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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

Did what? Let all his SCOTUS nominees get confirmed?

[Illiniwek]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

Did what? Let all his SCOTUS nominees get confirmed?

Except Harriet Myers...but still...

[Marokai Backbeat]

Probably a ton, but I really can't imagine any scenario where it benefits them to do so.

On basically any issue the Supreme Court has or could rule on, the general public favors the Democratic side. Most people are pro-choice, most people are in favor of gay marriage, most people don't want Obamacare (completely at least) overturned, most people don't like gerrymandering, most people want the Citizens United ruling overturned, and on and on. Not only does it refocus the presidential campaign on issues that favor the Democrats almost across the board, and Clinton would never let the vacancy be forgotten the entire time, but it makes the Republicans look incapable of governing yet again, and would put immense pressure on swing-state Senate races the GOP can't afford to lose. It's just a losing proposition on like three different levels.

[publicunofficial]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

Did what? Let all his SCOTUS nominees get confirmed?

Except Harriet Myers...but still...

Myers had opposition from both parties. Specter, Graham, Brownback, Coburn among others all voiced opposition in one way or another.

[Virginiá]

Yes.  I don't quite get this.  Save for Kirk, who hasn't spoken either way, every single other Obama state Republican senator up this year has said absolutely no action until 2017, and almost every single swing state Republican candidate as well.  If it were Ginsburg or Breyer who had passed, I could see this, but the right has everything to lose here and the left has nothing to lose because the worst case scenario for them is maintaining the status quo.  Why on earth would they risk a ticked off President Clinton and Democratic senate nuking the filibuster to put Obama in this seat next year when they have a chance to make a deal on a moderate Kennedy type now?  If anything, Obama should be the one issuing ultimatums like "I will only appoint someone who believes in a constitutional right to a minimum standard of living and supports a nationwide do not fire unless fired upon code for law enforcement" and daring Republicans to wait.  

Besides, it's pretty clear that the right has more riding on the long run sanctity of SCOTUS than the left does.  If Majority Leader McConnell prefers 8 justices to 9, what happens in 2021 when Majority Leader Schumer would prefer to have 13, and President Warren and Speaker Becerra agree?  The right needs an independent judiciary more than the left does.  Those who loved Scalia's opinions the most would really hate a world where the president and congress are the final authority on the constitution.

Well I think Obama on the USSC is funny but nothing more . However, I'm not even sure if it's possible at this point to not block Obama without incurring damage at the polls. However, if they did confirm one of Obama's picks, they would also get hit then as well. So I imagine McConnell figures that simply stonewalling all year will result in less pain in November.

Though, if you ask me, what you said seems like the best option. Either way, they are going to take a hit because of this, so they might as well make a deal on some sort of moderate, because if they lose this November (which could be highly likely, depending on the primary), it's much more likely (imo) that spot will be filled with someone significantly more liberal than what they could have gotten now. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that future justice ended up being the most liberal one in generations.

Really, when you take away two damaging midterms for Democrats, the big picture seems to show Republicans losing a lot (and projected to lose even more) since the big ol' heydays of Reagan.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

Will this one issue blow up so big that it'll actually tip multiple Senate races though?  I'm skeptical.  Aside from Kirk in Illinois, are there any incumbent GOP Senators from states that are so overwhelmingly Democratic that the issue will cut strongly against them?  I'm not convinced it'll be a giant loser in, say, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.  Maybe it will, but I'm not sure.

[Mr. Morden]

Anyway, my question is: Let's say the GOP does block any Obama appointment this year, and that Hillary Clinton is elected in November, while the GOP retains a narrow majority in the Senate.  What happens next?

Does the Senate give in and approve Obama's pick in the lame duck session?  Does Clinton re-appoint Obama's choice in 2017, or go with someone else?  And does the Senate then approve him/her, or continue to obstruct?

[anvi]

I think a Dem victory in the fall forces the Senate to confirm someone.  They can't leave the court 4-4 forever and let the District Courts make law for much beyond eleven months.  Whether they confirm Obama's nominee during the lame duck or whether they let the next Dem president pick someone depends on whom Obama chooses.  If it's a centrist, they might end up taking them rather than wait for a new Dem president with a new electoral mandate choose off their own menu.  If Obama picks someone farther left, they might use their majority to force the next Dem president to select someone more centrist.  But they can't tenably continue to obstruct after an election where their opponent wins.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

Democrats had enough votes to filibuster both Roberts and Alito. Unless I missed something, both are on the bench now.

[Gass3268]

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.

Disgusting.

Also I hope Republicans know that 9 out of 13 of the Circuit Courts have Democratic majorities and most of their decisions on contentious decisions will stand until their is a 9th Justice.   

[Bojack Horseman]

If we get the Senate, first order of business should be to nuke the filibuster and confirm the nominee. The Supreme Court is far too important to let Republicans win here. This is a golden opportunity to put a stop to the partisanship of the Supreme Court, and we must do anything, go to any lengths, to get the nominee confirmed.

[SteveRogers]

Very helpful graphic:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/15/us/supreme-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Zache]

Obama is having a news conference on the seat later today and Chuck Grassley has said he is now open to having hearings on Obama's nominee.

[Illiniwek]

Obama is having a news conference on the seat later today and Chuck Grassley has said he is now open to having hearings on Obama's nominee.

I find that hard to believe. Who could Obama be nominating that Chuck is actually going to cooperate?

[Zache]

Obama is having a news conference on the seat later today and Chuck Grassley has said he is now open to having hearings on Obama's nominee.

I find that hard to believe. Who could Obama be nominating that Chuck is actually going to cooperate?

My wording was a bit misleading. He's just not completely ruling it out.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/politics/chuck-grassley-obama-antonin-scalia-nominee-hearing/index.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[IceSpear]

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.

That's very optimistic of you.

Remember when the Republicans throwing a temper tantrum and shutting down the government was supposed to hurt them? Remember when the country despised Republicans for getting us into trillions of debt, destroying the economy, and starting endless wars, then turned to them as glorious saviors 2 years later?

[Gass3268]

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.

That's very optimistic of you.

Remember when the Republicans throwing a temper tantrum and shutting down the government was supposed to hurt them? Remember when the country despised Republicans for getting us into trillions of debt, destroying the economy, and starting endless wars, then turned to them as glorious saviors 2 years later?

The American people have very short memories. That being said it did give the Dems the Gov, Lt Gov, and AG in Virginia.

[Virginiá]

The American people have very short memories. That being said it did give the Dems the Gov, Lt Gov, and AG in Virginia.

To be fair, that did have the absolute best timing for Virginia. It occurred literally a month or so before the VA elections, under a Republican governor.

However, as I stated in some thread on this board, this will give ammunition to groups on both sides to energize voters because it's not just a hypothetical now. The next president (if not Obama) will surely pick the person who fills that seat, and there are cases on the docket right now that are very important to all sorts of people. Seeing as how polarized things have become - It's relatively easy to know how those cases will turn out depending on what party wins this year.

Not to mention all the money / resources groups will be able to put together, knowing exactly what is at stake this time.

[wolfsblood07]

As I see it, we (conservative Republicans) have no choice.  There should be no obstruction, no shenanigans.  The president must nominate a justice.  And unless that justice is not qualified, he or she should be confirmed.  It doesn't matter what any Democrats said about Robert Bork or John Roberts in the past.  The moral of this story is they won, we lost.  When we win, then our side gets to nominate the justices.

[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.

That's very optimistic of you.

Remember when the Republicans throwing a temper tantrum and shutting down the government was supposed to hurt them? Remember when the country despised Republicans for getting us into trillions of debt, destroying the economy, and starting endless wars, then turned to them as glorious saviors 2 years later?

The incidents you name are not Supreme Court nomination controversies.  But this is one:  the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings in 1991.

The allegations of sexual harassment dominated the national consciousness.  High school teachers canceled their lesson plans and we just went from class to class watching the hearings on TV.  There were few women in Congress at the time and women across the country were outraged over the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee's terrible treatment of Anita Hill.  The senior senator of my home state, Patty Murray, was serving in the state legislature at the time and became so furious watching the hearings she decided to run for the U.S. Senate.  Then-Rep. Barbara Boxer grew similarly incensed when she was part of a group of Democratic House women who attempted to storm a Senate meeting to discuss hearings for Anita Hill.  They were greeted with a closed door and told "no one ever gets in here."  The 1992 elections became known as "The Year of the Woman" because:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/WIC/Historical-Essays/Assembling-Amplifying-Ascending/Women-Decade/

Left unmentioned was that almost all of these newly elected women to Congress were Democrats.  They became known as the "Anita Hill Class."  The gains filtered down to the state and local level as well.  While there were other factors behind the historic gains women made that year (which have not been replicated since), the hearings were certainly an important part of it.

So a Supreme Court nomination controversy can have an effect on an election.  I've seen it happen.

[Mr. Morden]

The incidents you name are not Supreme Court nomination controversies.  But this is one:  the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings in 1991.

The allegations of sexual harassment dominated the national consciousness.  High school teachers canceled their lesson plans and we just went from class to class watching the hearings on TV.  There were few women in Congress at the time and women across the country were outraged over the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee's terrible treatment of Anita Hill.  The senior senator of my home state, Patty Murray, was serving in the state legislature at the time and became so furious watching the hearings she decided to run for the U.S. Senate.  Then-Rep. Barbara Boxer grew similarly incensed when she was part of a group of Democratic House women who attempted to storm a Senate meeting to discuss hearings for Anita Hill.  They were greeted with a closed door and told "no one ever gets in here."  The 1992 elections became known as "The Year of the Woman" because:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/WIC/Historical-Essays/Assembling-Amplifying-Ascending/Women-Decade/

Left unmentioned was that almost all of these newly elected women to Congress were Democrats.  They became known as the "Anita Hill Class."  The gains filtered down to the state and local level as well.  While there were other factors behind the historic gains women made that year (which have not been replicated since), the hearings were certainly an important part of it.

So a Supreme Court nomination controversy can have an effect on an election.  I've seen it happen.

Yes, but in that case, the controversy wasn't about the Supreme Court per se.  It was about sexual harassment, women in the workplace, etc.  Things that ordinary people can relate to.  "Obstructionism", on the other hand, is too far removed from most people's regular lives for them to care.

[Badger]

No one said anything when the DEMOCRATS did it to BUSH

Wait a minute. When did the Democrats keep a seat open without hearings and a vote on a Republican nominee for over a year? For that matter, when did they fillibuster a Republican nominee as McConnell and most Republicans have indicated they're willing to? Bitch all you want about how mean, awful and nasty the Dems were to Bork, Thomas, etc, they all received rather undelayed hearings and votes. Only Bork was actually rejected (with several Republican votes against him as well), resulting in the speedy 97-0 ratification of Justice Kennedy.

Apples and oranges, people, apples and oranges......

[Badger]

From Srinivasan's Wiki page:

"At his formal swearing-in ceremony in September, administered by retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, he took the oath on the Hindu holy book Bhagavad Gita."

Can't WAIT to hear Trump, Carson, and Cruz's take on this. Rubio will probably say something stupid just to keep up with the others, but it just won't be the same.

[Beet]

Mitch McConnell 1970:

https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272

[Virginiá]

Mitch McConnell 1970:

https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272

Perhaps in a world where McConnell & friends were actually sincere about their statements, this would matter more. But we all know they simply do not want to cede control of the USSC to liberals. After all, this is the court that gave them Citizens United, gutted the Voting Rights Act, allowing them to work on snuffing out non-white voters after their massive showings for Obama. This is the court that was likely going to put an end to public unions, and the court that was going to possibly allow states to draw districts that didn't count felons, children and immigrants, so as to give more power back to rural white voters (aka Republicans).

They will say whatever they think will sound most reasonable to the people, all the while knowing that their new #1 priority is not to give up this magical court that keeps on giving.