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

[DrScholl]

He wasn't a great person, but I won't grave dance.

With that said, this is going to impact the Presidential race. Republicans refusing to have a vote on the nomination is going to give the Democratic nominee a major talking point about how obstructionist the Republican Party is.

[DrScholl]

He wasn't a great person, but I won't grave dance.

With that said, this is going to impact the Presidential race. Republicans refusing to have a vote on the nomination is going to give the Democratic nominee a major talking point about how obstructionist the Republican Party is.

I disagree. The prospect of another eco fanatic activist justice will probably increase Pub turnout. Blocking Obama's flawed candidates can only help increase this turnout.

Republicans were already going to turnout no matter what, because they always show up.

[DrScholl]

What happens if the new President isn't a Republican?

[DrScholl]

What happens if the new President isn't a Republican?

We will have 8 Supreme Court justices until someone else dies, at which point, we will have 7 Supreme Court justices.

So you think it's reasonable to leave vacancies on the court until a Republican is elected President? That's nuts, but whatever.

[DrScholl]

What happens if the new President isn't a Republican?

We will have 8 Supreme Court justices until someone else dies, at which point, we will have 7 Supreme Court justices.

So you think it's reasonable to leave vacancies on the court until a Republican is elected President? That's nuts, but whatever.

No, allowing supremacy of Obamabots is nuts. If Obama nominated a real, impartial, centrist justice, that would be acceptable. But he won't.

The President gets to nominate judges, that's how the system works. Let's not even pretend like Republicans would approve anyone other than an extremely right-wing judge. Their idea of fair and impartial is the complete opposite of the what the words mean.

[DrScholl]

This just raised the stakes for both sides - I think Republicans have to re-think if they want to go ahead with Trump and risk losing the Presidency and SCOTUS. I think Dems have to think if they want to take a chance of nominating Sanders and losing ALL branches of govt. My gut says Cruz and Clinton get second looks from people that may not have been strong supporters.

Most republicans, including establishment stalwarts, feel Trump is more electable than Cruz.

What happens if the new President isn't a Republican?

We will have 8 Supreme Court justices until someone else dies, at which point, we will have 7 Supreme Court justices.

So you think it's reasonable to leave vacancies on the court until a Republican is elected President? That's nuts, but whatever.

No, allowing supremacy of Obamabots is nuts. If Obama nominated a real, impartial, centrist justice, that would be acceptable. But he won't.

The President gets to nominate judges, that's how the system works. Let's not even pretend like Republicans would approve anyone other than an extremely right-wing judge. Their idea of fair and impartial is the complete opposite of the what the words mean.

Obama is going to at least try a clear liberal nomination. That's not any more impartial.

That's not the point. The point is that Republicans are not going to approve anyone other than someone extremely conservative. This isn't a matter of Republicans wanting an impartial and fair justice.

[DrScholl]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

[DrScholl]

The Senate doesn't have the privilege of picking whoever they want for the court.

If the candidates don't mention it themselves, it at least comes up in debates on cable news, written articles, etc. It's part of the job and Obama should be allowed to fulfill it.

But we do have the privilege of shooting down anyone Obama tries to appoint. Obama has the right to nominate whoever he wants, but not to flat out fully appoint them.

If the Senate blocks a reasonable nominee, Obama should call them out every single day on it. Every single day.

Exactly. The public at large is going to side with the President without a doubt and the GOP will do nothing but weaken their chances at winning in November.

[DrScholl]

The Senate doesn't have the privilege of picking whoever they want for the court.

If the candidates don't mention it themselves, it at least comes up in debates on cable news, written articles, etc. It's part of the job and Obama should be allowed to fulfill it.

But we do have the privilege of shooting down anyone Obama tries to appoint. Obama has the right to nominate whoever he wants, but not to flat out fully appoint them.

If the Senate blocks a reasonable nominee, Obama should call them out every single day on it. Every single day.

He'd sound like an idiot and nobody would care

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

[DrScholl]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

[DrScholl]

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

I agree that the vacancy would draw attention but the GOP could just as easily frame it as Obama being partisan and trying to force an activist majority on the court.  It's in Obama's best interest to try and cut a deal with McConnell.  

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

[DrScholl]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

Maybe you guys should have won the last elections then.

And maybe you guys should have won the 2012 election if you wanted Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court.

In all likelihood, this stunt will cost Republicans the 2016 election, so it really is plus for Democrats. Thanks.

[DrScholl]

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

I agree that the vacancy would draw attention but the GOP could just as easily frame it as Obama being partisan and trying to force an activist majority on the court.  It's in Obama's best interest to try and cut a deal with McConnell.  

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

And the Senate has the right to disapprove it. The founders never intended to give the president quasi-absolute power here.

Please, I never said that the Senate didn't have that right, stop making things up. My point is that this whole stunt will do nothing but cause Republicans to lose the Presidency and the Senate.

[DrScholl]

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

Liberals have been predicting that the sheep--I mean American voters will see the light and toss out the "obstructionist" GOP for half a decade.  The American people just don't care about your whining.

I don't think Republicans antics helped them any in the 2012 election. Trump as the nominee and a long vacancy on the Supreme Court is a recipe for disaster. The American people just don't care for your insanity.

[DrScholl]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

Maybe you guys should have won the last elections then.

And maybe you guys should have won the 2012 election if you wanted Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court.

In all likelihood, this stunt will cost Republicans the 2016 election, so it really is plus for Democrats. Thanks.

Yes, you're a great prognosticator! AMAZING! Just ask recently reelected Senator Mark Udall.

Or wait....

I corrected your spelling. Maybe I don't get the predictions right all the time, but I'm fairly confident that 2016 will not be a good Republican year if they nominate a crazy person and spend the whole year leaving a vacancy on the court.

[DrScholl]

He would be in the right and plenty of people would care. The Supreme Court is serious business and a big fight over leaving a vacancy open for over a year would draw some attention.

I agree that the vacancy would draw attention but the GOP could just as easily frame it as Obama being partisan and trying to force an activist majority on the court.  It's in Obama's best interest to try and cut a deal with McConnell.  

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

And the Senate has the right to disapprove it. The founders never intended to give the president quasi-absolute power here.

Please, I never said that the Senate didn't have that right, stop making things up. My point is that this whole stunt will do nothing but cause Republicans to lose the Presidency and the Senate.

Yet you imply that the Republicans should accept a Liberal nominee....

When you have the Senate Majority Leader pre-emptively shutting down any discussion of filling the vacancy, that is just wrong. It isn't about rejecting the nominee, it's about not even holding any hearings.

[DrScholl]

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

Liberals have been predicting that the sheep--I mean American voters will see the light and toss out the "obstructionist" GOP for half a decade.  The American people just don't care about your whining.

I don't think Republicans antics helped them any in the 2012 election. Trump as the nominee and a long vacancy on the Supreme Court is a recipe for disaster. The American people just don't care for your insanity.

Yeah, they totally are more in line with the likes of Kay Hagan and Mark Udall. Oh wait...

A midterm and a presidential election are different. I recall everyone thought Obama re-election would lose because Republicans won big in 2010. I'm still amused at how devastated Romney was at his loss.

[DrScholl]

Republicans can block whoever they want to, but they cannot control what consequences come from being incredibly obstructionist. This could cost them the Senate and the Presidency, which would make this obstruction an exercise in futility.

You can't control the consequences either. It can be argued that Obama is just as obstructionist by not naming a centrist judge.

Republicans would not approve a centrist judge, because they want a Scalia clone. Obama could appoint a moderate Republican and they would still not take it up. He'd have to nominate Ann Coulter to placate them.

Maybe you guys should have won the last elections then.

And maybe you guys should have won the 2012 election if you wanted Ann Coulter on the Supreme Court.

In all likelihood, this stunt will cost Republicans the 2016 election, so it really is plus for Democrats. Thanks.

Yes, you're a great prognosticator! AMAZING! Just ask recently reelected Senator Mark Udall.

Or wait....

I corrected your spelling. Maybe I don't get the predictions right all the time, but I'm fairly confident that 2016 will not be a good Republican year if they nominate a crazy person and spend the whole year leaving a vacancy on the court.

We aren't doing anything. We didn't kill Scalia. We will confirm the best person for the position. The balls in your court. Hopefully Obama will be competent for once and nominate somebody who can make everyone happy.

Also, while we have our issues with Trump, your nominee is just as likely to end up in the big house as she is in the White House. Remember that

Good luck with all that, you people will need it. lol.

[DrScholl]

Conservatives would be the only ones to buy that activist talk. Obama doesn't need to cut a deal, because he is within his authority to select a nominee for the court. It's Republicans who have something to lose, not Obama.

Liberals have been predicting that the sheep--I mean American voters will see the light and toss out the "obstructionist" GOP for half a decade.  The American people just don't care about your whining.

I don't think Republicans antics helped them any in the 2012 election. Trump as the nominee and a long vacancy on the Supreme Court is a recipe for disaster. The American people just don't care for your insanity.

Yeah, they totally are more in line with the likes of Kay Hagan and Mark Udall. Oh wait...

A midterm and a presidential election are different. I recall everyone thought Obama re-election would lose because Republicans won big in 2010. I'm still amused at how devastated Romney was at his loss.

So, elections only matter when Democrats win. Good to know!

That's not what I said. It's common knowledge that midterm and presidential election results are quite different. You are banking on Trump winning because Hagan and Udall lost, which makes no sense.

[DrScholl]

And now there are conservatives on Twitter claiming that Scalia was murdered. You knew it was coming.