Scalia overruled for the last time

[Wyrd of Gawd]

There's approximately zero chance of the Democrats taking the Senate this year anyhow.

The republicunts are defending 24 seats in 2016...the dems only 10.  Add in that democrats tend to vote in presidential elections and it is not as far-fetched as the hopes of recapturing the House.  You can't gerrymander an entire state.

Most people actually like a divided government because that way nothing really gets done too much one way or the other.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But you can bet your ass that an American Christian who lived 47 years in India since he was two years old would never, ever, get on the India Supreme Court under any circumstances.   http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/judges.htm

Are you arguing that we should take India as our example?

[Jackalope]

There's approximately zero chance of the Democrats taking the Senate this year anyhow.

The republicunts are defending 24 seats in 2016...the dems only 10.  Add in that democrats tend to vote in presidential elections and it is not as far-fetched as the hopes of recapturing the House.  You can't gerrymander an entire state.

Ah. I was not aware so many (R} seats were in question.

[Clueless Morgan]

Here's a power play scenario by which Obama could force his pick through before he leaves office if a Republican wins the Whitehouse. It would require that the Democrats retake the Senate. It would be very ironic if Republican senators get ousted because of their obstructionism over Obama's pick and those ousters allow the President to pick Scalia's replacement anyway.

That would be an amazing feat of shooting oneself in the foot if this happened

There's approximately zero chance of the Democrats taking the Senate this year anyhow.

The republicunts are defending 24 seats in 2016...the dems only 10.  Add in that democrats tend to vote in presidential elections and it is not as far-fetched as the hopes of recapturing the House.  You can't gerrymander an entire state.

Yet.

Most people actually like a divided government because that way nothing really gets done too much one way or the other.

A divided government only works when those elected are willing to compromise and work across the aisle. With two parties who are becoming increasingly radicalized (if I may be so bold), a divided government becomes less and less effective as each party tries to out do the other party's obstructionism.

A divided government is good in principle, but in practice it can be almost completely ineffectual because no one is willing to work with the other side.

[Mister Agenda]

The Republicans are taking a risk if they pass up Sri Srinivasan. After this election the Senate could go blue and Sanders could be president. If that happens, they'll wish they had affirmed the moderate they were offered when they had the chance.

[Cecelia]

If Obama was going to play hardball he would have already announced his choice.  It looks like he's going to wimp out.

The Senate is in recess this week.  He won't name a choice until they return.

[Minimalist]

Obama is president for 11 more months...almost one-quarter of his entire term.  He has time much to the chagrin of the republicunts.

[vorlon13]

Heard this on POTUS today:

Obama recess appointments himself onto the Supreme Court, Biden becomes president and runs as an incumbent in the election and wins.

[Minimalist]

Minimalist Wrote:

There's approximately zero chance of the Democrats taking the Senate this year anyhow.

The republicunts are defending 24 seats in 2016...the dems only 10.  Add in that democrats tend to vote in presidential elections and it is not as far-fetched as the hopes of recapturing the House.  You can't gerrymander an entire state.
Yet.

That's what voter suppression laws are for.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/john-oliv...-for-them/

[TheRealJoeFish]

The Republicans are taking a risk if they pass up Sri Srinivasan. After this election the Senate could go blue and Sanders could be president. If that happens, they'll wish they had affirmed the moderate they were offered when they had the chance.

I hope he nominates Sri or Watford, inasmuch as I believe there is not even a plausible argument for anything but bipartisan approval.  Tom Goldstein from SCOTUSBlog (one of the nation's top legal commentators), however, anticipates that Loretta Lynch will be nominated.  I think this would at least let the Republican block fall back on "well, she served under Obama, politically", which is not a *reasonable* argument but is one that the base will accept. 

The best choice may be Kamala Harris but she could very well be our President in 2025 or 2029 and all indications are that she has no desire to join the SCOTUS.

Similarly, if Cory Booker isn't President some day, he could very well be on the Supreme Court.  But now's too early.