How much Repub. obstructionism expected for Sup. Crt. nominee?

[ProudModerate2]

The President has a constitutional right to nominate a replacement for Justice of the Supreme Court due to the recent death of Scalia.
The Senate has a responsibility to hold hearings on the selected individual, and then vote on confirmation.

From all the current talk on the Hill, it seems that Pubs are bent on hindering the process.
How much or to what extent, will the Republicans push on obstructing the process for Obama's pick for the Supreme Court ?

Will they refuse to hold any hearings at all ?
Will they hold hearings, but "delay" the entire process ?
Will they reject candidates and force multiple nominations ?
And how will their decision hurt the GOP (if any) ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

[DKrol]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

[Ogre Mage]

I expect they will stonewall, delay, delay over a period of several months doing everything they can to weaken the nominee.  They will eventually hold a vote and the nominee will be rejected on party lines.  By then it will probably be summer and they will claim it is too late for a follow-up.  Democrats will simply have to ensure they sustain the maximum possible political damage for engaging in such bull$**t.

[MM876]

Well, any Republican who votes for Obama's nominee will be primaried and probably lose to a "real conservative", so I think the obstruction will last around until October, when finally Obama will be able to muster up enough support to barely support his nominee, at which point the GOP nominee will be in dire straits because everybody will hate the Republicans for it. So they'll cave after several months of shameful obstructionism and then it'll lose them the election.

[pepper11]

LOL. Obama has a right to nominate anyone. Senate has a right to not confirm anyone.

The Senate has the right to deny any vote at their own political risk. But that is it! There is no obligation to confirm an appointee immediately and no statement in the constitution about the timeline of the Senate's obligation. And any insinuation that there is is simply hackary. Dems would be doing the same thing if an R was in office. Get over it.

[MM876]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

The Democrats were wrong then and the Republicans are wrong now. Delaying nominees for a year is unconstitutional, immoral, and stupid as hell.

[Ogre Mage]

LOL. Obama has a right to nominate anyone. Senate has a right to not confirm anyone.

The Senate has the right to deny any vote at their own political risk. But that is it! There is no obligation to confirm an appointee immediately and no statement in the constitution about the timeline of the Senate's obligation. And any insinuation that there is is simply hackary. Dems would be doing the same thing if an R was in office. Get over it.

If the GOP keeps the seat vacant all year, Democrats will see to it that the GOP pays in November 2016.

[pepper11]

LOL. Obama has a right to nominate anyone. Senate has a right to not confirm anyone.

The Senate has the right to deny any vote at their own political risk. But that is it! There is no obligation to confirm an appointee immediately and no statement in the constitution about the timeline of the Senate's obligation. And any insinuation that there is is simply hackary. Dems would be doing the same thing if an R was in office. Get over it.

If the GOP keeps the seat vacant all year, Democrats will see to it that the GOP pays in November 2016.

Good. They will make that political calculation. They may win and they may lose big. That is called politics. People need to stop calling this foul and unconstitutional BS.

[pepper11]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

Republicans did. They weren't happy.  They cried foul and lost the political battle. Maybe the will win this one. Maybe they wont. 

[anvi]

They will hold hearings and reject a nominee or nominees.  There is basically no political upside, from the GOP point of view, to confirming an Obama nominee.  Short-term, their constituents and donor-base would be furious with them for ceding to Obama and letting the balance of SCOTUS shift, whereas those same constituents and donors will be fired up and shower campaigns with cash for holding out.  Long-term, if they confirmed an Obama nominee, the majority of district court rulings over the next eleven months would probably stand anyway, whereas if they hold out and win the presidency, the GOP gets to retain a conservative majority on SCOTUS for thirty-some years, perhaps.  It's a gamble, and might bake them look bad.  But it's a gamble they have at least some chance of winning.  If they conform an Obama nominee, they just lose, short- and long-term.  By holding hearings, and voting, they can contain the damage of appearances, so they will do that.

[Miles]

Graham, who voted for both Obama's nominees, is talking about filibustering any nominee short of Orrin Hatch...

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

Graham, who voted for both Obama's nominees, is talking about filibustering any nominee short of Orrin Hatch...

Isn't Hatch just as old as Scalia was?

Edit: Just looked it up. Hatch is 81. I knew Graham was a bit crazy, but an 81 year old?!?!

[SteveRogers]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

It was wrong of Democrats to stonewall Bush's judicial appointments, and it was just as wrong for Republicans to do it to Obama. This is a disgusting tactic that both parties are guilty of.

But let's be clear: there is no equivalency here. Democrats never out-and-out refused to hold hearings on a nominee for the Supreme Court. That has never happened. It has always been understood that Supreme Court nominees are not filibustered. What Republicans are proposing to do would unprecedented, next-level nonsense.

[Mr. Reactionary]

How is not voting for the President's choice obstructionism?

8-28-1969: Nixon nominates Clement Haynsworth for vacant Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
1-19-1970: Nixon nominates Harrold Carswell for same vacant Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
4-14-1970: Nixon surrenders and nominates liberal Harry Blackmun


7-1-1987: Reagan nominates Robert Bork for Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
10-31-1987: Reagan nominates Doug Ginsburg; Dem Senate yells about marijuana; Ginsburg quits
11-11-1987:  Reagan nominates squishy Kennedy. Senate approves.

If Obama cares about the Court he will nominate Souter or O'Connor as a placeholder.

[SteveRogers]

How is not voting for the President's choice obstructionism?

8-28-1969: Nixon nominates Clement Haynsworth for vacant Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
1-19-1970: Nixon nominates Harrold Carswell for same vacant Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
4-14-1970: Nixon surrenders and nominates liberal Harry Blackmun


7-1-1987: Reagan nominates Robert Bork for Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
10-31-1987: Reagan nominates Doug Ginsburg; Dem Senate yells about marijuana; Ginsburg quits
11-11-1987:  Reagan nominates squishy Kennedy. Senate approves.

If Obama cares about the Court he will nominate Souter or O'Connor as a placeholder.

Those nominees all received, or would have received, full confirmation hearings and an up-or-down vote. What Senate Republicans are threatening to do here is flat out refuse to hold hearings. They will essentially put their fingers in their ears for 10 months and pretend that they didn't hear the President nominate anyone. There is no precedent for that.

[Ogre Mage]

How is not voting for the President's choice obstructionism?

8-28-1969: Nixon nominates Clement Haynsworth for vacant Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
1-19-1970: Nixon nominates Harrold Carswell for same vacant Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
4-14-1970: Nixon surrenders and nominates liberal Harry Blackmun


7-1-1987: Reagan nominates Robert Bork for Supreme Court; Dem. Senate rejects.
10-31-1987: Reagan nominates Doug Ginsburg; Dem Senate yells about marijuana; Ginsburg quits
11-11-1987:  Reagan nominates squishy Kennedy. Senate approves.

If Obama cares about the Court he will nominate Souter or O'Connor as a placeholder.

Note that both of those Presidents were eventually able to confirm a nominee after the first one was rejected.  What the GOP is attempting to do here is run out the clock for a whole year until they hopefully win the Presidential election in 2016, denying Obama any pick.

[Miles]

^ Though Tyler was never elected President himself and both parties hated him.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Well, the Dems are over a barrel on this one. The GOP will object to going to Exective Session and Dems will object to going into Legislative session. Back and forth.

Dems were in the minority when Roberts & Alito were confirmed, as Bush W threatened the nuke option.

Dems have 5 blue state GOPers on the ballot anyways and those states voted for Obama twice, if the voters hold the GOP accountable, the Prez and Senate and Scalia seat will go to Dems.

[Bacon King]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

What kind of wacky alternate universe are you two living in? The Democratic Senate Caucus opposed the Roberts and Alito nominations but they weren't obstructionist hacks like the current Republican Conference. The Democrats had the votes to prevent the Alito nomination from reaching cloture,  but they didn't filibuster because it would have been ridiculously petty obstructionism to forcibly prevent a vote on something as important as a nominee to the Supreme Court. The Republican Senate Leader, however, said literally twenty minutes after the announcement of Scalia's death that for the next 11 months the Senate won't even bother holding hearings or a vote. Literally before Obama even spoke.

The truth is there's only one party of adults who actually care about sound governance and fulfilling the responsibilities of elected office - and it's definitely not your joke of a party

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Good!  I always love when Harry Reid pipes in to bitch about obstructionism......the lying s.o.b. was the king of it

[Likely Voter]

It seems clear they will obstruct, but how they do it remains open. Will they give hearings and then vote to reject a series of nominees?  They could go through 3 or more before the election if they go down that route, but they can claim to be doing their duty and technically not obstructing, just rejecting.   The other route is to never even give the nominee a hearing or possibly drag out hearings and then allow some members to fillibuster.   

Each strategy offers different risks. One thing to consider are the vulnerable blue state GOP senators up to reelection. They may need a way to vote to confirm or vote to end the filibuster in order to not be branded an obstructionist at home.

[Potus]

If I were McConnell, I would filibuster until we got to pick the nominee, we get a President who can pick the nominee, or Ginsburg's seat opens up so we can strike a deal to put a solid conservative in Scalia's seat and a liberal in Ginsburg's seat. I think Republicans will hold the Senate, but if we don't, then I'd be on high alert looking for the nuclear option. In return I'd repeal the Byrd Rule during the lameduck session so that they can't bring up a vote to change the rules. Stop a reshaping of the court at absolutely all costs.

[Virginiá]

It seems clear they will obstruct, but how they do it remains open. Will they give hearings and then vote to reject a series of nominees?  They could go through 3 or more before the election if they go down that route, but they can claim to be doing their duty and technically not obstructing, just rejecting.   The other route is to never even give the nominee a hearing or possibly drag out hearings and then allow some members to fillibuster.   

Each strategy offers different risks. One thing to consider are the vulnerable blue state GOP senators up to reelection. They may need a way to vote to confirm or vote to end the filibuster in order to not be branded an obstructionist at home.

That may not be viable anymore. They have already made it clear that they don't intend to do their job or give fair consideration to his nominations, so if they did decide to put on a show, each rejection can be met with the argument that they were never seriously considering it to begin with, and they would have video evidence to back that claim up.

Seriously, McConnell and other Republicans really screwed up their chance to pretend to consider. If they wanted to be sleazy like that and block until 2017, they should have kept quiet and acted like they were going to be fair. So I guess I can at least thank McConnell & friends for being so dumb.