Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Sri is a moderate and Obama nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. He was confirmed with a vote of 97-0, including votes by Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. If Obama nominates him the Republicans are going to be in a really tough spot.
Great post. Hopefully Obama nominates Sri and the Republicans can't find any dirt on him. In that case I think the logical thing to do is confirm him rather than risk alienating to voters and, more importantly, risk that someone far more liberal comes in should the Dems win the election. And let's remember - the Dems are still prohibitive favorites right now to win.My prediction is that Obama ####s this up and nominates someone more liberal, and we end up going 15 months without a 9th Justice on the Court. Keep in mind the last time this somewhat similar type of thing happened, in 1968, LBJ overplayed his hand going with his cronies and the whole thing backfired on him.
Just when Kasich starts to gain some traction as the *sane* Republican...he goes and steps into the INsane again. Disappointed...
He also worked in the office of the Solicitor General during George W. Bush's administration.
I don't believe he will nominate Sri, too many questions about his positions. I still see one of his African-American appointees to the DC circuit as the most likely nominee. Obama is looking at legacy right now, and the best way to insure his legacy with his buddies is to nominate liberal African-American. He is not going to risk a moderate who could end up more on the conservative side.
I don't think the Senate is going to confirm anyone; so, I don't think there is much to risk. It depends which way Obama wants to go. Sri would show the Senate as being unreasonable and rejecting a fairly moderate candidate. SCOTUSblog wrote that Loretta Lynch is the likely candidate because rejecting her would rile the base up the most. I could see the argument for either.
Yeah, this is sort of where I'm at. You're going to do what you can to delay/reject, I get it. But what is the upside for announcing you're going to delay/reject before even knowing who the nominee is? You're pretty much admitting that you're an obstructionist attempting to thwart constitutional process.
Not only did Ted vote for him, he apparently was very positive towards Sri's nomination. I think they worked together at some point, on the Fourth Circuit as clerks maybe?
That's exactly where my head is at. Scalia's death opened up an entire new front in the election battle. Prior to this the key issues were immigration and foreign policy. Now the domestic issues come in big time. Such an amazing 9 months ahead of us.
Maybe on the Democratic side.
Thought recess appointments had to be confirmed after Congress is back in session or else they're removed from office.
We do technically share an alma mater with former chief justices Berger now.
More or less the same guy in your mind are they?I think Otis or Eminence is a lawyer, one of those guys would do.
Based on what I'm hearing today there's not even going to be a process. The Senate will not respond to anyone Obama nominates. They won't hold any hearings at all. There won't be any votes. They'll simply refuse to consider it.
The maniacs on the other side would do the same thing. In fact they are worse and more militant about it when it comes to the Supreme Court. Many Democrats and scholars were already plotting numerous tactics when Bush was president to prevent such an appointment and this was only based on hypotheticals.
It is a stronger argument for the GOP - because the Dems won't actually lose something here, the court won't get more conservative even if the GOP win, but it will get more liberal if the Dems win.
This would be an abdication of their constitutional duty. They apparently have no shame.
You keep bringing this up as if it excuses things. Refusing to discharge your constitutional duties is shameful regardless of party. Chuck Shumer is a jerkwad, by the way, and not only for his statements to this effect during the Bush administration. Obama should not have voted for the failed filibuster, particularly because he criticized it publicly as s tactic. That is a black mark on his record.
When one side gets on their high horse and acts shocked at the way the other side is acting, it is beyond silly especially when we know it is exactly what they would have done. Unfortunately, this is the state of politics. The media is about 90% liberals, so we already know who will win the spin war and there will be huge pressure to cave. The only real ace in the hole that will be tough to overcome is Obama's support of the filibuster and Obama's vote against two superbly qualified justices as a Senator. Obama made his partisan bed when he was Senator running for President, and it will come back to bite him, assuming the GOP can properly package the message. Right now they are failing miserably. If I was the Senate, I would not announce my intentions. I would sit back and wait and see how Obama acts and who he nominates and then take action to try to defeat the nomination. The GOP needed to dial back their rhetoric, come up with a well-reasoned unified message, and then act on it.
I get what you're saying. And I agree with your advice at how the GOP should be handling the issue. But I can't agree that a vacancy that would shift the balance of the Court justifies doing everything in your power to stymie an otherwise qualified appointee from an opposition President. Let's say Cruz wins the presidency but the Dems regain the Senate in '18. Ginsburg passes away shortly thereafter. I see no justification whatsoever for the Dems to (1) refuse to consider Cruz's appointee and keep the appointee from going to hearing (which is their Constitutional obligation); (2) take the position that they will reject whatever nominee Cruz selects regardless of that person's qualifications; or (3) take the position that Cruz should not nominate a replacement, and instead let the 2020 election decide who makes the nomination. Would you actually support any of those positions in that instance?
Basically this argument is just an excuse, but it seems to be an excuse the Republicans are going to use. Because we all know what's going on here: replace Scalia with a liberal or moderate and the Supreme Court changes. Obama's last two appointments didn't change the court- they were liberals replacing liberals. This time it's a liberal replacing a conservative in a court that has 5-4 decisions. Do you really think Republicans are going to allow this if they can stop it? They'll never allow it. They'll use any excuse, any reason to stop it.Â
