Possible Ginsburg replacements if she retires?

[136or142]

Yes, but as I said, that would only be true if it was a 'liberal' Justice that was being replaced.  Their is no way the Republicans would give up the 'conservative' majority.  That said, Pat Leahy would likely make a wonderful Supreme Court Judge.  I'd love to read his opinions quoting Grateful Dead songs.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Can anyone seriously maintain that if a Justice (any Justice) were to pass over the next two years, the GOP wouldn't just force Obama to leave the seat vacant until the next Administration?

could Obama recess-appoint a Justice to SCOTUS?

No Obama can't appoint a SCOTUS in recess.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Can anyone seriously maintain that if a Justice (any Justice) were to pass over the next two years, the GOP wouldn't just force Obama to leave the seat vacant until the next Administration?

could Obama recess-appoint a Justice to SCOTUS?

No Obama can't appoint a SCOTUS in recess.

Only because the Senate these days is never in recess specifically to deny Presidents the use of the recess appointment power.  There have been a number of recess appointments to SCOTUS dating back to when Washington was President, not all of which have been approved.

[Ebsy]

Klobuchar would be my pick. The Senate is less willing to filibuster one of their own for executive appointments.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

If the Notorious steps down under Hillary, Obama should be appointed just to troll everyone.

[Ebsy]

If the Notorious steps down under Hillary, Obama should be appointed just to troll everyone.

Can you imagine? There would probably be riots in the streets.

[Skill and Chance]

If the Notorious steps down under Hillary, Obama should be appointed just to troll everyone.

Can you imagine? There would probably be riots in the streets.

He's certainly young enough to do a Taft, but I doubt that could ever happen in today's environment unless one side has >60 seats.  FWIW George W. Bush does not have a law degree.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A choice I would enthusiastically approve of, assuming he's not interested in running for Senate, is Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval. But I highly doubt Obama would actually nominate him.

I would vote to confirm Kaine, Gillibrand, Durbin, or Klobuchar. Not sure on Jeh Johnson, Thomas Perez, and Janet Napolitano. I would vote to reject Cardin or Leahy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama should nominate Goodwin Liu. There will be some blowback if Republicans block him for SCOTUS like they did for the 9th circuit.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Sheldon Whitehouse is a possible replacement from the senate. Yes, he is an outspoken liberal but also very respected among his colleagues (and the RI governor is a Democrat).

[NeverAgain]

Napolitano would be my choice.

[Torie]

As some have alluded, no nominee would be confirmed unless perceived as a moderate, as to which there is a reasonable prospect that the person would not be a reliable liberal block justice, absent unusual circumstances.

[Ebsy]

As some have alluded, no nominee would be confirmed unless perceived as a moderate, as to which there is a reasonable prospect that the person would not be a reliable liberal block justice, absent unusual circumstances.

I could see Republicans allowing through a liberal to replace the liberal Ginsburg.

[Slander and/or Libel]

As some have alluded, no nominee would be confirmed unless perceived as a moderate, as to which there is a reasonable prospect that the person would not be a reliable liberal block justice, absent unusual circumstances.

I know you're not advocating this specifically, but under what kind of thinking is this even close to consistent? Did it make sense in this way to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito, even though they weren't really close to ideologically aligned? Does it make sense for a party to straight up refuse to confirm otherwise qualified nominees because they don't like the ideological implications for the balance of the court? Isn't that more a problem with the system than anything?

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

As some have alluded, no nominee would be confirmed unless perceived as a moderate, as to which there is a reasonable prospect that the person would not be a reliable liberal block justice, absent unusual circumstances.

I could see Republicans allowing through a liberal to replace the liberal Ginsburg.

I don't see why the Republicans wouldn't take the chance to just replace Scalia or Kennedy with someone just as conservative in exchange for a liberal taking over Ginsburg's seat.

[Skill and Chance]

As some have alluded, no nominee would be confirmed unless perceived as a moderate, as to which there is a reasonable prospect that the person would not be a reliable liberal block justice, absent unusual circumstances.

I could see Republicans allowing through a liberal to replace the liberal Ginsburg.

I don't see why the Republicans wouldn't take the chance to just replace Scalia or Kennedy with someone just as conservative in exchange for a liberal taking over Ginsburg's seat.

Well, the problem is that two seats are unlikely to be open at the same time (or during the same 2 years).  Assuming the filibuster stays in place for SCOTUS, pretty much all confirmable nominees will have to be moderates going forward.  And going nuclear for either party means a huge risk that Ted Cruz replaces Ginsburg or Kamala Harris replaces Scalia a few years down the line.

[Ebsy]

Republicans would never get the votes to confirm Ted Cruz to a seat on the Supreme Court. That's just patently ridiculous.

[/]

If the Notorious steps down under Hillary, Obama should be appointed just to troll everyone.

Can you imagine? There would probably be riots in the streets.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I'd love to see Gillibrand replace Ginsburg. She was a lawyer for many years herself, and in the likely scenario of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, I can definitely see her being a top candidate for Ginsburg's seat.

[Beet]

Why do people keep suggesting politicians for SCOTUS? The tradition of picking judges or legal scholars is best, IMO. I know the Court is basically just another chamber of Congress these days, but those poor lawyers need to have their profession account for something.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why do people keep suggesting politicians for SCOTUS? The tradition of picking judges or legal scholars is best, IMO. I know the Court is basically just another chamber of Congress these days, but those poor lawyers need to have their profession account for something.

Fair enough.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do people keep suggesting politicians for SCOTUS? The tradition of picking judges or legal scholars is best, IMO. I know the Court is basically just another chamber of Congress these days, but those poor lawyers need to have their profession account for something.

Why? Because most people are far more familiar with politicians than with judges or legal scholars. However, that familiarity is precisely why politicians are seldom nominated these days as they've likely left a paper trail that would derail their nomination if it were made.

[Skill and Chance]

Why do people keep suggesting politicians for SCOTUS? The tradition of picking judges or legal scholars is best, IMO. I know the Court is basically just another chamber of Congress these days, but those poor lawyers need to have their profession account for something.

Why? Because most people are far more familiar with politicians than with judges or legal scholars. However, that familiarity is precisely why politicians are seldom nominated these days as they've likely left a paper trail that would derail their nomination if it were made.

Technically, the Constitution never even specifies that SCOTUS appointees have to be lawyers!

[Classic Conservative]

Personally I would appoint Judge Andrew Napolitano.

[Zioneer]

A young-ish liberal would be best, I want to have that liberal seat for as long as possible.