If a Supreme Court justice retires or dies in the next two years…..

[Maistre]

The Schumer precedent mandates that it stay vacant till 2017.

[IceSpear]

Speaking of courts, I hope Reid and Obama start packing the remaining court vacancies very soon.

[memphis]

If there is a vacancy (or even just a recusal for that matter) what happens in the case of a 4-4 split? Just for the sake of argument, say the issue is the blockbuster national gay marriage case making its way up the ranks. What happens?

[SPC]

If there is a vacancy (or even just a recusal for that matter) what happens in the case of a 4-4 split? Just for the sake of argument, say the issue is the blockbuster national gay marriage case making its way up the ranks. What happens?

The lower court ruling stands.

[SteveRogers]

The Schumer precedent mandates that it stay vacant till 2017 isn't a real thing and certainly never actually resulted in the rejection of any Supreme Court nominations.

[krazen1211]

The Schumer precedent mandates that it stay vacant till 2017 isn't a real thing and certainly never actually resulted in the rejection of any Supreme Court nominations.

Of course its a real thing. Mr. Schumer stated in 2007 that the Senate was done confirming Supreme Court nominations until January 2009.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Speaking of courts, I hope Reid and Obama start packing the remaining court vacancies very soon.

It sounds like they don't have time to them all of them, but one can hope they prioritize and certainly fill all the vacant circuit court positions.

[SteveRogers]

The Schumer precedent mandates that it stay vacant till 2017 isn't a real thing and certainly never actually resulted in the rejection of any Supreme Court nominations.

Of course its a real thing. Mr. Schumer stated in 2007 that the Senate was done confirming Supreme Court nominations until January 2009.

You are referring to these comments:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5146.html

First, Schumer was not advocating for a categorical rule that no president's nominees should ever be confirmed after the midterms. Schumer argued that Bush's nominees had been overly ideological, that they had "hoodwinked" the Senate in confirmation hearings, that the court was "dangerously out of balance," and that the Senate should therefore refuse to nominate any further Bush nominees "except in extraordinary circumstances." His complaint was with Bush's conduct specifically, not with the concept of lame duck presidents making judicial appointments.

Second, Schumer was stating his own personal opinion, not the opinion of the Senate Democratic caucus. Bush never made any Supreme Court nominations between January 2007 and January 2009, so there's no indication that Senate Democrats would have applied a blanket rule of obstruction. By definition, something that has never occurred cannot form the basis for a "precedent."

[Orser67]

If Ginsberg or Breyer retire, I think Obama could probably successfully nominate one of the several judges that received unanimous or near-unanimous confirmation to the appellate courts. Nguyen seems like a good guess to me as well.

Idk what would happen if one of the Republican justices vacate their seat.

[morgieb]

If there is a vacancy (or even just a recusal for that matter) what happens in the case of a 4-4 split? Just for the sake of argument, say the issue is the blockbuster national gay marriage case making its way up the ranks. What happens?

The lower court ruling stands.

And if the lower court ruling is split?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If there is a vacancy (or even just a recusal for that matter) what happens in the case of a 4-4 split? Just for the sake of argument, say the issue is the blockbuster national gay marriage case making its way up the ranks. What happens?

The lower court ruling stands.

And if the lower court ruling is split?

Then it stays split.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If Ginsberg or Breyer retire, I think Obama could probably successfully nominate one of the several judges that received unanimous or near-unanimous confirmation to the appellate courts. Nguyen seems like a good guess to me as well.

I understand that the urge to reject any Obama nominee and the pressure from the base will be enormous. But the optics of a bunch of old white guys refusing to even consider a young, qualified Asian woman will be terrible.
They will reinforce the worst stereotypes about the Republican party just when they are about to face the first female presidential candidate in history.

[Gustaf]

Wouldn't Republicans be concerned with the risk of Clinton taking the presidency in 2016 and them losing the senate at the same time?

[memphis]

Wouldn't Republicans be concerned with the risk of Clinton taking the presidency in 2016 and them losing the senate at the same time?

Not really. They can, in theory, just filibuster forever, but they know that, in reality, they can force Obama to nominate whoever they want.

[Skill and Chance]

Wouldn't Republicans be concerned with the risk of Clinton taking the presidency in 2016 and them losing the senate at the same time?

Not really. They can, in theory, just filibuster forever, but they know that, in reality, they can force Obama to nominate whoever they want.

46 Dems +Collins+Graham+Murkowski+Kirk (out of self-preservation) = confirmation for any center-left nominee.

[SteveRogers]

Wouldn't Republicans be concerned with the risk of Clinton taking the presidency in 2016 and them losing the senate at the same time?

Not really. They can, in theory, just filibuster forever, but they know that, in reality, they can force Obama to nominate whoever they want.

46 Dems +Collins+Graham+Murkowski+Kirk (out of self-preservation) = confirmation for any center-left nominee.

Um, except for that pesky filibuster.

[morgieb]

Wouldn't Republicans be concerned with the risk of Clinton taking the presidency in 2016 and them losing the senate at the same time?

Not really. They can, in theory, just filibuster forever, but they know that, in reality, they can force Obama to nominate whoever they want.

46 Dems +Collins+Graham+Murkowski+Kirk (out of self-preservation) = confirmation for any center-left nominee.

Um, except for that pesky filibuster.

I thought that got abolished for judicial nominations?

[SteveRogers]

Wouldn't Republicans be concerned with the risk of Clinton taking the presidency in 2016 and them losing the senate at the same time?

Not really. They can, in theory, just filibuster forever, but they know that, in reality, they can force Obama to nominate whoever they want.

46 Dems +Collins+Graham+Murkowski+Kirk (out of self-preservation) = confirmation for any center-left nominee.

Um, except for that pesky filibuster.

I thought that got abolished for judicial nominations?

Reid made a point of making it clear that the rule change was for all judicial nominations except for Supreme Court nominations.

[Brittain33]

His interests lie in working with the congress, and their interests lie in working with him.

I'm genuinely curious why that would be so. I feel it's only true for a very small number of first-term Republican senators in states likely to vote heavily Democratic in 2016, and that probably isn't enough to get to 50. The vast majority of Republicans in Congress are best served in primaries and the general election by opposing Obama across the board, falling just shy of a government shutdown or bond default.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Events this year suggest the famed "strict Tea Party primary" is more toothless than previously believed.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

But imagine if one of the conservative justices were to drop dead in January 2015.  A likely Obama-nominated replacement would have the potential to shift the ideological balance on the court quite substantially, which is why the GOP Senate might just delay the confirmation vote indefinitely.

I will now accept my accolades.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Morden killed Scalia