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.
