Senate GOP Might Nix Filibuster For SCOTUS Nominees

[greenforest32]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-senate-filibuster-supreme-court

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

Uh, not quite sure why the republicans are doing this. Obama has a lot more ability to nominate a liberal replacement to whoever retires in the next two years if he only needs 5 republican votes instead of 14.

[Lief 🗽]

Wonderful news!

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Uh, not quite sure why the republicans are doing this. Obama has a lot more ability to nominate a liberal replacement to whoever retires in the next two years if he only needs 5 republican votes instead of 14.

Eh, the Republicans aren't going to block a liberal replacement for Ginsburg, and not a single Republican will vote to confirm a liberal replacement for Kennedy/Scalia.

The bigger concern is if the Dems win the next election and narrowly get the Senate back. I doubt Scalia and Kennedy are holding on till 2020, to say nothing of 2024.

[RFayette]

Uh, not quite sure why the republicans are doing this. Obama has a lot more ability to nominate a liberal replacement to whoever retires in the next two years if he only needs 5 republican votes instead of 14.

Eh, the Republicans aren't going to block a liberal replacement for Ginsburg, and not a single Republican will vote to confirm a liberal replacement for Kennedy/Scalia.

The bigger concern is if the Dems win the next election and narrowly get the Senate back. I doubt Scalia and Kennedy are holding on till 2020, to say nothing of 2024.

Yeah, it all depends on who you're replacing.  If Scalia is retiring, the Senate will only accept a stalwart conservative, or maybe a somewhat moderate one.  If Kennedy retires, then the GOP will vote for someone who's at most dead-center.  If Ginsburg retires, they'll probably let any competent liberal through.

[ilikeverin]

Great!  A broken clock is right twice a day.  Now for the rest of the filibuster.

[SteveRogers]

Unlike the Republican Senators involved, I value ideological consistency and intellectual integrity, so I say great news!

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

Great!  A broken clock is right twice a day.  Now for the rest of the filibuster.

Do you realize that totally nixing the filibuster allows republicans to enact whatever ultra-conservative policy they want whenever they have the house (which they'll have until at least Jan. 2023 if not even longer) 51 senate seats and the presidency? Even I don't want that.

[ilikeverin]

Great!  A broken clock is right twice a day.  Now for the rest of the filibuster.

Do you realize that totally nixing the filibuster allows republicans to enact whatever ultra-conservative policy they want whenever they have the house (which they'll have until at least Jan. 2023 if not even longer) 51 senate seats and the presidency? Even I don't want that.

Of course I do.  But whether a particular policy is right or wrong should not be a reflection of whether it benefits my side.  The filibuster is just as wrong when Democrats have between 50 and 60 votes in the Senate as it is when Republicans have between 50 and 60 votes in the Senate; the idea that all bills should essentially require a supermajority in our upper house is ludicrous.

[senyor_brownbear]

Uh, not quite sure why the republicans are doing this. Obama has a lot more ability to nominate a liberal replacement to whoever retires in the next two years if he only needs 5 republican votes instead of 14.

Eh, the Republicans aren't going to block a liberal replacement for Ginsburg, and not a single Republican will vote to confirm a liberal replacement for Kennedy/Scalia.

The bigger concern is if the Dems win the next election and narrowly get the Senate back. I doubt Scalia and Kennedy are holding on till 2020, to say nothing of 2024.

Yeah, it all depends on who you're replacing.  If Scalia is retiring, the Senate will only accept a stalwart conservative, or maybe a somewhat moderate one.  If Kennedy retires, then the GOP will vote for someone who's at most dead-center.  If Ginsburg retires, they'll probably let any competent liberal through.

Has a Democratic president ever been forced to nominate a "stalwart conservative"??  I know Republicans have nominated moderates/liberals, though perhaps unwittingly.

Why would a Democrat even go along with that?  They would sooner leave the seat empty.

[King]

This means they actually think they're going to win the White House in 2016. Bizarre.

[Brittain33]

Alternatively, it means they can stand aside for a moderate Dem nominee with only a few defections from their caucus instead of letting Ted Cruz make it impossible for any Dem president to ever get a SCOTUS nominee approved, which McConnell knows is a constitutional crisis.

[morgieb]

Good news, if surprising.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wonderful news!

[Mehmentum]

I'm pleasantly surprised.

[Skill and Chance]

Really surprised by this.  Collins/Kirk/Johnson/Murkowski/Graham would presumably confirm anyone Obama appointed to Ginsburg or Breyer's seat this year or next.  But after 2017, we could easily have President Clinton and a 51/49 or 52/48 R senate.  Collins would presumably confirm a pro-choice nominee to any seat, so that is a very awkward position for the GOP to be in.  Of course, if it's President Walker and a 52R/48D senate, could they get an ideological Alito clone confirmed for Ginsburg or Kennedy's seat?  That is probably the contingency the GOP is betting on in pushing for this.

[Cory]

Huh.

I always figured the Senate Republicans would wait until the GOP held the Presidency, House and Senate to pull this stunt. What do they see to gain by doing it now? It doesn't make any sense.

[Türkisblau]

They've got some balls.

Again, as this thread has shown, this forum is still completely unable to understand why we have a senate and it's purpose.

[RFayette]

Uh, not quite sure why the republicans are doing this. Obama has a lot more ability to nominate a liberal replacement to whoever retires in the next two years if he only needs 5 republican votes instead of 14.

Eh, the Republicans aren't going to block a liberal replacement for Ginsburg, and not a single Republican will vote to confirm a liberal replacement for Kennedy/Scalia.

The bigger concern is if the Dems win the next election and narrowly get the Senate back. I doubt Scalia and Kennedy are holding on till 2020, to say nothing of 2024.

Yeah, it all depends on who you're replacing.  If Scalia is retiring, the Senate will only accept a stalwart conservative, or maybe a somewhat moderate one.  If Kennedy retires, then the GOP will vote for someone who's at most dead-center.  If Ginsburg retires, they'll probably let any competent liberal through.

Has a Democratic president ever been forced to nominate a "stalwart conservative"??  I know Republicans have nominated moderates/liberals, though perhaps unwittingly.

Why would a Democrat even go along with that?  They would sooner leave the seat empty.

I never said the President would nominate a stalwart conservative, only that this would be the only acceptable option to the Senate.

But yes, I believe Obama would choose a fairly conservative Scalia successor

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Uh, not quite sure why the republicans are doing this. Obama has a lot more ability to nominate a liberal replacement to whoever retires in the next two years if he only needs 5 republican votes instead of 14.

Eh, the Republicans aren't going to block a liberal replacement for Ginsburg, and not a single Republican will vote to confirm a liberal replacement for Kennedy/Scalia.

The bigger concern is if the Dems win the next election and narrowly get the Senate back. I doubt Scalia and Kennedy are holding on till 2020, to say nothing of 2024.

Yeah, it all depends on who you're replacing.  If Scalia is retiring, the Senate will only accept a stalwart conservative, or maybe a somewhat moderate one.  If Kennedy retires, then the GOP will vote for someone who's at most dead-center.  If Ginsburg retires, they'll probably let any competent liberal through.

Has a Democratic president ever been forced to nominate a "stalwart conservative"??  I know Republicans have nominated moderates/liberals, though perhaps unwittingly.

Why would a Democrat even go along with that?  They would sooner leave the seat empty.

I never said the President would nominate a stalwart conservative, only that this would be the only acceptable option to the Senate.

But yes, I believe Obama would choose a moderate successor, like Sotomeyer to Scalia seat.

They are assuming that they will continue to enjoy the senate and there is a President Jeb.

But, the nuclear option would have been invoked anyways if the Alito nomination was blocked, that's why Bill Nelson and Pryor and Byrd conceded.

But, hopefully Hillary wins and Dems have at least a 50+VP as the majority in the Senate should Dems do faily well in NH/IL/WI/PA, senate campaigns.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Uh, not quite sure why the republicans are doing this. Obama has a lot more ability to nominate a liberal replacement to whoever retires in the next two years if he only needs 5 republican votes instead of 14.

Eh, the Republicans aren't going to block a liberal replacement for Ginsburg, and not a single Republican will vote to confirm a liberal replacement for Kennedy/Scalia.

The bigger concern is if the Dems win the next election and narrowly get the Senate back. I doubt Scalia and Kennedy are holding on till 2020, to say nothing of 2024.

Yeah, it all depends on who you're replacing.  If Scalia is retiring, the Senate will only accept a stalwart conservative, or maybe a somewhat moderate one.  If Kennedy retires, then the GOP will vote for someone who's at most dead-center.  If Ginsburg retires, they'll probably let any competent liberal through.

Has a Democratic president ever been forced to nominate a "stalwart conservative"??  I know Republicans have nominated moderates/liberals, though perhaps unwittingly.

Why would a Democrat even go along with that?  They would sooner leave the seat empty.

I never said the President would nominate a stalwart conservative, only that this would be the only acceptable option to the Senate.

But yes, I believe Obama would choose a fairly conservative Scalia successor

What would make you believe that?  He's not going to throw away a chance to give his party control of the Supreme Court just so the Republicans will vehemently oppose his nominee instead of super vehemently opposing his nominee.  It may take two nominees or even three, but in the end the Republicans will fold.  They won't be able to get away with just calling for the seat to stay vacant or trying to dictate who replaces Scalia just because he was a Republican hack.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Why should anybody imagine that the current ideological makeup of the Supreme Court is/should be set in stone? George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall, for God's sake. George W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Why is it OK for the right to use nominations to ratchet the court in their direction and then deny any movement in the other direction by appeals to procedure and tradition or something?

I think they think they can get some good press out of this, still stop any nominees of Obama's they don't like that might crop up over the next two years, and can maybe ride that wave of bipartisan feeling to better results in 2016.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I expect if Obama wound up having to nominate a replacement for Scalia/Kennedy, both sides would be forced to compromise on a moderate placeholder. Essentially an older, well-respected centrist judge who would probably serve for no more than 20 years and would essentially be another Kennedy.

Judge Merrick Garland's name has been tossed around in the past and while he doesn't fit Obama's pattern of picking judges (62 years old, white male), he's the most likely candidate to fill that slot and avoid a crisis.

[7,052,770]

I would assume they're doing this because they're convinced that 2016 is in the bag, but they know they'll have trouble enacting this once they already have the presidency and the Senate.

[Beet]

Why should anybody imagine that the current ideological makeup of the Supreme Court is/should be set in stone? George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall, for God's sake. George W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Why is it OK for the right to use nominations to ratchet the court in their direction and then deny any movement in the other direction by appeals to procedure and tradition or something?

I think they think they can get some good press out of this, still stop any nominees of Obama's they don't like that might crop up over the next two years, and can maybe ride that wave of bipartisan feeling to better results in 2016.

Because of the court's extreme ideological polarization in the last 20 years, a change of just Kennedy's seat to either the left or the right would set off a massive sea change in policy equivalent to one party winning supermajorities in congress with an ideological presidency. That huge of a change without an explicit democratic approval would arguably be illegitimate. Hence the concern. It wouldn't be a problem if the court were nonpartisan just interpreted the law as it is supposed to do, but it has become the third (and arguably most powerful) legislative branch in the current generation.