a vacancy after July 2007 any nominee should be automatically rejected.