SCOTUS nominee expected as early as this morning EDIT: looks like it's Garland

[Stranger in a strange land]

They need to get him through the Judiciary Committee first.



The US Senate's Judiciary Committee, which Justice Garland will need a majority of to even go before the Senate Floor:

 Republicans (11)
•Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chair
•Orrin Hatch, Utah
•Jeff Sessions, Alabama
•Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
•John Cornyn, Texas
•Mike Lee, Utah
•Ted Cruz, Texas
•Jeff Flake, Arizona
•David Vitter, Louisiana
•David Perdue, Georgia
•Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Democrats (9)
•Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Ranking Member
•Dianne Feinstein, California
•Chuck Schumer, New York
•Dick Durbin, Illinois
•Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
•Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
•Al Franken, Minnesota
•Chris Coons, Delaware
•Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut


So we need at least 2 of those Republicans to vote to proceed to the Senate Floor.

Grassley, Graham, Hatch, Flake, and Cornyn are the ones I would work on in that order.

Graham and Hatch are the only possible ones. Grassley might if he's he's shackled to a toxic Trump ticket and in serious danger of losing his seat, but even then, I doubt it.

[Blue3]

Graham said he would vote against himself if he were the nominee.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

It's our turn and about time we had a Conservative Protestant voice on th court.

Oh boy, that's a dangerous way of thinking. Setting aside that for much of American history the court was dominated by conservative Protestants, religious identity is hardly a good benchmark for a SCOTUS justice.

Garland was arguably the most qualified person who could possibly have been nominated.

 It can be a good benchmark for a SCOTUS. It helps us discern wether they'll be open to overturning the bad ruling of Roe v Wade.

We've never had a Pentacostal Associate Justice (something I would go gaga over). Notice I didn't say anything about the court being all Wasp men. I want racial and gender diversity like many of you on the left. As a conservative don't you think I want conservative and conservatarian jurists? I'm even open to some religious diversity but we don't have any Protestants(including Pentacostals) on the court and we want a voice on the court. Yes Scaila was Catholic but he had many of our sentiments. Don't you think we should be replacing the conservative leader with someone just as conservative?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

They need to get him through the Judiciary Committee first.



The US Senate's Judiciary Committee, which Justice Garland will need a majority of to even go before the Senate Floor:

 Republicans (11)
•Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chair
•Orrin Hatch, Utah
•Jeff Sessions, Alabama
•Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
•John Cornyn, Texas
•Mike Lee, Utah
•Ted Cruz, Texas
•Jeff Flake, Arizona
•David Vitter, Louisiana
•David Perdue, Georgia
•Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Democrats (9)
•Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Ranking Member
•Dianne Feinstein, California
•Chuck Schumer, New York
•Dick Durbin, Illinois
•Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
•Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
•Al Franken, Minnesota
•Chris Coons, Delaware
•Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut


So we need at least 2 of those Republicans to vote to proceed to the Senate Floor.

Grassley, Graham, Hatch, Flake, and Cornyn are the ones I would work on in that order.

Not gonna happen.

Then you'll have only yourselves to blame when Pam Karlan or Goodwin Liu is confirmed by the Dem senate this time next year after Trump loses to Clinton 57/41.  And you can bet Ginsburg will retire next June, too.

Nope. We'll be celebrating the confirmation of Ted Cruz/Mike Lee by president Trump/Cruz

*As much as I despise Trump I do think he's astute enough to nominate Cruz*

[Antonio the Sixth]

Meh.

[Comrade Funk]

How about we get a Conservative Protestant on the court.

Face it, your party is done. You'll be lucky if conservatives dominate the court in 30 years. This is your 1968 moment. We got rid of George Wallace and the 50 years of GOP pandering to his voters has given you TRUMP and the fracturing of your party.

We Liberal Jews are the court ahahahaha.

[Yan]

They need to get him through the Judiciary Committee first.



The US Senate's Judiciary Committee, which Justice Garland will need a majority of to even go before the Senate Floor:

 Republicans (11)
•Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chair
•Orrin Hatch, Utah
•Jeff Sessions, Alabama
•Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
•John Cornyn, Texas
•Mike Lee, Utah
•Ted Cruz, Texas
•Jeff Flake, Arizona
•David Vitter, Louisiana
•David Perdue, Georgia
•Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Democrats (9)
•Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Ranking Member
•Dianne Feinstein, California
•Chuck Schumer, New York
•Dick Durbin, Illinois
•Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
•Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
•Al Franken, Minnesota
•Chris Coons, Delaware
•Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut


So we need at least 2 of those Republicans to vote to proceed to the Senate Floor.

Grassley, Graham, Hatch, Flake, and Cornyn are the ones I would work on in that order.

Not gonna happen.

Then you'll have only yourselves to blame when Pam Karlan or Goodwin Liu is confirmed by the Dem senate this time next year after Trump loses to Clinton 57/41.  And you can bet Ginsburg will retire next June, too.

Nope. We'll be celebrating the confirmation of Ted Cruz/Mike Lee by president Trump/Cruz

*As much as I despise Trump I do think he's astute enough to nominate Cruz*

I think your grip on reality has been warped by a bit too much Alex Jones.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

They need to get him through the Judiciary Committee first.



The US Senate's Judiciary Committee, which Justice Garland will need a majority of to even go before the Senate Floor:

 Republicans (11)
•Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chair
•Orrin Hatch, Utah
•Jeff Sessions, Alabama
•Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
•John Cornyn, Texas
•Mike Lee, Utah
•Ted Cruz, Texas
•Jeff Flake, Arizona
•David Vitter, Louisiana
•David Perdue, Georgia
•Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Democrats (9)
•Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Ranking Member
•Dianne Feinstein, California
•Chuck Schumer, New York
•Dick Durbin, Illinois
•Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
•Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
•Al Franken, Minnesota
•Chris Coons, Delaware
•Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut


So we need at least 2 of those Republicans to vote to proceed to the Senate Floor.

Grassley, Graham, Hatch, Flake, and Cornyn are the ones I would work on in that order.

Not gonna happen.

Then you'll have only yourselves to blame when Pam Karlan or Goodwin Liu is confirmed by the Dem senate this time next year after Trump loses to Clinton 57/41.  And you can bet Ginsburg will retire next June, too.

Nope. We'll be celebrating the confirmation of Ted Cruz/Mike Lee by president Trump/Cruz

*As much as I despise Trump I do think he's astute enough to nominate Cruz*

I think your grip on reality has been warped by a bit too much Alex Jones.

My grip on on reality is quite firm. Haven't listened to Alex Jones in some time.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

How about we get a Conservative Protestant on the court.

Face it, your party is done. You'll be lucky if conservatives dominate the court in 30 years. This is your 1968 moment. We got rid of George Wallace and the 50 years of GOP pandering to his voters has given you TRUMP and the fracturing of your party.

We Liberal Jews are the court ahahahaha.

This is not our 1968 moment. I actually think your party is in serious danger of one because Bernie folks will protest a Hillary nomination and stay home.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bernie Sanders isnt Bill Bradley and he knows how iimportant it is to defear the Koch bros and have a Dem US Senate. Hopefully, he realizes it soon, he has no path to victory.

[Horsemask]

He's one of the most qualified candidates ever. He should get hearings. He should be confirmed.

But of course my party is way too stubborn to actually do it. I hope this kills the Senate GOP in November. We don't deserve the majority with the way these assholes are running it.

[/]

lol why does nobody care about this

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He's one of the most qualified candidates ever. He should get hearings. He should be confirmed.

But of course my party is way too stubborn to actually do it. I hope this kills the Senate GOP in November. We don't deserve the majority with the way these assholes are running it.

Look to the top Trump is running the show and unlikely event that he becomes prez, he wants that puck all to himself

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Moderate hero pick

[RodPresident]

They need to get him through the Judiciary Committee first.



The US Senate's Judiciary Committee, which Justice Garland will need a majority of to even go before the Senate Floor:

 Republicans (11)
•Chuck Grassley, Iowa, Chair
•Orrin Hatch, Utah
•Jeff Sessions, Alabama
•Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
•John Cornyn, Texas
•Mike Lee, Utah
•Ted Cruz, Texas
•Jeff Flake, Arizona
•David Vitter, Louisiana
•David Perdue, Georgia
•Thom Tillis, North Carolina

Democrats (9)
•Patrick Leahy, Vermont, Ranking Member
•Dianne Feinstein, California
•Chuck Schumer, New York
•Dick Durbin, Illinois
•Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
•Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
•Al Franken, Minnesota
•Chris Coons, Delaware
•Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut


So we need at least 2 of those Republicans to vote to proceed to the Senate Floor.

Grassley, Graham, Hatch, Flake, and Cornyn are the ones I would work on in that order.

Not gonna happen.

Then you'll have only yourselves to blame when Pam Karlan or Goodwin Liu is confirmed by the Dem senate this time next year after Trump loses to Clinton 57/41.  And you can bet Ginsburg will retire next June, too.

Nope. We'll be celebrating the confirmation of Ted Cruz/Mike Lee by president Trump/Cruz

*As much as I despise Trump I do think he's astute enough to nominate Cruz*

I think your grip on reality has been warped by a bit too much Alex Jones.

My grip on on reality is quite firm. Haven't listened to Alex Jones in some time.

David Vitter is a walking dead... Buy his vote for a judgeship or Ambassadorship after he leaves Senate. Graham too.

[Orser67]

Don't you think we should be replacing the conservative leader with someone just as conservative?

The last two times in which there was a Supreme Court vacancy in which the retiring justice's ideology was different from the president, the president attempted to appoint someone ideologically similar to himself. In 1991, Bush appointed the very conservative Thomas to replace the the very liberal Marshall. In 2006, Bush appointed the conservative Alito to replace the moderate O'Connor. And even in 1990, Bush attempted to appoint a conservative (Souter) to replace the very liberal Brennan, though Souter drifted into the liberal bloc. Why should this time be any different?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Don't you think we should be replacing the conservative leader with someone just as conservative?

No, of course not. No liberal President is going to replace a conservative justice a conservative, nor vice-versa. I guarantee you a GOP President wouldn't replace RBG with another liberal. That's not the way this works.

[rob in cal]

    A smart pick by Obama.  He's older, well respected.  Wonder where he'd fall on the ideology test, how close to joining Kennedy as a swing vote? And I think we can all say that we are shocked, shocked that he's Jewish.  All kidding aside, if a Dem president wins the  next term and has more appointments could we be looking at a Jewish majority on the court at some point?

[Virginiá]

Don't you think we should be replacing the conservative leader with someone just as conservative?

Eww, no. I certainly don't remember Republican presidents consistently replacing retiring liberals with other liberals. I shouldn't even have to say this, but there is no right to have a permanent conservative SCOTUS majority. You guys have had almost 2 entire generations of a right-leaning USSC and now your time is up.

A smart pick by Obama.  He's older, well respected.

He is a smart, respectable man, but depending on how you want to judge it, he's not necessarily a smart pick. Most likely he will either retire or pass away in 15 - 20 years tops and Republicans might have another chance to fill the seat far earlier than they would have had under normal circumstances.

From a partisan perspective, Obama should be nominating a 45 - 50 years old, preferably someone more liberal as well.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You guys blocked Ike from a SCOTUS pick in 1960 because it was an election year. We are only doing the same. For the few of you pro-2A folks on the left on here, this guy is very bad news.

[rob in cal]

   I think the fact that he's older is part of the wisdom of the pick, in that it shows Obama isn't looking to purposefully  pack the court with younger liberals who will be there for a long time.  If in fact Garland would get approved then in retrospect I could see why liberals might be disappointed. I'm thinking he won't be approved anyway.

[Orser67]

You guys blocked Ike from a SCOTUS pick in 1960 because it was an election year.

I've never heard this claim before. Who was Eisenhower trying to replace?

Edit: Actually, the Democrats didn't block any of Ike's picks. In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution against recess appointments made in election years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/

[Ogre Mage]

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Graham said he would vote against himself if he were the nominee.

With good reason as Graham is certainly not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

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

I'm not sure what to think of Garland yet but I'm leaning towards thinking he's not such a great choice, either from a mainstream liberal perspective or from my own.