Scalia's Replacement: What if Senate Democrats.....

[Badger]

....pledged if Obama's nominee isn't given hearings and a vote, they'll fillibuster any Republican who wins the White House's nominee for that seat during their entire first 4 year term.

Could they politically? is it right?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Couldn't the Republicans just do away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Everyone knows the Democrats would fold. They have no spine.

[Virginiá]

....pledged if Obama's nominee isn't given hearings and a vote, they'll fillibuster any Republican who wins the White House's nominee for that seat during their entire first 4 year term.

Could they politically? is it right?

Well they could certainly block cloture for 2 years in the minority, assuming a Republican majority doesn't reduce cloture to 51 votes for SCOTUS nominees to get theirs through, as they can do this with a simple majority vote. So it is definitely possible, especially given how badly they want to keep the court conservative (they also may face intense pressure from conservative groups to do so). However, in President Trump's midterm, Republicans would undoubtedly get their own 2010/2014, and then Democrats could just block it entirely from 2019+

Democrats would get a lot of heat for doing this though. That's a long time to obstruct something that important, and I don't think opinions would favor them that long, assuming they do to start with. So it could hurt them a good bit and keep the political climate extremely partisan and bitter, which really is a terrible thing for the country as we've seen for 6+ years.

And is it right? In my opinion and in terms of revenge/retribution, yes. In terms of doing what's best for the country? No. I dunno if I'd support it- Though at the very least, I would insist on painful retribution to the GOP at the first available moment.

[Gass3268]

Couldn't the Republicans just do away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees?

This, they would get rid of the filibuster as fast as you can say go.

[Orser67]

Personally, I think if Republicans keep the Senate and win the presidency, then the filibuster is probably gone. Not just for judges, but for everything. Democrats aren't going to want to cooperate with Republicans after the Republican opposition to basically anything Obama tried to do, and Republicans aren't going to let concerns about bipartisanship stop them when they have a chance to get rid of Obamacare, pass huge tax cuts, and appoint conservative judges.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

All the Dems have to do, is be patient, and wait for Nov, Ayotte, Portman, Johnson & Kirk are on hot seat

[Badger]

....pledged if Obama's nominee isn't given hearings and a vote, they'll fillibuster any Republican who wins the White House's nominee for that seat during their entire first 4 year term.

Could they politically? is it right?

Well they could certainly block cloture for 2 years in the minority, assuming a Republican majority doesn't reduce cloture to 51 votes for SCOTUS nominees to get theirs through, as they can do this with a simple majority vote. So it is definitely possible, especially given how badly they want to keep the court conservative (they also may face intense pressure from conservative groups to do so). However, in President Trump's midterm, Republicans would undoubtedly get their own 2010/2014, and then Democrats could just block it entirely from 2019+

Democrats would get a lot of heat for doing this though. That's a long time to obstruct something that important, and I don't think opinions would favor them that long, assuming they do to start with. So it could hurt them a good bit and keep the political climate extremely partisan and bitter, which really is a terrible thing for the country as we've seen for 6+ years.

And is it right? In my opinion and in terms of revenge/retribution, yes. In terms of doing what's best for the country? No. I dunno if I'd support it- Though at the very least, I would insist on painful retribution to the GOP at the first available moment.

It was thi second paragraph i'm most focusing on. The GOP hasn't seem to taken much heat for a blanket refusal to even hold hearings on ANY Obama nominee (though the jury is still out on how it could be used against blue state senators in November). 1 year's obstruction, 4 year's obstruction--what's the difference morally or politically?

That said, the fillibuster will disappear overnight, And the Democrats would likely cave anyway. Not to mention making such a pledge probably wouldn't change many Republican senators position, but would rob Democrats of the issue in November.

[Firestorm]

It was thi second paragraph i'm most focusing on. The GOP hasn't seem to taken much heat for a blanket refusal to even hold hearings on ANY Obama nominee (though the jury is still out on how it could be used against blue state senators in November). 1 year's obstruction, 4 year's obstruction--what's the difference morally or politically?

They haven't taken much heat, I suspect, because no one realistically expects much better from them. Even a lot of Conservatives who support the move wish that they had the strategic sense to (a)wait till Obama announces the replacement before summarily refusing him and (b)not come out and admit that they're stalling.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

"Give us our third nominee or we'll make sure the next guy gets none. Also, ignore our hypocrisy."

Yeah, that will work great. The public doesn't like blackmailers.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

"Give us our third nominee or we'll make sure the next guy gets none. Also, ignore our hypocrisy."

Yeah, that will work great. The public doesn't like blackmailers.

At least blackmailers have an end goal, unlike people who categorically refuse to even consider a president's nominees for no reason.

[Virginiá]

"Give us our third nominee or we'll make sure the next guy gets none. Also, ignore our hypocrisy."

Yeah, that will work great. The public doesn't like blackmailers.

Well, there is no minimum or maximum number of nominations per president, unless you're aware of a bit in the Constitution about that, because I'm not. If the number of seats Obama gets to fill is an issue, then Democrats can surely complain about how the Republicans stacked the USSC for almost 2 generations when you consider both Eisenhower's 5 nominations (!!!) and the fact that they occupied the White House for 20 of the 24 years between 1968 - 1992, giving them a lot more nominations in the process.

I have to say, it's pretty selfish for conservatives, who have managed to get a conservative SCOTUS for that long to try and deny Obama/Democrats their rightful ability to fill a seat. The country is moving left for the first time in a long while, and it's time SCOTUS reflects that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That would just give them the ideal excuse to go nuclear (which they might anyway, just because they can, but still).

[Badger]

"Give us our third nominee or we'll make sure the next guy gets none. Also, ignore our hypocrisy."

Yeah, that will work great. The public doesn't like blackmailers.

Well now wait a minute man, this is kinda my point. First off, i din't say "no" nominees in this scenario; just any for Scalia's seat just as Republicans are now doing.

Second, let's not fool ourselves here. I'm a Republican and a Prosecutor, so I am NOT overly enthused about the idea of Obama picking Scalia's replacement - - those Scalia's decision on Crawford was awful and an underrated bad decision of his - - let's not pretend that there's any higher or noble argument here. What's hypocritical to me is that I am able to at least accept that if Democrats were doing the same thing to us, are the Republicans would be going through the roof. The Democrats relatively mild, albeit frustrated reaction would be nothing compared to the nonstop Media drum beat of obstructionism and legislative tyranny.

The only difference in my scenario for Democrats and what Republicans are doing now is refusing to consider Scalia's replacement for 4 years instead of only one. I guess getting beyond the obvious answer that Republicans would kill the filibuster in a heartbeat, plus the Democrats would fold as they inevitably do. But I guess the underlying question for me is whether there is really a tangible moral and ethical difference between blatant obstructionist stonewalling a nominee based solely on partisan politics for a full year, versus doing so for a full 4 years?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Escalation by the Democrats is one of the many reasons I oppose the GOP's current stance. If you can obstruct for a whole year, how long until you start blocking nominees during a president's entire second term?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Escalation by the Democrats is one of the many reasons I oppose the GOP's current stance. If you can obstruct for a whole year, how long until you start blocking nominees during a president's entire second term?

That could happen.  But my greater concern is that escalation ultimately leads to someone following through on the FDR plan.

That's another significant risk. Honestly, setting the size of the Court should probably be an amendment.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Escalation by the Democrats is one of the many reasons I oppose the GOP's current stance. If you can obstruct for a whole year, how long until you start blocking nominees during a president's entire second term?

That could happen.  But my greater concern is that escalation ultimately leads to someone following through on the FDR plan.

That's another significant risk. Honestly, setting the size of the Court should probably be an amendment.

Agreed.

I think Trump is the most likely to pull something like that, so hopefully we'll never find out.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Escalation by the Democrats is one of the many reasons I oppose the GOP's current stance. If you can obstruct for a whole year, how long until you start blocking nominees during a president's entire second term?

That could happen.  But my greater concern is that escalation ultimately leads to someone following through on the FDR plan.

That's another significant risk. Honestly, setting the size of the Court should probably be an amendment.

Agreed.

I think Trump is the most likely to pull something like that, so hopefully we'll never find out.

I'd be more worried about it with Cruz than Trump. Trump is obnoxious, but he's honestly not that radical policy-wise. He just acts like it to drum up support. Cruz actually is radical, and he seems like the type to try to unfairly hijack the Court.

[The Mikado]

I think a reverse FDR plan would be more likely at this point. Say RBG goes at some point while the Scalia seat is still open. Why not move to fix the number of Court seats back to 7 (like it used to be)? It gets rid of the vacancy problem and punts it down the road.

[Blue3]

But then another dies... and another... and another... (eventually)

What happens if we reach the point where there's only 1 Supreme Court Justice? Or 0?

Not going to happen, but what if?

Basically, when does that stop?



(Though it would almost be funny if, say, Clarence Thomas abruptly resigns this month... making it 7 people... and a clear majority for the liberal-leaning side! When if they went for a moderate compromise justice with Obama that would have made the court more conservative than not appointing someone was!)

Or if they succeed in delaying, then President Hillary and a Democratic Senate put in someone more liberal than whoever Obama nominates!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think a reverse FDR plan would be more likely at this point. Say RBG goes at some point while the Scalia seat is still open. Why not move to fix the number of Court seats back to 7 (like it used to be)? It gets rid of the vacancy problem and punts it down the road.

You mean an Andrew Johnson actuality.

[Badger]

I think a reverse FDR plan would be more likely at this point. Say RBG goes at some point while the Scalia seat is still open. Why not move to fix the number of Court seats back to 7 (like it used to be)? It gets rid of the vacancy problem and punts it down the road.

Well, Democrats would never agree to that if they had any say.  And if they didn't have any say, both seats would be filled with conservatives anyway, so I don't see that happening.  It might not escalate beyond an election year rule, but you can be sure a Dem senate wouldn't hesitate to hold RBG's seat open from say 2023-25 after this.  If court-packing ever does happen, I assume it would become something a party with full control does be default, like with the House of Lords.  It could get dangerously close to making the president all-powerful.

Exactly. as noted here as well as Inks's posts, i fear this precedent.