Senate GOP Might Nix Filibuster For SCOTUS Nominees

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

Kennedy is a Libertarian-flavored Republican hack.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Kennedy is a Libertarian-flavored Republican hack.

I actually think Kennedy is sincerely libertarian.  Roberts is more interesting to me because he seems to be developing a Bush-like compassionate conservative streak.  I wonder if he drifts further to the center over his career?

[Simfan34]

Excellent news!

[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.

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.

Were you making this argument when Bush appointed Alito to replace O'Connor?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

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.

Were you making this argument when Bush appointed Alito to replace O'Connor?

Alito and O'Connor were still roughly on the same side of the fence. And many Dems did oppose Alito.

Including Obama. Who, it's worth mentioning, also opposed John Roberts to fill Rehnquist's seat, which indicates that he would never vote for a conservative justice even in a "Conservative seat". Which means by that standard, he got about as much courtesy from the GOP on nominees as he afforded as Senator.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Were you making this argument when Bush appointed Alito to replace O'Connor?

Alito and O'Connor were still roughly on the same side of the fence. And many Dems did oppose Alito.

Including Obama. Who, it's worth mentioning, also opposed John Roberts to fill Rehnquist's seat, which indicates that he would never vote for a conservative justice even in a "Conservative seat". Which means by that standard, he got about as much courtesy from the GOP on nominees as he afforded as Senator.

Well, Obama answered to Illinois prior to 2008, and Illinois was Kerry's 7th strongest state in 2004.  He should have been one of the last 15 or so senators to support a Republican nominee for anything, right?

[Brittain33]

Alito and O'Connor were still roughly on the same side of the fence.

O'Connor was pro-choice and essentially pro-affirmative action.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

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.

Were you making this argument when Bush appointed Alito to replace O'Connor?

Alito and O'Connor were still roughly on the same side of the fence. And many Dems did oppose Alito.

Including Obama. Who, it's worth mentioning, also opposed John Roberts to fill Rehnquist's seat, which indicates that he would never vote for a conservative justice even in a "Conservative seat". Which means by that standard, he got about as much courtesy from the GOP on nominees as he afforded as Senator.

Well, Obama answered to Illinois prior to 2008, and Illinois was Kerry's 7th strongest state in 2004.  He should have been one of the last 15 or so senators to support a Republican nominee for anything, right?

So by this standard, it's not obstructionism if the Senators from, say, Alabama, Idaho, Utah, and Oklahoma never support a Democratic nominee for anything again?

And in case there's any doubt about where this started, Ginsburg was confirmed unanimously.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Were you making this argument when Bush appointed Alito to replace O'Connor?

Alito and O'Connor were still roughly on the same side of the fence. And many Dems did oppose Alito.

Including Obama. Who, it's worth mentioning, also opposed John Roberts to fill Rehnquist's seat, which indicates that he would never vote for a conservative justice even in a "Conservative seat". Which means by that standard, he got about as much courtesy from the GOP on nominees as he afforded as Senator.

Well, Obama answered to Illinois prior to 2008, and Illinois was Kerry's 7th strongest state in 2004.  He should have been one of the last 15 or so senators to support a Republican nominee for anything, right?

So by this standard, it's not obstructionism if the Senators from, say, Alabama, Idaho, Utah, and Oklahoma never support a Democratic nominee for anything again?

And in case there's any doubt about where this started, Ginsburg was confirmed unanimously.

From those states, not at all.  With primaries now being more important than generals in about half the states, there are a group of senators that, out of self-preservation and respect for constituents, should never sign on unless the nominee will get 75+ votes.  Barring a close personal friend, a senator from the dominant party in a blue or red colored state on this map should always vote down an opposite party president's nominee unless that person has already been OK-ed by their party leadership for unanimous or like 80/20 consent:

[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.

Were you making this argument when Bush appointed Alito to replace O'Connor?

Alito and O'Connor were still roughly on the same side of the fence. And many Dems did oppose Alito.

Including Obama. Who, it's worth mentioning, also opposed John Roberts to fill Rehnquist's seat, which indicates that he would never vote for a conservative justice even in a "Conservative seat". Which means by that standard, he got about as much courtesy from the GOP on nominees as he afforded as Senator.

Precisely. Besides, when Alito joined the court, the swing vote went from one moderate (O'Connor) to another (Kennedy). When Kennedy is no longer the swing vote, if he is not replaced by a moderate, then there may not be a consistent swing justice anymore, and power will clearly reside with one "bloc" or another.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Were you making this argument when Bush appointed Alito to replace O'Connor?

Alito and O'Connor were still roughly on the same side of the fence. And many Dems did oppose Alito.

Including Obama. Who, it's worth mentioning, also opposed John Roberts to fill Rehnquist's seat, which indicates that he would never vote for a conservative justice even in a "Conservative seat". Which means by that standard, he got about as much courtesy from the GOP on nominees as he afforded as Senator.

Precisely. Besides, when Alito joined the court, the swing vote went from one moderate (O'Connor) to another (Kennedy). When Kennedy is no longer the swing vote, if he is not replaced by a moderate, then there may not be a consistent swing justice anymore, and power will clearly reside with one "bloc" or another.

I think you are assuming too much.  Remember that Ginsburg, Scalia, and Breyer are similarly likely to retire by 2025.  If Kennedy leaves the Court first, I don't think Breyer or Roberts are onboard for the level of ideological weirdness you fear.  Things only get crazy if the same side gets to appoint successors for 3 of the oldest 4 while they control the senate.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

Were you making this argument when Bush appointed Alito to replace O'Connor?

Alito and O'Connor were still roughly on the same side of the fence. And many Dems did oppose Alito.

Including Obama. Who, it's worth mentioning, also opposed John Roberts to fill Rehnquist's seat, which indicates that he would never vote for a conservative justice even in a "Conservative seat". Which means by that standard, he got about as much courtesy from the GOP on nominees as he afforded as Senator.

Precisely. Besides, when Alito joined the court, the swing vote went from one moderate (O'Connor) to another (Kennedy). When Kennedy is no longer the swing vote, if he is not replaced by a moderate, then there may not be a consistent swing justice anymore, and power will clearly reside with one "bloc" or another.

There hasn't been a swing vote since O'Conner and even she's a bit of a stretch.  Least hackish member of the majority bloc =/= swing vote.

[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.

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.

Were you making this argument when Bush appointed Alito to replace O'Connor?

Alito and O'Connor were still roughly on the same side of the fence. And many Dems did oppose Alito.

Including Obama. Who, it's worth mentioning, also opposed John Roberts to fill Rehnquist's seat, which indicates that he would never vote for a conservative justice even in a "Conservative seat". Which means by that standard, he got about as much courtesy from the GOP on nominees as he afforded as Senator.

Precisely. Besides, when Alito joined the court, the swing vote went from one moderate (O'Connor) to another (Kennedy). When Kennedy is no longer the swing vote, if he is not replaced by a moderate, then there may not be a consistent swing justice anymore, and power will clearly reside with one "bloc" or another.

You mean median vote, not swing vote. Different things.