Death Of A Justice
With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the November election may decide the fate of all three branches of the United States government. That's a pretty unique situation, and it may boost turnout on both sides of the aisle. In most presidential elections, there's a wonky argument to be made about Supreme Court picks, but it's not usually so front-and-center with most of the voting public. Hardcore partisans tend to care deeply about this kind of thing, but the average voter usually doesn't think about it all that much in the voting booth. This year, things will obviously be different.
If the next nine months go as expected, President Obama will nominate an eminently-qualified person to the highest bench, and the Senate will either ignore him or vote his nominee down. Republicans from Mitch McConnell on down wasted no time upon hearing of Scalia's demise to loudly proclaim that: (1) Obama shouldn't even nominate anyone, he should just hand off the nomination to the incoming president at the end of his term; and (2) any Obama nominee simply would not be confirmed, no matter his or her qualifications for the job.
This, while entirely expected, is amusing and ironic for a very basic reason. Scalia, of course, was all about the "original intent" of the United States Constitution. Republicans have all but sanctified the document -- and Scalia's "originalism" -- in their rhetoric. However, the Constitution actually has no passage in it which states that presidents only get three out of their four years to nominate judges. In fact, the language is pretty unequivocal: the president "shall nominate." Not "has the option to nominate" or "shall nominate, except when politically problematic," or any other such nonsense. Obama has not only the right to nominate whomever he wishes to replace Scalia, it is in fact his sworn duty to do so. Democrats will, no doubt, be reminding all those originalist Republicans about this language in the months to come. Any Republican suggesting that Obama should just refuse to make a nomination is actually arguing for Obama to ignore the Constitution -- something that, normally, makes them quite upset.
The other amusing and ironic detail was laid bare by Harry Reid, a while back. The filibuster is also not in the Constitution. It's just a Senate rule, and Senate rules can change at any time. But there's a very strong originalist argument that if the Founding Fathers had intended to require a supermajority for the Senate to act (whether on presidential nominations or on legislation itself), then they would have clearly included it in the Constitution. They didn't. Filibusters are not "unconstitutional" (the Constitution states that the chambers of Congress can decide upon their own rules), but the concept is definitely not part of the original document's intent. Reid incensed Republicans with the so-called "nuclear option," when he essentially tossed out the concept of the filibuster -- but only in specific cases. The filibuster still remains for all legislation. But presidential appointees now only have to clear the Senate with a majority vote. Cabinet members, ambassadors, and judges now get up-or-down votes, and a majority confirms them. However, what few noticed back when Reid pulled the "nuclear trigger" is that the rule change specifically omitted Supreme Court nominees. They still can be filibustered. And now that Mitch McConnell leads the Senate, that rule isn't going to change any time soon.
If Republicans do block any Obama nominee, the likely result is a very long period of time with a hobbled high court. There are nine months until the presidential election. There are eleven months until a new president will be sworn in. And even with a friendly Senate, Supreme Court nominations take a goodly amount of time. The Supreme Court's term runs from October through the end of June. If an Obama nomination is blocked, it means that we'll have only eight justices not only through the end of this judicial term, but also for almost the entirety of the next judicial term as well -- even assuming the Senate moves fairly quickly in early 2017.
Politically, Scalia's death is already sending shockwaves across the landscape. It's rare enough that a president gets to appoint a Supreme Court justice. So far, Obama has appointed two Supreme Court justices. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush all got two picks as well. Jimmy Carter, however, didn't get any -- because none of them retired or died in office during his term. What's even rarer than a president getting a nomination is for a president to get the chance to make an appointment which fundamentally changes the balance of power on the court. Obama, to date, has merely replaced two liberals. For quite some time now, the court has stayed on a knife-edge balance between conservatives and liberals. There were some "swing vote" justices who couldn't be counted on by either side, but the court throughout Obama's term has held a 4-1-4 balance -- four solid liberals, four solid conservatives, and one swing vote (Kennedy). The reason Republicans are so adamant that Obama won't get a Scalia replacement seated is, obviously, that by doing so he could shift the balance to 5-1-3. This would virtually guarantee a liberal 5-4 (or even 6-3) victory in any politically-contentious case. Two years ago, I idly speculated about how the next president could have the opportunity to shift this balance, which was based solely on the advanced age of a number of the justices. Now that Scalia has died while in office, this theoretical fight has become real.
Speculation about Obama's possible pick is already running rampant. This is entirely normal -- it's one of those inside-the-Beltway parlor games which pundits love to play. So far, such speculation seems to indicate three possibilities (with some overlap). Obama could nominate a flaming liberal, since he knows the Senate's never going to confirm anyone he chooses. Call it a sacrificial flaming-liberal lamb, perhaps (if mixed metaphors don't faze you, that is). Or Obama could nominate someone already overwhelmingly (and recently) confirmed by the Senate for another judicial post. Taking this route would show the blatant hypocrisy of Senate Republicans rejecting someone they previously voted to confirm (to a lower appointment). Thirdly, Obama could appoint a member of a minority to the highest court, forcing Republicans to vote against an African-American, an Asian-American, a woman, or whatever demographic mix the candidate may have. Obama could attempt putting a "first X on the court," no matter what "X" actually is -- and, by doing so, dare Republicans to vote against such a historic appointment during an election year. This could fire up the Democratic base in response. Obama may even make a geographically-astute pick by nominating someone from a key swing state.
Of course, none of these picks are going anywhere in the Senate. Obama could reanimate the corpse of Ronald Reagan and nominate him -- and the Senate would likely still vote him down, just on the principle of never letting Obama have a win. There's only one case I can think of where the Senate might be motivated to act, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Whomever Obama decides upon is, in all likelihood, not going to be confirmed. However, this tactic may backfire spectacularly, and guarantee that Democrats win back control of the chamber in November's elections. There are two reasons for this.
The first is geographical. Republicans are defending many Senate seats this election cycle in states that are traditionally Democratic. So many, in fact, that Senate control could hinge on these races alone. The imbalance exists because these senators were all swept into office in the 2010 election, where (as Obama himself put it) Democrats got "shellacked." That was then, but this is now -- and some of those states who voted for Obama but elected Republican senators have come to regret their choice. This year was already a tough year for Republicans because of this dynamic, but with the Supreme Court balance thrown into the mix it has become even tougher. So-called "moderate" Republicans representing blue states are going to look a whole lot less moderate by their knee-jerk obstructionism against any Obama nominee. And you can bet their Democratic challengers will be making lots of political hay about it out on the campaign trail.
Which brings me to the second reason Democrats might have enough of an edge to wrest control of the Senate back -- voter excitement. Democratic voters are not normally as aware of the Supreme Court being a factor in their presidential vote. Republicans are much more cognizant of this, due to them complaining so loudly for so many years about "judicial activism" (defined as: judges ruling in ways they disagree with). Righties have been whipped up about the judiciary for decades, in fact, so while they will also be aware of the prospect of the new president getting an immediate court pick, it shouldn't boost voter turnout as much among Republicans as among Democrats. To put this another way, many Republican voters are always aware of this, whereas Democrats don't usually think as much about it. Increased enthusiasm about a court pick therefore could boost Democratic turnout in a more significant way than it should among Republicans.
If, as expected, Obama makes a pick and the Senate refuses to confirm him or her, then the next president will have an open nomination to make on their first day in office. This is incredibly rare in American history, and will figure heavily in the presidential race. Which brings me to the most eyebrow-raising political suggestion I've yet heard. What, after all, could motivate Senate Republicans to approve an Obama appointment before the election? One thing, and one thing only: the fear that by denying such a nomination they will wind up with someone even worse (as they see it) being elevated to the Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have a few options as to how to play this on the campaign trail. They normally wouldn't be expected to reveal the name of their Supreme Court pick, should they win in November. But there's one very special case that could cause Senate Republicans to absolutely quake in their boots. Hillary and Bernie could even issue a joint statement, because it would equally benefit either one of them as the Democratic nominee. Clinton and Sanders could both state plainly that, should the Senate refuse to approve Obama's nominee in a timely manner, they will -- on their first day in office -- nominate Barack Hussein Obama to the Supreme Court, to take Scalia's place.
That's the only thing I could see, at this point, which could motivate Senate Republicans to bite the bullet and approve an Obama nomination. Especially if it starts looking like Democrats are going to win big in November. Or, perhaps, after Democrats win big in November. If Obama names someone fairly moderate to the court (someone Republicans have previously voted to confirm, in other words), Republicans might decide that confirming him or her would be better than giving President Bernie Sanders or President Hillary Clinton the chance to put Obama himself on the Supreme Court. This might only happen if Democrats win big in their Senate races, during the lame-duck period after the election but before the new Senate is sworn in. This really seems like the only chance -- slim though it might be -- that Obama could actually get his nominee confirmed this year.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
If the next nine months go as expected, President Obama will nominate an eminently-qualified person to the highest bench,
If the next nine months go as expected, President Obama will nominate a partisan hack that will push his radical agenda to the highest bench,
There.. Fixed it for you. :D
Clinton and Sanders could both state plainly that, should the Senate refuse to approve Obama's nominee in a timely manner, they will -- on their first day in office -- nominate Barack Hussein Obama to the Supreme Court, to take Scalia's place.
Holy crap, that's the stuff of nightmares!!
I doubt Obama would accept.. I can't see him playing second fiddle to ANYONE..
The ONLY way that Obama would accept a posting to the SCOTUS would be as Chief Justice...
One thing I read that was an interesting idea...
The GOP could let Obama make a recess appointment.. That would nullify any Democrat hysteria and allow the GOP Congress and GOP POTUS to have their say in a couple years...
Michale
If the next nine months go as expected, President Obama will nominate an eminently-qualified person to the highest bench,
If the next nine months go as expected, President Obama will nominate a partisan hack that will push his radical agenda to the highest bench,
There.. Fixed it for you. :D
Michale
Woops.. Sorry...
Thought my comment had been caught by the NNL filter...
My bust...
Michale
Now that the presidential election is all about the Supremes, it seems like an especially bad time for JEB to bring Chimpy out of paint-by-number exile. Even if you're in deep Republican denial about The Bush Depression and borrowing trillions of dollar from China to spend on pointless wars, how can you forget King George W's choice of Harriet Miers for SCOTUS? If JEB were president, he might nominate his idiot brother.
With all the Left Wingery hysteria over the idea that there will be a vacancy for so long in the court, there is one fact that is forgotten..
Nothing mandates that there be 9 Justices....
Michale
Now that the presidential election is all about the Supremes, it seems like an especially bad time for JEB to bring Chimpy out of paint-by-number exile.
So, I can go ahead and call our current POTUS "chimpy" and no one will say anything, right?? :D
Double standards much???
Michale
Michale,
If the next nine months go as expected, President Obama will nominate a partisan hack that will push his radical agenda to the highest bench,
Is this how you would describe Obama's first two picks to the SCOTUS?
Is this how you would describe Obama's first two picks to the SCOTUS?
Nope, but they weren't nominees that put the court squarely in the Democrat Party camp...
This pick does that, so all bets are off...
Michale
The Statesman and other sources report that Scalia attended the hunting party as a guest of and at the expense of resort owner Poindexter. All Supreme Court Justices routinely accept gifts and services of Substantial value. This is scandalous. Hobnobbing is probably unavoidable, but at least make them pick up the tab....and tip the staff.
You're going to lose that bet, Michale.
I would LOVE to play poker with you, sometime. :)
You're going to lose that bet, Michale.
There's talk of Obama nominating Loretta Lynch...
I would win the bet on THAT nomination. :D
I would LOVE to play poker with you, sometime. :)
Yea, I am crappy at poker! :D
Michale
She has already been confirmed for the position of Attorney General.
Why wouldn't the Senate confirm her for Supreme Court justice?
Okay, silly question.
The point is that Obama is unlikely to appoint his Attorney General.
Why don't you just have a little patience, Michale, and wait to see who Obama does nominate and then we can have an intelligent discussion about the confirmation of that nominee ...
She has already been confirmed for the position of Attorney General.
Why wouldn't the Senate confirm her for Supreme Court justice?
Because there is a WHOLE lot more power inherent in a SCOTUS Justice...
She wasn't even good for AG.. She is DEFINITELY not good for a Justice...
The point is that Obama is unlikely to appoint his Attorney General.
Actually from what I read, she is close to the top of Obama's short list.. And the Left Wingery would love to see her nominated, solely and completely for partisan reasons..
STICK IT TO THE GOP, country be damned!!!
That's the Left Wingery motto...
Why don't you just have a little patience, Michale, and wait to see who Obama does nominate and then we can have an intelligent discussion about the confirmation of that nominee ...
Works for me.. :D Mebbe :D
Michale
More appropriate for this commentary...
Let's ask REAL cops what they think of a lack of autopsy in Scalia's death..
“He’s not at home. There are no witnesses to his death, and there was no reported explanation for why a pillow is over his head. So I think under the circumstances it’s not unreasonable to request an autopsy. Despite the fact that he has pre-existing ailments and the fact that he’s almost 80 years old, you want to be sure that it’s not something other than natural causes.”
-Retired NYPD Detective
“I took a look at the report and I almost fell out of my chair. Every death investigation you are handling, you consider it a homicide until the investigation proves otherwise. How do you know that person wasn’t smothered? How do you know it’s not a homicide until you conduct an investigation? You have to do your job. Once you go through that process, you can conclude that this is a naturally occurring death.”
-Retired Homicide Instructor
http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/detectives-question-lack-of-autopsy-in-scalia-death/
Michale
Nope, but they weren't nominees that put the court squarely in the Democrat Party camp...
it's the responsibility of the president and the senate to fill supreme court vacancies with qualified legal minds, not predetermined ideologies. that's why samuel alito is a justice and harriet miers isn't. the constitution says the president shall nominate and the senate shall advise and consent. not just if they feel like it, not just if they like the person's ideology, not just for the first three years of a president's term. politically, they can all exercise their powers however they wish. but constitutionally, there's no excuse for obama not nominating someone, or for the senate not voting on that nominee as they would at any other time, regardless of the presidential election or the balance of the court.
JL
Michale wrote:
"The GOP could let Obama make a recess appointment.. That would nullify any Democrat hysteria and allow the GOP Congress and GOP POTUS to have their say in a couple years..."
Except there is another alternative that I have read about elsewhere. Let's assume the Senate flips back to Democratic control but the a Republican is elected President. The new Senate is sworn in January 3rd, but the new President is not sworn in until January 20th. That leaves a 17 day gap where Obama could submit a nomination and get them confirmed by a Democratic Senate that drops the filibuster rule and does it by a simple majority vote. It would freeze Republicans out and drive them crazy, but there would be technically nothing either illegal or unconstitutional about it, other than leaving a lot of bad blood politically.
Of course, by waiting, Republicans are already taking a big roll of the dice gamble. Would they rather confirm an Obama nomination under Republican Senate control, a "sure thing," or face the possible (notice I did not say probable Michale, heh) possibility of a Clinton or Sanders appointment under Senate Democratic control? Given the electoral math, I think a Republican President AND a Senate that remains under Republican control, is a lot of improbable wishful thinking on their part.
Michale wrote:
"So, I can go ahead and call our current POTUS "chimpy" and no one will say anything, right?? :D
Double standards much???"
Not really. But then I suspect, if you are as really as smart as you seem to be, you already knew the answer to that. Surely you have not lived in a bubble all your life and not be aware of the implications, both historical and cultural? As a middle aged white man myself, there is just such a big connotation related to race and denigration that is connected with using a term like that when it is used to refer to someone who is African American as opposed to using that term in conjunction with someone who is white, that is simply not there, not the same. In terms of the connotations I mean. Let's really not play both dumb and stupid here.
@JM [17],
there's a reason jeb and kasich both supported a "consensus" scotus pick. unlike cruz, trump or rubio, they've been state level executives and appreciate the value of a sure thing. if the senate turns dem and sanders becomes president, any obama pick will look like scalia's second coming by comparison.
JL
Also, did anyone notice that Trump is back to making noises again about and Independent run for President? Senate Republicans might want to keep that in mind in their calculus on a Supreme Court nomination. Trump as an independent would be more likely to split Republican votes and insure a Democratic win.
nypoet22 wrote:
"any obama pick will look like scalia's second coming by comparison."
I totally agree with you there JL. A Sanders or Clinton pick would really make Republican heads explode with a lot of regret that they took such a gamble and lost it all. Can you just imagine the recriminations and finger pointing, moaning and wailing that would go on then!!! The country turned sharply left and is going to hell and lost for a generation. Oh the horrors!!!
the constitution says the president shall nominate and the senate shall advise and consent.
And the Senate WILL advise and consent..
When it is politically advantageous for the Party to do so..
Turn it around and tell me that the Democrats wouldn't be doing the exact same thing...
I double dog dare ya... :D
Michale
Not really. But then I suspect, if you are as really as smart as you seem to be, you already knew the answer to that. Surely you have not lived in a bubble all your life and not be aware of the implications, both historical and cultural? As a middle aged white man myself, there is just such a big connotation related to race and denigration that is connected with using a term like that when it is used to refer to someone who is African American as opposed to using that term in conjunction with someone who is white, that is simply not there, not the same. In terms of the connotations I mean. Let's really not play both dumb and stupid here.
Regardless of the perception, it's still a double standard...
This is undeniable..
Put another way... For a person who is completely and utterly color-blind (such as myself) there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between calling one POTUS "chimpy" and calling another POTUS "chimpy"...
Having said that, I readily acknowledge that, for those who put race and racial issues at the top or near the top of their ideology, I can see where one would be abhorrent and the other would be no big deal...
Michale
Michale
Except there is another alternative that I have read about elsewhere. Let's assume the Senate flips back to Democratic control but the a Republican is elected President. The new Senate is sworn in January 3rd, but the new President is not sworn in until January 20th. That leaves a 17 day gap where Obama could submit a nomination and get them confirmed by a Democratic Senate that drops the filibuster rule and does it by a simple majority vote. It would freeze Republicans out and drive them crazy, but there would be technically nothing either illegal or unconstitutional about it, other than leaving a lot of bad blood politically.
If you honestly believe that ANY political group, let alone the Democrat Party, could confirm a nominee in 17 days...
Well, I have a buttload of swampland in FL, I wanna sell you!! :D
heh
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Having said that, I readily acknowledge that, for those who put race and racial issues at the top or near the top of their ideology, I can see where one would be abhorrent and the other would be no big deal..."
Wow Michale, that was so REASONABLE of you! APPLAUSE!!! HEH
Michale wrote:
"If you honestly believe that ANY political group, let alone the Democrat Party, could confirm a nominee in 17 days...
Well, I have a buttload of swampland in FL, I wanna sell you!! :D"
I only said it was possible, not probable. And no thanks, I already used to have some in my front yard, anytime it rained. :-)
Wow Michale, that was so REASONABLE of you! APPLAUSE!!! HEH
"Yer... mocking me, aren't you?"
-Buzz Lightyear, TOY STORY
:D heh
Michale
Hay, if Obama really wants to frak with the GOP...
Have him nominate Trump to the SCOTUS!! :D
Michale
Also, did anyone notice that Trump is back to making noises again about and Independent run for President? Senate Republicans might want to keep that in mind in their calculus on a Supreme Court nomination. Trump as an independent would be more likely to split Republican votes and insure a Democratic win.
I would say that a Bloomberg independent run is a LOT more likely than a Trump independent run..
And a Bloomberg independent run would decimate the Democrat Party candidate...
Michale
he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States,
~US Constitution, article II, section 2
ain't no "if it's politically convenient" in there. and to answer your question, no, the dems wouldn't have the balls to hold up a scotus nomination an entire year. i'm sure they'd want to, and lefty groups would probably pressure them to, but no way would they go through with it. over the past 20-30 years, repubs have been much more willing than dems to engage in blanket refusals to confirm nominees.
for the record, the "nuclear option" was first put on the table by trent lott to stop a filibuster of a small percentage of bush nominees. dems backed down and confirmed all but two. reid ultimately used the nuclear option because under similar circumstances republicans refused to budge at all, holding up more nominees than all 43 other presidents' nominees COMBINED.
see politifact for more complete details:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/nov/21/fact-checking-filibuster/
JL
Michale [1] -
If the next nine months go as expected, President Obama will nominate a partisan hack that will push his radical agenda to the highest bench,
That would be perfect, because he'd be replacing partisan hack Scalia.
Heh. Works both ways, don't it?
[5] -
Good point about the membership of SCOTUS. Although, these days, it pretty much has to be an odd number, to avoid ties. Say the next president is a Dem, and another justice dies in office. If the Senate refused both nominations, we'd be left with a 7-member court -- and, as you point out, there's nothing barring that in the Constitution.
[6] -
I always preferred "Alfred E. Newman" to describe Dubya. Seemed to fit perfectly. "What? Me worry?"
[14] -
Don't believe any speculation about O's short list, because that's all it is right now -- guesswork. I mean, I can play too: I'd see Eric Holder getting the nod before Lynch. Based on nothing but moonbeams...
nypoet22 [16] -
Good point about Alito and Meirs.
John M [17] -
I read an article on the 17-day window too. It was interesting!
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/how-obama-could-win-supreme-court-battle-even-if-republicans-n519121
Michale [28] -
OK, I think my own head exploded a little bit, there. Justice Trump? Hoo boy....
-CW
CW,
Since yer around and apropos of absolutely nothing..
A new mini-series based on Stephen King's novel 11.22.63 just premiered..
The movie was a complete mind-frak... Anxious to see how the series is.. :D
Michale
I'll pipe in with a few comments.
First, I see almost no way that the GOP takes the WH and the Dems take the Senate. That's a really difficult scenario to game out with any reality-based thinking.
I also think it's highly unlikely (but more possible) for the GOP to keep the Senate and the Dems take the WH.
In the end, I'm going with WH and Senate go to the same party. Like as not, I see that being the Dems.
Which brings a first point:
GOP is making a mistake. If Dems take WH and Senate and GOP has not even given a vote to a nominee, then Schumer resets the rules to give SC nominees an up-or-down vote. Obama then nominates someone left of Sotomayer and the nominee passes quickly (just to troll the GOP for not even offering hearings/votes).
Worse for the GOP is that in such a case Clinton/Sanders won't have to negotiate for what would probably be two more nominees, one of whom will likely be a conservative.
They would then be looking at 6-3 liberal court on both social and business issues.
Allowing a moderate Obama nominee through (think Sri) probably ensures that their business interests are satisfied (the definition of a moderate SC justice, I think). It also ensures that Schumer doesn't go through with getting rid of the filibuster.
@speak [33],
if i had to place a bet, i'd say the dems keep the white house and the gop loses a few seats but still keeps an advantage in the senate.
JL
BTW: Technically speaking, the filibuster doesn't exist on Jan 3. The Senate does not have rules, as defined by the Constitution, until it votes on them.
Traditionally, this has meant they carry over the rules from the previous Senate and vote yea. It isn't a requirement so Schumer getting rid of the filibuster wouldn't even be "nuclear."
For CW [31]:
Thank you. No one had thrown out there what I thought was an excellent idea.
If Obama really wanted to troll the GOP, he nominates Lynch, who immediately resigns as AG. He nominates a well-qualified replacement. The Dems push the quorum call thing, forcing a recess and Obama names Holder (the second most despised black man in DC by the GOP) as a recess appointee until the Senate consents to a nominee.
Last comment for now:
I agree with CW that the Dems only gain votes by the Senate refusal. In the end, GOP voters come out for an election unless their own politicians do something exceptionally stupid (e.g. Boehner refusing to bring a farm bill up for a vote in Sept 2012). On the other hand, Dem voters are more likely to not vote than GOP voters.
But, GOP needs to number crunch: How many voters do they lose by allowing an Obama nominee through compared to the number Dems gain? I have no idea. Getting into the weeds more, is there an uneven distribution? Will this play out in swing states more? The GOP should really get some data people on this, for real.
In the end, I'm going with WH and Senate go to the same party. Like as not, I see that being the Dems.
You are, of course, assuming that Hillary is the Dem nominee..
Given recent history, plus the excessive baggage, that idea is fast approaching wishful thinking...
Michale
Fair enough Poet. We'll see how it plays out.
Michale:
I can only game out a few ways for Trump or Cruz to win.
1. Sanders is the nominee and there is a major incident near the election (even then, I'm not certain Sanders loses).
2. Early Oct, Sanders or Clinton has an incident (cardiac, stroke, that sort of thing, they aren't young).
Other than that, I can't see Trump or Cruz taking the WH.
Rereading, two clarifications:
[34]: One of the justices Sanders or Clinton would be replacing would be a conservative not their nominees.
[37]: Holder as placeholder SC justice, not AG.
Michale:
Turn it around and tell me that the Democrats wouldn't be doing the exact same thing...
I double dog dare ya...
Find a time in history when the Democrats have been in this same position and have done the exact same thing as the Republicans are doing now... you might start with Reagan's nominee, Anthony Kennedy, in the lame duck period of his presidency when Democrats had the Senate majority...
John From Censornati [4]
I have to agree with Michale -- referring to George W as "chimpy" is as unacceptable as referring to an unattractive woman as a "dog". It's an intentional slur and it's low. We should be above that.
John M [18]
While applying the same slur to Obama would escalate it to a racial slur, I still think that using it to imply stupidity is unacceptable too. It's not equivalent but it's still employing a double standard and we really have no excuse for doing that.
Michale [23]
I can see where one would be abhorrent and the other would be no big deal...
I still think it's a big deal anyway and such a slur is a low blow when applied to any human being. I prefer CW's suggestion. :)
Michale [24]
If you honestly believe that ANY political group, let alone the Democrat Party, could confirm a nominee in 17 days...
It's been done in the past... and if you narrow it down further to how many times it's been done in a president's final year then it's TEN times.
The shortest time between a President's nomination and Senate confirmation was 0 days! It was during President's Lincoln's time, in the final year of his first and only full term. He nominated some guy called Salmon Chase to the Supreme Court and he was confirmed by the Senate the same day.
Of the other nine:
1 day --- 2 nominees
2 days -- 1 nominee
6 days -- 1 nominee
7 days -- 1 nominee
8 days -- 1 nominee
9 days -- 1 nominee
10 days - 1 nominee
12 days - 1 nominee
Michale [29]
I would say that a Bloomberg independent run is a LOT more likely than a Trump independent run..
Bloomberg has said he'll only run if Sanders wins the Dem nomination. I have no idea how likely or unlikely that is -- I don't think anyone knows at this point in time.
However, I do know Bloomberg is not all that popular outside of NYC and not even popular in NYC - something to do with carbonated drinks? Anyway, his chances of getting any traction with Dem voters in such a short time is zero if you listen to Dem chatter. They aren't the slightest bit interested in the guy.
However, if Trump were to make an independent run, it would be a very different story. He's massed an incredible following -- up to 42% in the latest Republican polls. He would seriously injure any GOP rival.
Speak2 [37]
The Dems push the quorum call thing, forcing a recess
Would you elaborate please? I don't understand what this means or how it would work.
Speak2 [38]
Will this play out in swing states more? The GOP should really get some data people on this, for real.
Too late for that now. They've made their stand publicly and emphatically. There's no going back on that.
The nominee I'd like to see President Obama choose is Tino Cuéllar. You can read about him in this Daily Beast article by Michael Tomasky:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/the-gop-s-worst-nightmare-scotus-nominee.html
Mopshell,
"We should be above that."
Are we all Borg now?
"using it to imply stupidity is unacceptable"
Good thing that's not the implication then, huh? Chimps are smarter than Chimpy.
you might start with Reagan's nominee, Anthony Kennedy,
You mean Reagan's nominee Robert Bork? :D
Michale
It's been done in the past... and if you narrow it down further to how many times it's been done in a president's final year then it's TEN times.
Yea, how far in history did you have to go back??
Do you HONESTLY believe that a nominee can be nominated, vetted, hearing'ed and then approved in 17 days with THIS Congress??
Looks like there is a run on Florida swampland!! :D
Michale
I have to agree with Michale -- referring to George W as "chimpy" is as unacceptable as referring to an unattractive woman as a "dog". It's an intentional slur and it's low. We should be above that.
Thank you...
To be fair to JFC, I myself have wallowed in the gutter in that respect..
The difference is that I A> acknowledge that it's wrong and 2> actually feel bad about it...
Michale
Are we all Borg now?
"Borg? Sounds Swedish"
-Lily, STAR TREK 8, First Contact
:D
Michale
However, I do know Bloomberg is not all that popular outside of NYC and not even popular in NYC - something to do with carbonated drinks?
Yea, Bloomberg is the king of the Nanny State phenomenon...
Something that the vast majority of Democrats are totally on board with...
Bloomberg is the Democrat Party's Ross Perot... You can bet on that...
Michale
Yea, Bloomberg is the king of the Nanny State phenomenon...
Something that the vast majority of Democrats are totally on board with...
Between Bloomberg's Nanny State proclivities and his hysterical anti-gun proclivities there is no way that Bloomberg won't decimate the Sander's campaign...
Especially since Sander's has such an uphill battle to begin with...
If Bloomberg enters (enter's :D heh) the race the Democrat Party can kiss the White House good bye...
About the only thing that would make it possible for the Democrats to keep the White House is if Trump entered the race as an independent as well.. :D
If THAT happens, if we have Sanders for the Dems, Cruz for the Reps and Bloomberg and Trump as Independents??
WOW.... All bets are off...
Michale
Are we all Borg now?
@jfc,
no, we're an on-line community that values reality-based political commentary - it's in the blog's title. calling people offensive names does nothing to advance the discussion, and tends to discredit the argument of the individual doing so (apparently unless that individual is named donald trump, but i digress). bush's presidency happens to be ranked lower by historians than any president since warren g. harding, but referring to him as a chimpanzee is a childish way of addressing that issue.
JL
It goes without saying, but I am going to say it anyways..
Well said, Joshua...
Michale
@michale,
thanks, wish it weren't necessary. good point about bork, whose intended seat justice kennedy filled. Bork did get an up-down vote though. also, Bork's rejection was at least somewhat bipartisan, and based on his own judicial record. those lobbying against him were accused of misrepresenting his record, but it was still the basis of his rejection.
JL
@nypoet22 [#57]
Hear, hear.
calling people offensive names does nothing to advance the discussion,
"Reverting to name-calling suggests you are defensive and, therefore, find my opinion valid."
-Spock, STAR TREK 90210-2, Into Darkness
:D
Michale
And, what is it that you know about enhanced discussion techniques, Michale?? :)
Aside from the notion that silence means that complete agreement may be assumed, of course. :)
Michale [51]
You mean Reagan's nominee Robert Bork?
Since the confirmation process that rejected Bork was not in Reagan's final year, then obviously no, I was not referring to him. I was very definitely referring Reagan's final SCOTUS nominee, Anthony Kennedy as his confirmation vote came in the final year of Reagan's second term.
Obviously you don't want to go there because it's not an argument you can win. Therefore you are trying to move the goal posts by shifting attention to halfway though Reagan's final term instead of the final year. If you ever actually answer a question put to you, without employing distraction tactics, it may be the first time!
John From Censornati [50]
Are we all Borg now?
You're dragging us all down to that level. Thanks for nothing.
Michale [53]
The difference is that 1> acknowledge that it's wrong and 2> actually feel bad about it...
That's a MASSIVE difference and one I appreciate.
Michale [52]
Do you HONESTLY believe that a nominee can be nominated, vetted, hearing'ed and then approved in 17 days with THIS Congress??
No. :-)) But then that wasn't the question. The question was: could it be done with the NEXT Senate to be elected in the general election, in the 17 days between Jan 3, 2017 and Jan 20, 2017.
I agree with CW's Tuesday post that, in certain circumstances it would be possible though improbable. I was simply showing that it has been done before, especially in cases where the nominee has already been vetted recently to the majority party's satisfaction.
And yes, you're quite right that the examples I gave do go back in history. But I should also point out that the Constitution, with respect to the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices, has not changed since it was implemented and it's the only document of reference covering the appointment of Supreme Court justices.
Even so, I do want to emphasize that, while it is possible as CW points out, it is highly improbable.
nypoet22 [57]
Very well said, JL. Thank you.
"You're dragging us all down to that level."
That's both pompous and pathetic. You should take responsibility for your level. You don't ever have to say anything at all, much less say something that is beneath you because I said something about somebody. Apparently, you are the Borg.
"we're an on-line community that values reality-based political commentary"
Actually, you helpless discussion advancers are "dragged down" by discussions of bizarre unreality-based Republican lies and conspiracy theories on a regular basis.
"That's a MASSIVE difference and one I appreciate."
Oh, I see. It's insincerity that you value. OK then. It was wrong for me to call him Chimpy. I'll feel terrible about calling him Chimpy right up until I call him Chimpy the next time.
Oh, I see. It's insincerity that you value.
"Foul mouthed? Fuck you."
-Eddie Murphy, BEVERLY HILLS COP
:D heh
Michale
It occurred to me that my humor might be a little obscure and high-brow for some to comprehend..
So, let me say sincerely for the record, that if my apropos movie quote offended you in the slightest, you have my sincerest and most heartfelt apologies.. :D
Michale
JFC,
I know that Mopshell will catch on eventually. Remember, it took me a long while to get with the program. That's just because you're so good at it!
I sure hope I never came across as quite that pompous or pathetic, though. :)
we are not the bork. we haven't found out who the bork is yet. perhaps we'll find out when obama nominates him or her.
"Ehe ehe ehe ehe..."
Woody, TOY STORY II
:D
Michale
Let's ask Biden! He'll know. Actually, let's not go there and say we did.
LizM,
"I know that Mopshell will catch on eventually."
Maybe so. Who knows? It's OK if she doesn't. I'm not angry at the Borg anyway. I just won't be assimilated.
"Remember, it took me a long while to get with the program."
In fact, I remember the comment that flipped your perspective.
"I sure hope I never came across as quite that pompous or pathetic"
The only thing I even remember was that I made a wise crack about my #8 FTPs and you said you were not in the mood for joking or something like that.
I don't get angry about the things people say on the internets. There is always somebody saying something that I don't like. Life's too short.
"Let's ask Biden!"
Who?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-t2TwLRdgk
Who would definitely know! :)
Seriously, I know that people fall into one of two major food groups ... those who don't know who Biden is and those who think they know everything there is to know about who Biden is but they have it all wrong.
Which is why I usually don't want to go anywhere near there. Heh.
Oh, wait just one second!
The only thing I even remember was that I made a wise crack about my #8 FTPs and you said you were not in the mood for joking or something like that.
I was not in the mood for joking, or something like that!!! Really? I don't believe it!
Michale [32] -
Saw an ad for the Stephen King series. Looked interesting, but I was distracted by all the cool 1950s cars (I'm easily distracted by fine looking Detroit steel, I must admit...).
Heh.
-CW
Michale [54] -
To quote "The Swedish Chef" (from the Muppets):
Um borg borg oom borg borg...
Heh. Couldn't resist...
-CW
Michale [56] -
Sanders / Cruz / Trump / Bloomberg?
Wow. My head just exploded, a little bit, there...
Heh.
nypoet22 [57] -
Well, calling people animal names as a form of slur goes back a LONG ways -- I mean, it's built into our languages, in a big way.
Think of all the insulting animal names people call other people:
dog, pig, swine, rat, mouse, snake (in the grass or elsewhere), goat (scape, too), toad, scorpion, bitch, fox (the sly one, not the hot-looking one, which isn't really a slur), chicken, turkey, ape, monkey, chimpanzee, gorilla, horse (face, etc), ant, bug, flea, ass (jack and horse's, too), cur, vulture... the list goes on and on.
Personally, I always thought Bush totally looked like Mad Magazine's mascot. Plus, the slogan fit too, too well.
But cutting off all animalistic description is going to be tougher than everyone might think... like I say, it's pretty ingrained in the language.
My favorite is German, and makes no sense whatsoever: schweinhund. My grandfather taught it to me. Means "pig-dog." That's about as low as you can get, and also is reminiscent of South Parks' Al Gore episode where he was hunting the "man/bear/pig."
Did I have a point with all this? You know, I've lost track myself. Hey, it's late on a Friday, I'm a little loopy...
nypoet [59] -
Maybe the Swedish Chef was saying "Um Bork Bork Bork"? Heh.
Bork was immortalized in Washingtonese, though, as a verb: "to get Borked." That's a pretty good consolation prize.
LizM [79] -
"There are two types of people in the world. Those who divide everyone into two groups of people, and those who do not."
Heh. Forget where that's from, but it certainly sounds like a Robin Williams line...
-CW
"I always thought Bush totally looked like Mad Magazine's mascot."
I little bit, but he definitely looks like a simian.
Cockroach, lizard, leach, sheep, chameleon, worm, shark, peacock, lemming, yeti, maggot, jellyfish . . .