UPDATE: Supreme Court Short List Down to 3

[The Other Castro]

Reuters source says the White House is interviewing 5 3 potential nominees.

The Final 5 3:
Sri Srinivasan
Paul Watford
Merrick Garland
Jane Kelly
Ketanji Brown Jackson

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-obama-idUSKCN0WD2LE

[Mr. Reactionary]

So in other words, no one who will be approved.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

So in other words, no one who will be approved.

Obama could nominate Ted Cruz and the GOP Senate still wouldn't approve him.

[Iosif]

It'll be Garland. The others are young enough to wait for another vacancy where they have more than a negligible chance of getting confirmed.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Merrick will be a sacrificial lamb, I hope, when Clinton wins and hopefully a clear majority in Senate, it will be a minority

[dead0man]

Merrick will be a sacrificial lamb, I hope, when Clinton wins and hopefully a clear majority in Senate, it will be a minorith.

I don't think they like to called minoriths anymore.  I think it's "people of minorith" now.

[Phony Moderate]

So in other words, no one who will be approved.

Obama could nominate Ted Cruz and the GOP Senate still wouldn't approve him.

Well Ted Cruz is less popular than Obama among GOP senators...

[Kingpoleon]

Nominate Garland first and let him fail miserably.

[Sir Mohamed]

Sandoval is off the table? Not that I badly want him, but the GOP's reaction would have been interesting.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Sandoval is off the table? Not that I badly want him, but the GOP's reaction would have been interesting.

Sandoval took himself out of contention, and Obama never would have nominated him anyway.

Garland has a slim chance, the other four are solid liberal votes and won't be considered.

[Likely Voter]

So in other words, no one who will be approved.

Obama could nominate Ted Cruz and the GOP Senate still wouldn't approve him.

Well Ted Cruz is less popular than Obama among GOP senators...

True but over the weekend Linsey Graham said if he was nominated by Obama, he wouldn't vote for himself.  That is how determined these guys are to deny Obama.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

So in other words, no one who will be approved.

Obama could nominate Ted Cruz and the GOP Senate still wouldn't approve him.

But Obama wouldn't do that. He knows Roe v Wade , Hodges v Oberfall, and Obamacare get overturned inside 2 years if Cruz got on the court.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

So in other words, no one who will be approved.

Obama could nominate Ted Cruz and the GOP Senate still wouldn't approve him.

But Obama wouldn't do that. He knows Roe v Wade , Hodges v Oberfall, and Obamacare get overturned inside 2 years if Cruz got on the court.

No, it wouldnt, Kennedy affirms Roe and Roberts affirmed Obamacare, if another Scalia is put there, issues will stand with Kennedy.

This is to tip the Crt on immigration,  SSM & Guns and Campaign Finance

[Virginiá]

That is how determined these guys are to deny Obama.

Which is super ironic given that thee major reason given to deny him this is because they say he will try to fill that seat with a liberal justice. So it's a bit funny when they say they won't consider anyone, even if it's someone just as conservative as Scalia, and would rather wait until after the election.

Like, how does that make any sense? If the whole point of waiting is to get a Republican president who will nominate a conservative, then why does it matter if Obama were to nominate a conservative? The logic (or lack thereof) is terrible. It's almost like they are taking pride in being complete idiots.

The absolute incompetence of them in creating even a semi-believable narrative is stunning. They just don't want Obama to nominate anyone, period, despite giving completely different reasons.

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

That is how determined these guys are to deny Obama.

Which is super ironic given that thee major reason given to deny him this is because they say he will try to fill that seat with a liberal justice. So it's a bit funny when they say they won't consider anyone, even if it's someone just as conservative as Scalia, and would rather wait until after the election.

Like, how does that make any sense? If the whole point of waiting is to get a Republican president who will nominate a conservative, then why does it matter if Obama were to nominate a conservative? The logic (or lack thereof) is terrible. It's almost like they are taking pride in being complete idiots.

The absolute incompetence of them in creating even a semi-believable narrative is stunning. They just don't want Obama to nominate anyone, period, despite giving completely different reasons.

The logic or principle that they say they are following is not filling a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year. The ideology of the candidate has nothing to do with it; they simply don't believe such a consequential decision should be made before voters have their say. I don't agree with it by any means but I get the argument and see where it's coming from.

[Virginiá]

The logic or principle that they say they are following is not filling a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year. The ideology of the candidate has nothing to do with it; they simply don't believe such a consequential decision should be made before voters have their say. I don't agree with it by any means but I get the argument and see where it's coming from.

I suppose that is probably the other major reason, but in public quite a lot of people have been saying to not let him nominate a liberal, and it's obvious that is the real reason they want to deny him this. The fact that there are all these conflicting reasons going around in public is evidence of their extremely poor execution of obstruction.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That is how determined these guys are to deny Obama.

Which is super ironic given that thee major reason given to deny him this is because they say he will try to fill that seat with a liberal justice. So it's a bit funny when they say they won't consider anyone, even if it's someone just as conservative as Scalia, and would rather wait until after the election.

Like, how does that make any sense? If the whole point of waiting is to get a Republican president who will nominate a conservative, then why does it matter if Obama were to nominate a conservative? The logic (or lack thereof) is terrible. It's almost like they are taking pride in being complete idiots.

The absolute incompetence of them in creating even a semi-believable narrative is stunning. They just don't want Obama to nominate anyone, period, despite giving completely different reasons.

The logic or principle that they say they are following is not filling a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year. The ideology of the candidate has nothing to do with it; they simply don't believe such a consequential decision should be made before voters have their say. I don't agree with it by any means but I get the argument and see where it's coming from.

Where is it coming from, other than the apparent belief that presidential terms are four years for everything else and three years with a one-year interregnum (or whatever) for this?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Where is it coming from, other than the apparent belief that presidential terms are four years for everything else and three years with a one-year interregnum (or whatever) for this?

The argument would be that there has already been an election since Obama was re-elected, and that the outcome of the most recent election is the most accurate representation of what the people want, which in this case is not for Obama to try and overturn the Bill of Rights 6 months before yet another election where we can ask the people what they think again, this time with full knowledge of the Supreme Court issue. Again, no one is saying that Obama cannot name whoever he wants as a potential justice. If so many people weren't repeating the fiction that "advice and consent" means "duty to automatically investigate, applaud, and enthusiastically approve whoever a Democrat President nominates," this view of republicanism would be uncontroversial.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Who cares. The Republicans are insane obstructionists, they are already on there way to beat the record of days with a seat empty on the Supreme Court. Kick these bums out.

[Horsemask]

Watch the GOP piss and moan at Garland, only to see President Hillary Clinton nominate someone way more liberal and have them be confirmed.

It should be Garland, and the GOP should hold hearings on him.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Garland would be a fine choice--incredibly inoffensive in every way, yet good enough for any reasonable liberal.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Where is it coming from, other than the apparent belief that presidential terms are four years for everything else and three years with a one-year interregnum (or whatever) for this?

The argument would be that there has already been an election since Obama was re-elected, and that the outcome of the most recent election is the most accurate representation of what the people want, which in this case is not for Obama to try and overturn the Bill of Rights 6 months before yet another election where we can ask the people what they think again, this time with full knowledge of the Supreme Court issue. Again, no one is saying that Obama cannot name whoever he wants as a potential justice. If so many people weren't repeating the fiction that "advice and consent" means "duty to automatically investigate, applaud, and enthusiastically approve whoever a Democrat President nominates," this view of republicanism would be uncontroversial.

So the interregnum is in fact two years out of every four, but only if the president's party loses the Senate in a midterm, unless the midterm in question is 1986. Got it.

Also, 'Democrat' is a noun, not an adjective, and I don't think anybody is claiming that the Senate or any individual senator has any sort of legal or moral duty or responsibility to actually provide 'consent', or even a legal duty to provide 'advice'. Only a moral duty to provide 'advice', in some way more substantial and context-sensitive than preemptively saying that they won't even hold hearings on anybody the president nominates, even if he nominates THEM. i.e. see who he nominates, then refuse to hold hearings if you think the nominee will 'overturn the Bill of Rights' (which they might very well not, since--I assume you're referring to the Almighty Second, here--many liberal jurists, unlike Clarence Thomas, believe in stare decisis). Or, better yet, just go through the process and vote not to confirm. Then nobody can say you did anything wrong with any degree of credibility. If you're sure of your majority, there's nothing to fear!

[Virginiá]

The argument would be that there has already been an election since Obama was re-elected, and that the outcome of the most recent election is the most accurate representation of what the people want, which in this case is not for Obama to try and overturn the Bill of Rights 6 months before yet another election where we can ask the people what they think again, this time with full knowledge of the Supreme Court issue. Again, no one is saying that Obama cannot name whoever he wants as a potential justice. If so many people weren't repeating the fiction that "advice and consent" means "duty to automatically investigate, applaud, and enthusiastically approve whoever a Democrat President nominates," this view of republicanism would be uncontroversial.

See, you're right, the advice and consent part doesn't mean they have to do anything, but the original intent was not for politicians to hold up filling seats just because they want to hold out so they get to fill it themselves. That is trying to cheat the system.

Republicans (stupidly) made it clear they don't care who he nominates, that they aren't getting serious consideration. They are setting a terrible precedent here which will no doubt backfire on them down the road. This is bad for the country as a whole. What happens when the tables are turned? You think Democrats are just going to capitulate knowing what they were put through under 8 years of Obama? The GOP has been inciting their base and creating a hyper-polarized landscape for years now and this is making it worse, and it really bothers me how little they seem to care about the ramifications of their actions.

Seriously, Republicans have taken this obstructionism too far and I think, and personally, I hope, they suffer for it later.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let me clarify: I'm not saying that the Republicans aren't perfectly within their rights to do this, only rather that 'rights' shouldn't be all that we're fixating on here. They have every right to behave the way they're behaving, but by doing so they seriously damage the conventions and institutions that make the Constitution operational in the public life of a real country rather than just a shallow exercise in the tyranny of words. This isn't a 'judicial activist' argument or even a 'living tree' one; quite the contrary! I'd expect any reasonably well-read person or group that self-describes as 'conservative' in an English-speaking country to be able to see that, but I know better than to ask for any degree of ideological or philosophical seriousness from any major player in contemporary American politics. Even the late Scalia's own mostly serious and consistent commitment to ultraconservative Catholicism was called into question by some of the stuff he wrote about e.g. the death penalty.

Personally I actually agree that I'd rather not have this seat filled just this minute, because there are certain Harry Blackmun decisions that I'd love to see overturned and that won't happen for generations if ever with any Obama nominee. But my convictions on that particular issue don't really combine with my other principles in a way that's politically viable, so I let it go most of the time. And in this instance the methods being used to assure people that this seat won't be filled are honestly saddening to me. They're saddening to me because as critical as I often am of American institutions and the whole ethos and mythology on which this country is founded I do really genuinely love how our governing institutions are able to look to their own rules and traditions to provide solutions and ways out when other means of discourse fail. It appeals to my sensibilities as a person of faith, as a softcore cultural traditionalist, and frankly as an autistic person. Recent events represent an even more serious than we've grown accustomed to attack on that process, which is at least as central to what American political life is 'supposed' to be like as the written Constitution itself.

[RightBehind]

My gut is telling me this will cost the Republicans the Senate in November, believing the DNC will launch an all out attack on this political posturing.