Sri Srinivasan and Two Other Judges Being Vetted for Scalia's Seat

[Frodo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

source

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

Garland would be okay, I guess.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Uh, whatever happened to Jane Kelly?

[morgieb]

Uh, whatever happened to Jane Kelly?

Well it was already leaked that she was being vetted anyway, so perhaps the paper didn't need to report it?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Guess that means we'll stay at 4-4. What a shame.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The only way Srinivasson works is if that's the one the Republicans are gonna use for their auto-rejection of the first nominee.  He's not a reliable enough vote to be more than a sacrificial lamb IMO.  

And before a 13 year-old moderate hero bravely tells me to take off my partisan blinders, the idea is not to put up someone who gives everyone the warm fuzzies because they're an agreeable moderate  A Supreme Court vacancy that gets filled with someone the other side likes is a wasted vacancy.  Republicans understand this which is why they appoint hacks like Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.  Roberts is a wingnut, but he's also an example (from a Republican POV) of why it's dangerous to nominate someone the other side finds even remotely tolerable.  The Supreme Court has already become a hack-stacked political entity anyway (and likely always has been to at least some extent), so I want vacancies to be filled with liberal hacks (or in this case a solid, well-credentialed liberal who can be marketed to the public as a moderate despite being nothing of the sort).  I'd argue no one really takes the idea of original intent seriously except when it's convenient and I'm pretty sure none of the SC judges have any qualms about lawmaking from the bench, I'd rather them do so in a way that will line up with my political views.  

I'm not wearing partisan blinders, I'm just a realist who understands how high the stakes are and is honest about it instead of pretending to want an objective judge who rules strictly based on the constitution (b/c no one *really* wants that, even if they think they do).  Btw, if Clinton is elected, then I'd go even farther and say the vacancy should be filled by a Scalia-level liberal hack even if the nominee is unpopular with the general public.  

I don't know if the right to privacy would actually cover a woman's right to choose, but if not, I want a court that will change that the moment it has the chance.  I'm sure plenty of Republicans felt the same way about Bush vs. Gore (very few Republicans actually cared about what the law said there, let's be honest) or D.C. vs. Heller (the idea that the man who wrote that opinion spent his life claiming to be a champion original intent is insane).

[Kingpoleon]

Please let Srinivasan be nominated and fail.

Also, William Weld, Robert Orr, and Jeffrey Chiesa are all possible Republicans, IMO. The first two are pretty old for Clinton.

[Virginiá]

A Supreme Court vacancy that gets filled with someone the other side likes is a wasted vacancy.  Republicans understand this which is why they appoint hacks like Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.

Yesss. While I don't really want either side to nominate crazy people, I do hope Democrats stack the Supreme Court with very liberal justices. I really don't even want them to try and please Republicans/conservatives. The amount of disrespect Republicans have shown Obama, the unprecedented obstruction, has pushed things too far. They don't deserve consideration and the second it becomes possible to go around them, that is what should be done.

Simply put, at the first available moment, I would like Republicans to pay dearly for their actions the past 6+ years.

[Frodo]

A Supreme Court vacancy that gets filled with someone the other side likes is a wasted vacancy.  Republicans understand this which is why they appoint hacks like Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.

Yesss. While I don't really want either side to nominate crazy people, I do hope Democrats stack the Supreme Court with very liberal justices. I really don't even want them to try and please Republicans/conservatives. The amount of disrespect Republicans have shown Obama, the unprecedented obstruction, has pushed things too far. They don't deserve consideration and the second it becomes possible to go around them, that is what should be done.

Simply put, at the first available moment, I would like Republicans to pay dearly for their actions the past 6+ years.

Republicans will be hurt more politically by rejecting a moderate nominee they already voted to confirm once before nearly unanimously, than by rejecting a more liberal nominee.  

That I believe is President Obama's thinking. 

[Virginiá]

Republicans will be hurt more politically by rejecting a moderate nominee they already voted to confirm once before nearly unanimously, than by rejecting a more liberal nominee.  

That I believe is President Obama's thinking.  

Right. Yeah, I only meant that after we clean up in November (I know I'm being a bit overconfident here ), we fill every new open seat that comes up with ultra-liberal justices with absolutely zero consideration given to Republicans. Nuke the 60-vote cloture requirement and ignore their complaints. Stack the appellate and district courts with very young, qualified liberals as well. Another 4 - 8 years of a Democratic WH and the entire federal judiciary will be a conservative's worst nightmare come true.

As I understand it, that judge, Jane something from Iowa, is being seemingly strategically considered to both put pressure on Republicans/Grassley, but also to hurt him in Iowa for a potential challenge to his seat this November.

At any rate, I trust Obama to make the right decisions in this case. I know he will want to inflict maximum pain on them as much as anyone else for probably both personal reasons and to increase our chances in November.

[GLPman]

Kelly and Sri would be the best choices. Jackson lacks experience compared to the other candidates. Garland wouldn't be bad, either, I suppose.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The only way Srinivasson works is if that's the one the Republicans are gonna use for their auto-rejection of the first nominee.  He's not a reliable enough vote to be more than a sacrificial lamb IMO.  

Couldn't disagree more. Sri would make a perfectly good liberal justice; I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

[Horsemask]

Garland would be great, but his age hurts him. He was considered for the Sotomayor and Kagan spots as well.

[politicallefty]

A Supreme Court vacancy that gets filled with someone the other side likes is a wasted vacancy.  Republicans understand this which is why they appoint hacks like Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.

Yesss. While I don't really want either side to nominate crazy people, I do hope Democrats stack the Supreme Court with very liberal justices. I really don't even want them to try and please Republicans/conservatives. The amount of disrespect Republicans have shown Obama, the unprecedented obstruction, has pushed things too far. They don't deserve consideration and the second it becomes possible to go around them, that is what should be done.

Simply put, at the first available moment, I would like Republicans to pay dearly for their actions the past 6+ years.

Republicans will be hurt more politically by rejecting a moderate nominee they already voted to confirm once before nearly unanimously, than by rejecting a more liberal nominee.  

That I believe is President Obama's thinking.

I agree in part. I think Republicans would be hurt by such a nominee. However, I think the most pain would be inflicted by a nominee that was of colour or a woman (or both). I'm rather uncertain as to the future temperament of certain potential nominees, including Srinivasan or Kelly. Either one would make a fine choice to replace Scalia. If Republicans don't want to play ball now, perhaps future President Hillary Clinton with a new-found Senate Majority may feel it necessary to appoint CA Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu or even constitutional law scholar Pamela Karlan (my personal favourite to join SCOTUS).

[politicallefty]

A Supreme Court vacancy that gets filled with someone the other side likes is a wasted vacancy.  Republicans understand this which is why they appoint hacks like Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.

Yesss. While I don't really want either side to nominate crazy people, I do hope Democrats stack the Supreme Court with very liberal justices. I really don't even want them to try and please Republicans/conservatives. The amount of disrespect Republicans have shown Obama, the unprecedented obstruction, has pushed things too far. They don't deserve consideration and the second it becomes possible to go around them, that is what should be done.

Simply put, at the first available moment, I would like Republicans to pay dearly for their actions the past 6+ years.

Republicans will be hurt more politically by rejecting a moderate nominee they already voted to confirm once before nearly unanimously, than by rejecting a more liberal nominee.  

That I believe is President Obama's thinking.

I agree in part. I think Republicans would be hurt by such a nominee. However, I think the most pain would be inflicted by a nominee that was of colour or a woman (or both). I'm rather uncertain as to the future temperament of certain potential nominees, including Srinivasan or Kelly. Either one would make a fine choice to replace Scalia. If Republicans don't want to play ball now, perhaps future President Hillary Clinton with a new-found Senate Majority may feel it necessary to appoint CA Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu or even constitutional law scholar Pamela Karlan (my personal favourite to join SCOTUS).

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The only way Srinivasson works is if that's the one the Republicans are gonna use for their auto-rejection of the first nominee.  He's not a reliable enough vote to be more than a sacrificial lamb IMO.  

Couldn't disagree more. Sri would make a perfectly good liberal justice; I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

Some folks don't like how he represented Enron and oil companies.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Republicans will be hurt more politically by rejecting a moderate nominee they already voted to confirm once before nearly unanimously, than by rejecting a more liberal nominee.  

That I believe is President Obama's thinking.  

Right. Yeah, I only meant that after we clean up in November (I know I'm being a bit overconfident here ), we fill every new open seat that comes up with ultra-liberal justices with absolutely zero consideration given to Republicans. Nuke the 60-vote cloture requirement and ignore their complaints. Stack the appellate and district courts with very young, qualified liberals as well. Another 4 - 8 years of a Democratic WH and the entire federal judiciary will be a conservative's worst nightmare come true.

As I understand it, that judge, Jane something from Iowa, is being seemingly strategically considered to both put pressure on Republicans/Grassley, but also to hurt him in Iowa for a potential challenge to his seat this November.

At any rate, I trust Obama to make the right decisions in this case. I know he will want to inflict maximum pain on them as much as anyone else for probably both personal reasons and to increase our chances in November.

Yup. Then next time the Pubs have control of everything they split the 9th Circuit in 2 and double the number of judges in each district and appellate court, maybe tack on another 2 judges on SCOTUS. We should be minimizing the amount of politics in the courts. Bad precedent is bad precedent for everyone.   

[Mr. Reactionary]

... or D.C. vs. Heller (the idea that the man who wrote that opinion spent his life claiming to be a champion original intent is insane).

Lol. Because individuals totally didn't own weapons until 2008. The fact that there were 4 dissenters in Heller is disgraceful. Between Anglo-Saxon/post-1066 English custom, the English Bill of Rights, Blackstone, the various colonial ordinances of secession from England, the various Bills of Rights of State Constitutions drafted contemporaneous with the U.S. Constitution, debates from the first Congress, St. George Tucker, Joseph Story, and centuries of common understanding, the notion that the Heller decision acknowledging that "the people" means the people is inconsistent with original intent, is a joke.

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

A Supreme Court vacancy that gets filled with someone the other side likes is a wasted vacancy.  Republicans understand this which is why they appoint hacks like Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.

Yesss. While I don't really want either side to nominate crazy people, I do hope Democrats stack the Supreme Court with very liberal justices. I really don't even want them to try and please Republicans/conservatives. The amount of disrespect Republicans have shown Obama, the unprecedented obstruction, has pushed things too far. They don't deserve consideration and the second it becomes possible to go around them, that is what should be done.

Simply put, at the first available moment, I would like Republicans to pay dearly for their actions the past 6+ years.

Republicans will be hurt more politically by rejecting a moderate nominee they already voted to confirm once before nearly unanimously, than by rejecting a more liberal nominee.  

That I believe is President Obama's thinking.

I agree in part. I think Republicans would be hurt by such a nominee. However, I think the most pain would be inflicted by a nominee that was of colour or a woman (or both). I'm rather uncertain as to the future temperament of certain potential nominees, including Srinivasan or Kelly. Either one would make a fine choice to replace Scalia. If Republicans don't want to play ball now, perhaps future President Hillary Clinton with a new-found Senate Majority may feel it necessary to appoint CA Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu or even constitutional law scholar Pamela Karlan (my personal favourite to join SCOTUS).

Liu would never get 60 votes (no path for dems to pick up 14 seats), and he might not even get to 51 - I could see the Romney-state dems voting against him.

[Virginiá]

Yup. Then next time the Pubs have control of everything they split the 9th Circuit in 2 and double the number of judges in each district and appellate court, maybe tack on another 2 judges on SCOTUS. We should be minimizing the amount of politics in the courts. Bad precedent is bad precedent for everyone.   

We should, but the court system has become a more important avenue for the Republican party's agenda over the years and so their actions here are more understandable with that in mind. Due to the ideological sorting of the parties over the past generation, the divide between a conservative justice and a liberal justice is becoming very large and cases very predictable.

I'd like to say that the law be interpreted as the law, regardless of ideology, but when it comes to things like, say, money = speech / Citizens United, you have clear differences in interpretation. This is similar for a myriad issues.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems all they need is 50 votes in Nov for Liu, Kelly or Sri, as Schumer will move to go full nuclear to confirm

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Kelly Ayotte, Johnson & Kirk are gonna lose anyways, they should Bail on McConnell now.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

http://ktar.com/story/950242/possible-supreme-court-pick-championed-black-history-museum/

OBAMA IS VETTING Robert Wilkins to SCOTUS