Scalia just died (really). How will this affect the race?

[eric82oslo]

It makes a Democratic victory this year even more likely.

My only fear is that Republican turnout will increase even more than the Democratic one, since Republican voters are older, more affluent, whiter and more knowledgeable (up to date with the news cycle), all strong indicators of voter engagement. On the other side, the upside for Democratic turnout, especially among Asian and Hispanic voters, is astronomic. If Hillary/Bernie/Julian Castro can manage to get minority voters fired up in Texas and Arizona, the two states with the worst minority turnout in the last few elections, then a lot has been achieved already.

[Fuzzy Bear]

An aside: If you're cheering the death of someone solely on ideological grounds, you need some help. He has a family, kids, friends, etc. Scalia is a person, not a political prop, be respectful.

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached"


Yeah, no, he cheered wrongful execution and loved hating people who were different from him. He can burn in hell.

I'm not quite as graceless as the above poster, but if this is what Antonin Scalia wrote in a decision, his title of "Mr. Justice Scalia" is a misnomer.  "Mr. Injustice Scalia" is more like it.

[eric82oslo]

RIP TRUMP AND SANDERS, basically.

I agree that it's probably good news for Rubio, Cruz and Hillary. Rubio cause he's the most electable of any candidate on both sides of the isle, Cruz cause he's the only staunch conservative and Hillary for obvious reasons. (Suddenly values and who can best defend them become more important than the 99%, as well as already known leadership skills/experience.) However I believe that Rubio and Cruz have much more to gain from this than Hillary, since it's still not set in stone that she is more electable than Sanders. She probably is, though the media is against her, all Republicans are playing the devil's advocate and the continuous coverage of e-mailgate isn't doing her any favours. On top of it, for the last few months, Sanders has usually been doing slightly better than her in match up polls. What will become increasingly clear by the day now is that voters - especially the educated ones - will get more and more concerned about electability, which could potentially hurt Trump tremendously. On the other side, almost all of Trump's voters are anything but educated, they are basically all working class, so they shouldn't care a whole lot about this whole shebang. Before he becomes too complacent about this fact though, he should consider the fact that the RNC leader group, including top donors and the Republican establishment (leading politicians, Senators & Governors) will become even way more desperate in their fight to tear down Trump and make sure he doesn't become the eventual nominee. The remainder of this GOP campaign will unquestionably become the most nasty stretch in US political history anyone has ever witnessed. A cat fight of lions or tigers would seem like poetry in comparison. We already saw the first phase in the debate this Saturday. Most wrestling matches we've ever seen have been more civil than what we witnessed on Saturday.

[eric82oslo]

How does this make a democratic victory likely?

Think about how the events would logically play out. Obama nominates somebody, conservatives freak out, attempt government shutdown, etc.

A government shutdown is about money, monetary issues, not about values or the Constitution. You can't slam the Constitution in the head of government workers. However if they're told they won't get any salary, there's no reason for them to work.

[Virginiá]

How does this make a democratic victory likely?

Think about how the events would logically play out. Obama nominates somebody, conservatives freak out, attempt government shutdown, etc.

A government shutdown is about money, monetary issues, not about values or the Constitution. You can't slam the Constitution in the head of government workers. However if they're told they won't get any salary, there's no reason for them to work.

I was actually thinking it would happen the other way around, with Obama refusing to sign any spending bills until the Senate did its job and worked with him to confirm a nomination. It's not a good thing to do, but from a liberal perspective this is very important. The Senate Republicans stalling until they have a chance to usurp what should have been Obama's nomination shouldn't even be legal.

On top of that, there is a good chance such a shutdown could be framed as Republicans' fault. Obama could probably pick any number of unreasonable things in the budget worth vetoing over as an "official reason".

[IceSpear]

Hopefully it gets some voters who were flirting with Bernie back to reality. It could hurt Trump for the same reason.

As for the general, probably a wash. The GOP will get plenty of bad news cycles for their obstructionism, but it will probably also raise turnout and party unity, even for an "unconventional" nominee like Trump.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hopefully it gets some voters who were flirting with Bernie back to reality. It could hurt Trump for the same reason.

As for the general, probably a wash. The GOP will get plenty of bad news cycles for their obstructionism, but it will probably also raise turnout and party unity, even for an "unconventional" nominee like Trump.

Hillary's not inevitable. Deal with it.

[IceSpear]

Hopefully it gets some voters who were flirting with Bernie back to reality. It could hurt Trump for the same reason.

As for the general, probably a wash. The GOP will get plenty of bad news cycles for their obstructionism, but it will probably also raise turnout and party unity, even for an "unconventional" nominee like Trump.

Hillary's not inevitable. Deal with it.

Uh...okay? Not sure how this is relevant to my post. She is though.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Hopefully it gets some voters who were flirting with Bernie back to reality. It could hurt Trump for the same reason.

As for the general, probably a wash. The GOP will get plenty of bad news cycles for their obstructionism, but it will probably also raise turnout and party unity, even for an "unconventional" nominee like Trump.

Hillary's not inevitable. Deal with it.

Too bad Bernie doesn't have a law degree.  You know what Obama would do right now if he did!

He'd try to convince Bernie to withdraw from the presidential primary and dangle SCOTUS position (in blago fashion)

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hopefully it gets some voters who were flirting with Bernie back to reality. It could hurt Trump for the same reason.

As for the general, probably a wash. The GOP will get plenty of bad news cycles for their obstructionism, but it will probably also raise turnout and party unity, even for an "unconventional" nominee like Trump.

Hillary's not inevitable. Deal with it.

Uh...okay? Not sure how this is relevant to my post. She is though.

You said "accept reality". Yeah, you were referring to Bernie's electability, but I assume there was some of your desire to see as big of a primary hillaryslide as possible. And on Hillary's primary inevitablility, it's not looking so sturdy after NH. Her campaign is already lowering expectations on NV and may even lose there. And Bernie doesn't need to win SC, so that leaves it up to TN/VA/OK/MA on Super Tuesday.

[RaphaelDLG]

I think this is definitely good news for Hilldog in the primary because she's widely perceived as more electable, but I also think it's good news for Sanders if he somehow makes it through to the general because, though Sanders' floor is pretty high anyways in this polarized age, NO Democrats will defect or stay home now no matter who the Republican nominee is.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The next SCJ should be someone like Alito.

Mike Lee

I wouldn't mind if it were to say replace a retiring Thomas or Kennedy. Scalia is really irreplaceable, but I think you need someone with a strong record as legal scholar as much as in terms of judicial philosophy simply because Scalia was such an influential force and really a bedrock in that sense and that is just as important as well. I fear Lee would be a tremendous step down in that sense.

Of course this point is all moot unless Republicans win the White House and hold the Senate in November.

This stuff goes both ways.  If you think Republicans are replacing Kennedy with someone who strongly opposes abortion and gay marriage l without first nuking the SCOTUS filibuster, you're out of your mind.

Such is the danger when you read stuff into the constitution that is not there, it can just as easily be read out.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I think this is definitely good news for Hilldog in the primary because she's widely perceived as more electable, but I also think it's good news for Sanders if he somehow makes it through to the general because, though Sanders' floor is pretty high anyways in this polarized age, NO Democrats will defect or stay home now no matter who the Republican nominee is.

Sanders getting to choose Scalia's replacement isn't going to magically wipe away the fact that he's a socialist. The attack ads to keep up defections write themselves: "Sanders wouldn't just appoint another Ginsburg, he'd appoint a real radical who would declare capitalism unconstitutional." Yeah, maybe not accurate, but no one seriously cares about the accuracy of TV Ads.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think this is definitely good news for Hilldog in the primary because she's widely perceived as more electable, but I also think it's good news for Sanders if he somehow makes it through to the general because, though Sanders' floor is pretty high anyways in this polarized age, NO Democrats will defect or stay home now no matter who the Republican nominee is.

Hillary was the one who was weaker in the general election.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think this is definitely good news for Hilldog in the primary because she's widely perceived as more electable, but I also think it's good news for Sanders if he somehow makes it through to the general because, though Sanders' floor is pretty high anyways in this polarized age, NO Democrats will defect or stay home now no matter who the Republican nominee is.

Hillary was the one who was weaker in the general election.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

How does this make a democratic victory likely?

Think about how the events would logically play out. Obama nominates somebody, conservatives freak out, attempt government shutdown, etc.

A government shutdown is about money, monetary issues, not about values or the Constitution. You can't slam the Constitution in the head of government workers. However if they're told they won't get any salary, there's no reason for them to work.

I was actually thinking it would happen the other way around, with Obama refusing to sign any spending bills until the Senate did its job and worked with him to confirm a nomination. It's not a good thing to do, but from a liberal perspective this is very important. The Senate Republicans stalling until they have a chance to usurp what should have been Obama's nomination shouldn't even be legal.

On top of that, there is a good chance such a shutdown could be framed as Republicans' fault. Obama could probably pick any number of unreasonable things in the budget worth vetoing over as an "official reason".

No, a shutdown of this type would see the blame pinned straight on Obama. You'd even see MSNBC blaming him for ruining Democrats' November chances, and his approval would likely crater to the thirties. There would be conspiracy theorists on this very forum taking about how Obama is trying to keep Hillary/Bernie out of the White House.

Seriously, this would put him at or below the level Ted Cruz was at in 2013, but without the time to rebound that Cruz and the GOP had before the next election. After a few weeks of GOP + 12 polls on the generic ballot and polls showing the GOP presidential candidates well ahead in all the Bush '04 states plus New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and perhaps a few more), this would stop.

But this type of behavior would be extremely uncharacteristic of the president, and I highly doubt he would do it.

[Lyin' Steve]

Scotusblog and Politico are both pulling hard for Loretta Lynch.
If Obama really does nominate her it would be suicidal for him, of course.
How would it affect the Clinton/Bernie race?
Clinton would be in a tough spot.

[Virginiá]

No, a shutdown of this type would see the blame pinned straight on Obama. You'd even see MSNBC blaming him for ruining Democrats' November chances, and his approval would likely crater to the thirties. There would be conspiracy theorists on this very forum taking about how Obama is trying to keep Hillary/Bernie out of the White House.

Seriously, this would put him at or below the level Ted Cruz was at in 2013, but without the time to rebound that Cruz and the GOP had before the next election. After a few weeks of GOP + 12 polls on the generic ballot and polls showing the GOP presidential candidates well ahead in all the Bush '04 states plus New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and perhaps a few more), this would stop.

But this type of behavior would be extremely uncharacteristic of the president, and I highly doubt he would do it.

Why, though? You didn't even suggest a reason. In 1995 - 1996 government shutdown, Clinton vetoed spending bills that went against his core priorities and Republicans ended up getting most of the blame. Republicans again got the blame in 2013. If Obama conveyed reasonable excuses to the public of why he was vetoing the budget, then there is no reason to think they would turn against him, especially after the last shutdown only years prior was definitively Republicans fault. In this case, Republicans would be refusing to their job on something extremely important.

There is just very little reason to think it would turn out anything like what you're saying.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

No, a shutdown of this type would see the blame pinned straight on Obama. You'd even see MSNBC blaming him for ruining Democrats' November chances, and his approval would likely crater to the thirties. There would be conspiracy theorists on this very forum taking about how Obama is trying to keep Hillary/Bernie out of the White House.

Seriously, this would put him at or below the level Ted Cruz was at in 2013, but without the time to rebound that Cruz and the GOP had before the next election. After a few weeks of GOP + 12 polls on the generic ballot and polls showing the GOP presidential candidates well ahead in all the Bush '04 states plus New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and perhaps a few more), this would stop.

But this type of behavior would be extremely uncharacteristic of the president, and I highly doubt he would do it.

Why, though? You didn't even suggest a reason. In 1995 - 1996 government shutdown, Clinton vetoed spending bills that went against his core priorities and Republicans ended up getting most of the blame. Republicans again got the blame in 2013. If Obama conveyed reasonable excuses to the public of why he was vetoing the budget, then there is no reason to think they would turn against him, especially after the last shutdown only years prior was definitively Republicans fault. In this case, Republicans would be refusing to their job on something extremely important.

There's just little reason to think it would turn out anything like what you're saying. Especially the idea that it would doom Democrats - It didn't doom Republicans in 2014, did it?

They would not have nearly enough time to rebound and put the incident out of voters' minds. Republicans had over a year in 2013-2014. And even then, one could argue that without the memories of the shutdown in their minds, 1% more Virginia voters could have voted to send Ed Gillespie to the Senate.

The Dems in 2013 were the ones wanting the "clean" spending bill to fund the government. In the scenario you put out there, it would be the GOP in that position and the Dems trying to use the spending bill as leverage to do that which they don't have the power to do (like Republicans did with defunding Obamacare).

A spending bill is entirely unrelated to a Supreme Court nominee. This is why Obama would look like a petulant child if he were to just decide to veto all spending bills because he didn't like the fact that he wasn't getting a Supreme Court nominee confirmed.

[Virginiá]

A spending bill is entirely unrelated to a Supreme Court nominee. This is why Obama would look like a petulant child if he were to just decide to veto all spending bills because he didn't like the fact that he wasn't getting a Supreme Court nominee confirmed.

Well I did specifically state that Clinton vetoed spending bills and the public still sided with him. Given that, there's more evidence it wouldn't hurt Obama than not. Everything you're saying is speculation. And I wouldn't really discount using the SCOTUS nomination as a reason, either. Republicans trying to steal a nomination that isn't theirs to make isn't a minor thing, especially after you guys got to shape the court for generations.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A spending bill is entirely unrelated to a Supreme Court nominee. This is why Obama would look like a petulant child if he were to just decide to veto all spending bills because he didn't like the fact that he wasn't getting a Supreme Court nominee confirmed.

Well I did specifically state that Clinton vetoed spending bills and the public still sided with him. Given that, there's more evidence it wouldn't hurt Obama than not. Everything you're saying is speculation. And I wouldn't really discount using the SCOTUS nomination as a reason, either. Republicans trying to steal a nomination that isn't theirs to make isn't a minor thing, especially after you guys got to shape the court for generations.

He vetoed spending bills because he disagreed with what they contained. His position was more popular and Newt was a blundering fool in the public sphere.

OBama vetoing a spending bill over something totally unrelated is a completely different ball game.

CNN earlier today: "No more confirmations until the next President takes office" - Chuck Schumer in JULY 2007.

[Young Conservative]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

So who will Obama appoint?

No one.

[Virginiá]

He vetoed spending bills because he disagreed with what they contained. His position was more popular and Newt was a blundering fool in the public sphere.

OBama vetoing a spending bill over something totally unrelated is a completely different ball game.

CNN earlier today: "No more confirmations until the next President takes office" - Chuck Schumer in JULY 2007.

I also said Obama could take a stand on any number of actual issues the budget will inevitably contain, and Republicans would know why he is doing that. Given these past budgets, he will have no problem with that. Worst comes to worst, the GOP drops whatever Obama decided to object to vigorously and Obama walks away with major concessions, or the GOP caves and confirms someone. Though, all this assumes they actually hold sham hearings at the very least.

As for the that comment - it's irrelevant. As long as each side eventually confirms a nominee put forth by the president in power, then it really doesn't matter what various leaders of both chambers say (or said) at one point or another. If McConnell wants to drag this out all year while slamming Obama over god knows what, then fine, as long as he eventually confirms one of Obama's picks.

The problem here, as stated a million times, is McConnell flat out refusing to even allow consideration of Obama's nominees, regardless of who they are. Holding pointless hearings only to deny every single one so as to delay until 2017 would also be just as wrong. There is no modern precedent for what McConnell and other Republicans are suggesting. It's bs, and anyone who supports their actions needs to consider that this would set an ugly, new precedent resulting in worse fights in the future, and it is blatantly unfair to the other half of this country that has both had enough of the eternal conservative SCOTUS majority and wants Republicans to stop obstructing the president they elected by almost 5 million votes.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

If you want to have some fun, look at the comments on FOX News and Breitbart. They seem to completely seriously believe that Obama murdered Scalia.

Tell us that you are pulling our leg.
You cant be serious ?

I'm 100% serious. It's not all of them, but quite a few of them.

Not even just Breitbart comments; Breitbart itself has hinted in that direction.

Breitbart has really jumped the shark in the last year.