Should Obama nominate Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court?

[7,052,770]

Pros:

• Pro-choice. Texas abortion restrictions are struck down nationwide.
• Republican Senators would have a hard time justifying why they're voting down a Republican
• If Ayotte, Toomey, Kirk, Johnson, and Portman don't vote to confirm, they'll be in trouble in November because they're so obstructionist that they won't even accept an olive branch from Obama
• If those 5 do vote to confirm, they may turn off conservatives in their own states, which weakens them in November. They might even face primary challenges (probably not though).
• Either way, it should put the Republican caucus into turmoil
• If he does get confirmed, no chance of a Republican president nominating someone worse.
• Sandoval is way more moderate than Scalia, so just making that replacement will transform the Court. This one is a freebie anyway, since it's so unexpected.
• Democrats are suddenly a lot more likely to hold on to Harry Reid's seat.
• Obama and the Democrats get to play the "we compromise" card.
• Republican voters may be demoralized and disillusioned in November 2016 if they feel like their own party sold them out again, helping Hillary (or Bernie) win.
• It would probably not be good for Democrats NOT to have this be the defining issue of 2016, especially if Trump is the Republican nominee, because this will get all of the conservatives/evangelicals back on the Trump train.
• No 4-4 decisions.

Cons:

• Maybe Hillary or Bernie could appointment someone more liberal in 2017, but only if they win and get a favorable Senate.

[Mr.Phips]

No.  He's a Republican and still very conservative on most issues.  If George HW Bush got to replace Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas, Obama should get to replace Scalia with a liberal.

[TDAS04]

No.  He's a Republican and still very conservative on most issues.  If George HW Bush got to replace Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas, Obama should get to replace Scalia with a liberal.

This.

[7,052,770]

Big picture, guys. This is about the only way this seat is filled by a Democratic president this decade.

[Mr.Phips]

Big picture, guys. This is about the only way this seat is filled by a Democratic president this decade.

Well then let it stay unfilled. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Big picture, guys. This is about the only way this seat is filled by a Democratic president this decade.

This sort of "roll over like a whipped dog" mentality gets you nothing.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

He'll have to pick a complete moderate hero in the end, but I highly doubt it will be a partisan political figure holding an elected office.

[BM]

This kind of thinking is utterly ridiculous, if you're a liberal.

And it's not going to happen.

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

This kind of thinking is utterly ridiculous, if you're a liberal.

And it's not going to happen.

Obama's not getting a liberal through the Senate (not even a Klobuchar/Mikulski type), forget about it. It's either nominate a centrist like Huntsman now, or risk getting Justice Ted Cruz (or similar).

[BM]

Thank you for your advice to liberals, Kasich supporter.

If the Republicans want to look more like petulant children than they already do during a presidential election year, so be it. The consequences should be glorious

[Bigby]

Objectively, a centrist would be best for America period.

[Antonio the Sixth]

He won't be able to nominate anyone.

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

Thank you for your advice to liberals, Kasich supporter.

If the Republicans want to look more like petulant children than they already do during a presidential election year, so be it. The consequences should be glorious

Obama is going to look like the bigger crybaby if he's trying to push through justice Elizabeth Warren or similar.

[Vosem]

Honestly, Sandoval would be an improvement over Scalia in every conceivable way; pro-speech decisions like Citizens United, along with pro-gun rights decisions like Heller and McDonald, would stay secure, while the majority in civil rights decisions like Obergefell would get larger. If I were a GOP Senator and Barack Obama nominated Sandoval, I would throw a joyous celebration before voting to confirm. Getting a conservative justice out of a liberal President would be a great revenge for the appointment of David Souter, and would be a far greater political triumph than embarrassing the Democrats by not confirming an Obama SCOTUS nominee.

[Mr.Phips]

Honestly, Sandoval would be an improvement over Scalia in every conceivable way; pro-speech decisions like Citizens United, along with pro-gun rights decisions like Heller and McDonald, would stay secure, while the majority in civil rights decisions like Obergefell would get larger. If I were a GOP Senator and Barack Obama nominated Sandoval, I would throw a joyous celebration before voting to confirm. Getting a conservative justice out of a liberal President would be a great revenge for the appointment of David Souter, and would be a far greater political triumph than embarrassing the Democrats by not confirming an Obama SCOTUS nominee.

Which is why Obama would have to be incredibly stupid to nominate someone like Sandoval or any other Republican.

[7,052,770]

Honestly, Sandoval would be an improvement over Scalia in every conceivable way; pro-speech decisions like Citizens United, along with pro-gun rights decisions like Heller and McDonald, would stay secure, while the majority in civil rights decisions like Obergefell would get larger. If I were a GOP Senator and Barack Obama nominated Sandoval, I would throw a joyous celebration before voting to confirm. Getting a conservative justice out of a liberal President would be a great revenge for the appointment of David Souter, and would be a far greater political triumph than embarrassing the Democrats by not confirming an Obama SCOTUS nominee.

I'm sure the sliver of Republicans who are pro-choice and pro-gay will be thrilled, but the Republican base, whom you need to be excited about voting in November, will revolt if the Senate confirms him. Paradoxically, the Senate will almost have to confirm him because they can't seriously block a Republican appointment, at least not the other pro-choice Senators in blue states.

Which is why the move is brilliant. Replace Scalia with a pro-choice moderate AND sow seeds of turmoil within the Republican party, both in Washington and nationally. Remember, this one is a freebie -- Scalia was waiting to retire and replace him with a similar judge. The fact that we're getting to make the replacement at all is an unexpected surprise, so we can be happy with anyone to the left of who a Republican president would have nominated.

[Mr.Phips]

Honestly, Sandoval would be an improvement over Scalia in every conceivable way; pro-speech decisions like Citizens United, along with pro-gun rights decisions like Heller and McDonald, would stay secure, while the majority in civil rights decisions like Obergefell would get larger. If I were a GOP Senator and Barack Obama nominated Sandoval, I would throw a joyous celebration before voting to confirm. Getting a conservative justice out of a liberal President would be a great revenge for the appointment of David Souter, and would be a far greater political triumph than embarrassing the Democrats by not confirming an Obama SCOTUS nominee.

I'm sure the sliver of Republicans who are pro-choice and pro-gay will be thrilled, but the Republican base, whom you need to be excited about voting in November, will revolt if the Senate confirms him. Paradoxically, the Senate will almost have to confirm him because they can't seriously block a Republican appointment, at least not the other pro-choice Senators in blue states.

Which is why the move is brilliant. Replace Scalia with a pro-choice moderate AND sow seeds of turmoil within the Republican party, both in Washington and nationally. Remember, this one is a freebie -- Scalia was waiting to retire and replace him with a similar judge. The fact that we're getting to make the replacement at all is an unexpected surprise, so we can be happy with anyone to the left of who a Republican president would have nominated.

No Supreme Court vacancy is a "freebie".  They are rare and lifetime appointments and when there is an opportunity for a President to shift the balance of a court, they should take it and fight for it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is the sort of fight that fighting only matters if one wins.  It'll be a battle of attrition to get anyone confirmed.  The only reason to go firmly left with all the nominees he sends to the Senate is if he thinks there is a chance the Democrats can win the Senate.  I'll admit I haven't looked at the odds, but with the Dems needing to get four seats simply so that Biden can cast the tiebreaker, I don't think they have much chance of doing that this election.
'

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

This is the sort of fight that fighting only matters if one wins.  It'll be a battle of attrition to get anyone confirmed.  The only reason to go firmly left with all the nominees he sends to the Senate is if he thinks there is a chance the Democrats can win the Senate.  I'll admit I haven't looked at the odds, but with the Dems needing to get four seats simply so that Biden can cast the tiebreaker, I don't think they have much chance of doing that this election.
'

The Democrats are more or less communicating they don't care if they lose in Pennsylvania (#oldgrudgesagainstSestak), and the FLDP might nominate Grayson, who is unelectable no matter what. Assuming Reid's seat is kept and WI/IL flip, democrats still need any three of IN, MO, AZ, OH, NH, NC, and the White House to take back the senate without PA/FL.

[Ogre Mage]

No.  The stakes are too high to half-a$$ something which affects every aspect of our civil life.  I am not saying that Obama has to nominate a Stephen Reinhardt type, but this goes too far.

[Badger]

Of course not. Don't be silly.

[Ebsy]

Maybe if he was stupid.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is the sort of fight that fighting only matters if one wins.  It'll be a battle of attrition to get anyone confirmed.  The only reason to go firmly left with all the nominees he sends to the Senate is if he thinks there is a chance the Democrats can win the Senate.  I'll admit I haven't looked at the odds, but with the Dems needing to get four seats simply so that Biden can cast the tiebreaker, I don't think they have much chance of doing that this election.
'

The Democrats are more or less communicating they don't care if they lose in Pennsylvania (#oldgrudgesagainstSestak), and the FLDP might nominate Grayson, who is unelectable no matter what. Assuming Reid's seat is kept and WI/IL flip, democrats still need any three of IN, MO, AZ, OH, NH, NC, and the White House to take back the senate without PA/FL.

Dems are focused on Hassan and Strickland and Murphy

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

This is the sort of fight that fighting only matters if one wins.  It'll be a battle of attrition to get anyone confirmed.  The only reason to go firmly left with all the nominees he sends to the Senate is if he thinks there is a chance the Democrats can win the Senate.  I'll admit I haven't looked at the odds, but with the Dems needing to get four seats simply so that Biden can cast the tiebreaker, I don't think they have much chance of doing that this election.
'

The Democrats are more or less communicating they don't care if they lose in Pennsylvania (#oldgrudgesagainstSestak), and the FLDP might nominate Grayson, who is unelectable no matter what. Assuming Reid's seat is kept and WI/IL flip, democrats still need any three of IN, MO, AZ, OH, NH, NC, and the White House to take back the senate without PA/FL.

Dems are focused on Ayotte and Strickland and Murphy

The dem national establishment is focused on Murphy, yes. But the senate nominee is up to the democratic primary voters of Florida, not the national party.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

AZ, IL, WI, OH, NH, CO, & NV suits me fine and gets Dems to 51 seats.