Scalia overruled for the last time

[vorlon13]

Obama gets to pick,


-HOWEVER-


The dem/rep ratio in the senate will greatly constrain the possibilities. (And please do not forget the risk of appointing another Souter)  This is going to make for an interesting time.

So what happens if Congress stonewalls his pick until after inauguration?

Depends on who it looks like is going to win the election.  If Hillary is looking unstoppable, it becomes a moot point.  If Cruz/Bush/Rubio looks like they are cinching it up, the Repubs would be stupid NOT to delay delay delay.

As for a hypothetical President Trump, Idunno, who the hell would he pick ??   And therefore, why let him decide.

[TheRealJoeFish]

It is possible it will be a number of years before this seat is filled. Essentially, I see three possibilities:

- Obama nominates someone before leaving office, but the current congress blocks the nomination (this is almost certain to happen). A democrat wins the presidency, and puts forth a very liberal nominee (say, Posner). This is rejected and lamented, and the president then proposes a more moderate liberal minority candidate (with a moderate streak in economics, if it's Clinton, or gun control, if it's Bernie) and the senate begrudgingly passes. This would be maybe in 2018 or even 2019.

- A republican wins the presidency. The Republican puts forth one or two candidates that are swiftly rejected. The division increases the importance of the mid-term elections, which is generally good for democrats. By the 2019 congressional inaugurations, the block of senators who would prevent the nomination of anyone who would overturn Obamacare or Roe v Wade (basically, democrats and moderate conservative female senators) is a solid majority, maybe 56 or so, well over the needed 40. The republican president faces the choice of whether to a) propose a moderate candidate, with conservative economic and liberal personal rights histories (which would harm his votes from the right) or b) refuse to appoint anyone at all (which would harm his votes from moderates/independents).

- either of the above begins to occur, but a second vacancy arises through retirement or death. The establishment democrats and republicans create a block of votes big enough to allow the simultaneous, package-deal nomination of a moderate liberal and moderate conservative candidate.

[Minimalist]

No loss to humanity.  Obama should appoint an impeccably credentialed constitutional scholar so that when the republicunts go crazy denouncing him or her they look like the obstructionist scumbags they are.

[vorlon13]

Why stop now ?

Especially if it looks like their side has a shot at making the appointment instead?



Why would they ever let Obama pick anybody ? If the situation was reversed, the dems would do EXACTLY the same thing. That is partisan politics. No one thinks about what's best for the country.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Here's an interesting article about what happens with a prolonged vacancy and why, theoretically, it would favor liberals to have one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...story.html

Essentially, if there's a 4-4 tie, the opinion of the circuit court is affirmed without setting a national precedent. Eight of the twelve circuits are liberal currently, covering both coasts of the U.S. (What you think of as the Midwest and south central is the four conservative circuits).

There will be fewer 4-4 ties with Scalia's seat becoming vacant than there would have been with Kennedy's or, of course, Ginsberg's. But there will still be some (possibly on this term's affirmative action case)

[Minimalist]

Why stop now ?

Especially if it looks like their side has a shot at making the appointment instead?



Why would they ever let Obama pick anybody ?  If the situation was reversed, the dems would do EXACTLY the same thing.  That is partisan politics.  No one thinks about what's best for the country.

They cannot stop him from picking.  The vacancy exists now.  They can obstruct the confirmation - which is all they ever do - but it will simply be a cause celebre for the democrats who will point out that a person with impeccable credentials is being denied purely for politics and that what the republicunts want is yet another nazi on the court.  It's a win-win for the dems.

[AFTT47]

Why stop now ?

Especially if it looks like their side has a shot at making the appointment instead?



Why would they ever let Obama pick anybody ?  If the situation was reversed, the dems would do EXACTLY the same thing.  That is partisan politics.  No one thinks about what's best for the country.

They cannot stop him from picking.  The vacancy exists now.  They can obstruct the confirmation - which is all they ever do - but it will simply be a cause celebre for the democrats who will point out that a person with impeccable credentials is being denied purely for politics and that what the republicunts want is yet another nazi on the court.  It's a win-win for the dems.

If they take advantage of the situation. I've been very disappointed that Obama has not relentlessly attacked Republicans over their obstructionist policies over the last seven years. They've basically brought the legislative process to a standstill for no reason other than their prejudices. He should have been calling them out on it loudly and relentlessly. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the ruthlessness that politics sometimes demands.

[Chad32]

Glad he's out of the way. It's too bad we had to wait for him to die of old age before he was out of our hair.

[TheRealJoeFish]

A 2013 article about some of the leading candidates for a democratic Supreme Court nomination:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05...rinivasan/

[Minimalist]