SCOTUS-Watch: It's Gorsuch!

[Devout Centrist]

Saw an estimate on Twitter that Hardiman would be right of Kennedy and left of Roberts

I will laugh if after all the "but SCOTUS!" protests from the GOP this guy turns out to be Souter 2.0

My guess is, aside from law and order boilerplate crap, he's gonna be worse than Souter for the GOP.

[Person Man]

Saw an estimate on Twitter that Hardiman would be right of Kennedy and left of Roberts

I will laugh if after all the "but SCOTUS!" protests from the GOP this guy turns out to be Souter 2.0

My guess is, aside from law and order boilerplate crap, he's gonna be worse than Souter for the GOP.

Would he be conservative enough to do a thorough disincorporation of civil rights and liberties? I am guessing he probably isn't conservative enough to reincorporate property rights into the 14th?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This just in: "Senate Dems will filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368

Response from McConnell:

[publicunofficial]

This just in: "Senate Dems will filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368

Response from McConnell:

Probably right. So let's get it over with.

[KingSweden]

Saw an estimate on Twitter that Hardiman would be right of Kennedy and left of Roberts

I will laugh if after all the "but SCOTUS!" protests from the GOP this guy turns out to be Souter 2.0

My guess is, aside from law and order boilerplate crap, he's gonna be worse than Souter for the GOP.

And even there the one case cited seems mostly like a desire not to intrude on NJ's laws

[The Other Castro]

According to FiveThirtyEight:

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This just in: "Senate Dems will filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368

Response from McConnell:

Then require literally every house and senate bill to have full roll call vote, require thirty hours of debate for literally every nominee needing Senate approval, deny quorum for any nominatees, put holds on all judicial nominees, and generally do everything (and there are many things that can still be done) to grind things to a halt and make life a living hell for the Senate GOP caucus.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

According to FiveThirtyEight:

If he picks Hardiman, I will be really upset and maybe even tilt into "disapprove" territory

[SteveRogers]

This just in: "Senate Dems will filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368

Response from McConnell:

Then require literally every house and senate bill to have full roll call vote, require thirty hours of debate for literally every nominee needing Senate approval, deny quorum for any nominatees, put holds on all judicial nominees, and generally do everything (and there are many things that can still be done) to grind things to a halt and make life a living hell for the Senate GOP caucus.

This. People forget that the "nuclear option" got its name not just because it is the most extreme tactic, but also because of the expected "fallout" in the form of retaliation from the other side.

[7,052,770]

If he picks Hardiman, I will be really upset and maybe even tilt into "disapprove" territory

I mean, isn't it your own damn fault for believing that Trump was something that he's obviously not (and something you knew he wasn't a year ago)?

[Classic Conservative]

According to FiveThirtyEight:

Please God, no Hardiman. No Hardiman. We Want Gorsuch!

[Virginiá]

If that is where Hardiman is, then it might have been better for Senate Democrats to get Trump to pick him in exchange for no total obstruction. Look, the fact that they are even filling this seat is so sleazy it makes me sick, seeing as how they got to this point, but the truth is they are going to fill it. If we block the nominee they will eventually go nuclear. It's not like we have a real good shot at taking the Senate back in 2018. Our shot was 2016, and we blew it. We can't block for 4 years. If I thought we could actually block them from filling it for 4 years, I might actually be fine with that, just to show them that they can't pull dirty stunts like that and get away with it, but the reality is we are unable to sustain a blockade.

Rage and revenge in this case really gets us nothing. The smart choice would have been to try and bargain for a more favorable pick in return for cooperation.

[Dr. Arch]

I'd be satisfied with a Hardiman pick.

[KingSweden]

According to FiveThirtyEight:

Yup, that's the graphic I saw earlier I was referencing

[SteveRogers]

According to FiveThirtyEight:

I'm not convinced of the usefulness of these Judicial Common Space scores. The methodology doesn't seem that reliable or precise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure I buy that Hardiman will be a centrist swing vote just because he was appointed by Bush while being from Pennsylvania.

[Devout Centrist]

Trump is and never has been a conservative. All of you are expecting him to do so in order to please the base when it's pretty clear he stopped caring about the concerns of those activists long ago.


Trump only cares about achieving two things:
1. A self sufficient America
2. A homogeneous America

[Person Man]

Trump is and never has been a conservative. All of you are expecting him to do so in order to please the base when it's pretty clear he stopped caring about the concerns of those activists long ago.


Trump only cares about achieving two things:
1. A self sufficient America
2. A homogeneous America

Won't that eventually push us to the left?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If they are nuked, they then can always deny quorum, right?

No.  Unlike some State legislatures, quorum is a simple majority.  All the Democrats could stay home and Congress in theory could continue to work.

[Person Man]

If they are nuked, they then can always deny quorum, right?

No.  Unlike some State legislatures, quorum is a simple majority.  All the Democrats could stay home and Congress in theory could continue to work.

But by slowing everything down to a crawl because they got nuked prevent or extremely delay action on Obamacare?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

According to FiveThirtyEight:

I'm not convinced of the usefulness of these Judicial Common Space scores. The methodology doesn't seem that reliable or precise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure I buy that Hardiman will be a centrist swing vote just because he was appointed by Bush while being from Pennsylvania.

Yeah, that's pretty useless. Explains why it goes against c.w. that Pryor is the furthest right ideologically.

[The Other Castro]

On this SCOTUS-reveal eve, the PredictIt prices for Gorsuch and Hardiman are pretty much even at 49% and 44% respectively. Pryor is in a distant third place at 7%.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

CNN says Democrats plan to wuss out on a fight.  Sad, but not surprising.

[Dr. Arch]

CNN says Democrats plan to wuss out on a fight.  Sad, but not surprising.

Honestly...if its Hardiman...its not worth the fight

[ApatheticAustrian]

the fight would be needed to make the base not going even more crazy and maybe even make mcconnell do away with the filibuster...... for a center-like candidate.

would be kind of a win win, imho.

[Klartext89]

According to FiveThirtyEight:

If he picks Hardiman, I will be really upset and maybe even tilt into "disapprove" territory

You're still trusting 538? Come on... Everything I read says that Hardiman is a safe conservative choice.

He has advanced conservative interpretations, particularly in “law and order” cases touching on issues such as sentencing guidelines, the death penalty, the right to film police and second amendment issues. In one case, Hardiman questioned whether the first amendment protected people who videotaped police during a traffic stop.

That doesn't sound bad....