I have felt since the Senate went pro-Constitution in 2014 that it could easily go back to the anti party this fall. Eight trillion dollars' worth of freebies and giveaways should have bought the Democrats more than enough votes to unseat 5 religious patriots.
However, if Flipper Trump takes the White House, only a couple of issues can be counted on by the Right to go their way, and the economy definitely is not one of them.
For a second I misread our writer Cohn's last word to start with an S.
However, if Flipper Trump takes the White House, only a couple of issues can be counted on by the Right to go their way, and the economy definitely is not one of them.
For a second I misread our writer Cohn's last word to start with an S.
These are the end of times for the Republican party as we knew it. Trump and Cruz each represent "unelectable" factions of the party, that cumulatively are the majority of Republicans, but can never be reconciled. The party has three major factions now; and only inchoate anger unites them.
Having the partly leadership openly and blatantly refusing to consider Obama's appointment would be the mark of political idiocy in any ordinary time -- instead the party leaders would mumble meaningless pieties, slow-walk everything, reject a candidate ... and Obama's time would run out. No crisis or posturing or immediate damage to centrist Republicans.
Instead the party is provoking a crisis solely because most Republicans are too scared of their own voters, who are demanding the unlikely or even impossible, to do the rational thing.
With Trump and Cruz the leading Republicans the chances of a Republican president are vanishing as the days go by. No sane political observer expects either of them to be able to win, even against Sanders.
Logically seeing the disaster that is the presidential campaign, the Republicans would do everything they can to attempt to hold onto the senate and maintain a large majority in the house.
But Scalia's death has provoked them into a foolish tantrum. And it looks like another one may be not too far away: Paul Ryan getting "Boehnered."
The Republicans are dissolving into a circular firing squad.
Having the partly leadership openly and blatantly refusing to consider Obama's appointment would be the mark of political idiocy in any ordinary time -- instead the party leaders would mumble meaningless pieties, slow-walk everything, reject a candidate ... and Obama's time would run out. No crisis or posturing or immediate damage to centrist Republicans.
Instead the party is provoking a crisis solely because most Republicans are too scared of their own voters, who are demanding the unlikely or even impossible, to do the rational thing.
With Trump and Cruz the leading Republicans the chances of a Republican president are vanishing as the days go by. No sane political observer expects either of them to be able to win, even against Sanders.
Logically seeing the disaster that is the presidential campaign, the Republicans would do everything they can to attempt to hold onto the senate and maintain a large majority in the house.
But Scalia's death has provoked them into a foolish tantrum. And it looks like another one may be not too far away: Paul Ryan getting "Boehnered."
The Republicans are dissolving into a circular firing squad.
26
Nate, your analysis was fine, if overly optimistic, until the last paragraph. Dems cannot put anyone on the Court simply by winning the presidency and retaking the Senate. They need a Senate with 60 Democrats.
The only way to cure this situation is for the Dems to win the Senate and then eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominiees. As Democrats, with an unreasonable devotion to principles of fair play, they are not likely to do this.
So we could just watch the Court shrink by attrition until the last living Justice -- say, a 99-year-old Sonia Sotomayor -- decides the law of the land. I guess if we had no Supreme Court at all I think Republicans would be pleased; that would be a failure of government.
The only way to cure this situation is for the Dems to win the Senate and then eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominiees. As Democrats, with an unreasonable devotion to principles of fair play, they are not likely to do this.
So we could just watch the Court shrink by attrition until the last living Justice -- say, a 99-year-old Sonia Sotomayor -- decides the law of the land. I guess if we had no Supreme Court at all I think Republicans would be pleased; that would be a failure of government.
8
The Republican stance that the sitting President cannot even nominate the next Supreme Court justice is an affront to the American people and the Constitution. It perpetuates the notion of certain illegitimacy of President Obama, which is nothing but racism, pure and simple.
Politically I consider myself an independent, and have on occasion voted Republican in the past. I've also been rather disappointed in President Obama over the years. However, I find the Republican position highly offensive and treasonous to this country. Nail in the coffin for the Republicans at every level of government as far as I am concerned. Disgusting.
Politically I consider myself an independent, and have on occasion voted Republican in the past. I've also been rather disappointed in President Obama over the years. However, I find the Republican position highly offensive and treasonous to this country. Nail in the coffin for the Republicans at every level of government as far as I am concerned. Disgusting.
42
IF any nomination is blocked until the next president is sworn in, and IF that president is either Sanders or Clinton, then Barak Obama could be nominated to the supreme court!
Think about that Mitch.
Think about that Mitch.
24
Just wondering: if something happened and Obama and Biden were no longer in office, Paul Ryan would be the next Commander-in-Chief until the next president is elected. Would *he* be allowed to nominate a SC justice?
7
To their political detriment, Republicans do not have to confirm an Obama nominee for a Scalia replacement, but they do not have the right to obstruct my vote for Obama by refusing to participate in the process at all.
As such, they should be impeached for dereliction of duty.
As such, they should be impeached for dereliction of duty.
22
Great idea but you don't impeach senators or representatives. Elected officials can be recalled by a majority of eligible voters in their jurisdiction. Nothing would stop anyone from circulating an article of grievances or a petition expressing no confidence in the present Congressional majority. Wouldn't have any legal significance or authority but it certainly would be a smart device by which a lot of uninformed people might be politicized and become invested in following Republican intransigence and sabotage.
10
Its good the Times is getting ahead of the curve on this onfolding story.
McConnell's position is astonishing. What if Obama wanted to nominate Scalia's son? There is no harm in receiving a nomination now, the Senate could filibuster it. The position is McConnell's admission that they are scared of the responsibility of having to vote, and scared of another political contest with a President who beats them every time.
There's an election every 4 years. McConnell's position is essentially that for a period of approximately 25% of his term in office, the person elected by entire country cannot exercise his constitutionally mandated authority. This is absurd.
Blocking the nomination, or refusing to accept it, is a Fascist abuse of power and should be characterized as such. It is a blatant refusal to recognize the President's constitutional authority.
The Republicans held a pow wow after their 2012 beating - supposedly to broaden their appeal. They then proposed (once again) an elimination of the estate tax, because folks only get a complete exclusion of the first $10 million of their assets under current law (and easily can shelter millions more through estate planning techniques). If you're not that wealthy, they doesn't represent you.
Mitch should learn when to fold. Obama could submit a moderate judge, and they likely will go along, otherwise risking both that Bernie's 2017 nominee will be more liberal and the Senate will then be back in the Dem's control.
McConnell's position is astonishing. What if Obama wanted to nominate Scalia's son? There is no harm in receiving a nomination now, the Senate could filibuster it. The position is McConnell's admission that they are scared of the responsibility of having to vote, and scared of another political contest with a President who beats them every time.
There's an election every 4 years. McConnell's position is essentially that for a period of approximately 25% of his term in office, the person elected by entire country cannot exercise his constitutionally mandated authority. This is absurd.
Blocking the nomination, or refusing to accept it, is a Fascist abuse of power and should be characterized as such. It is a blatant refusal to recognize the President's constitutional authority.
The Republicans held a pow wow after their 2012 beating - supposedly to broaden their appeal. They then proposed (once again) an elimination of the estate tax, because folks only get a complete exclusion of the first $10 million of their assets under current law (and easily can shelter millions more through estate planning techniques). If you're not that wealthy, they doesn't represent you.
Mitch should learn when to fold. Obama could submit a moderate judge, and they likely will go along, otherwise risking both that Bernie's 2017 nominee will be more liberal and the Senate will then be back in the Dem's control.
13
Is Mitch McConnell and the rest of his truculent, racist, and neo-Confederate party prepared to stonewall SCOTUS nominations for the next 4-8 years? McConnell's efforts to nullify this twice-elected President's two terms is flagrantly, disgracefully evident - the TGOP's utter hypocrisy in declaring their undying fealty to our Constitution on the one hand, while completely abrogating their own Constitutional obligations and those of the President on the other, starkly reveals the shameful truth - their version of the Constitution extends solely to hard right wing, extremist Christian ideology. Every one of these people should be booted from office in the upcoming election cycles. They are a stain on the entire nation.
33
Sounds like treason to me...
5
I hope the obstruct. I hope they lose the Senate and the White House. I hope Obama is nominated by the new Democratic President and is quickly approved with just 51 votes. I hope Obama lives to 125 years old and never retires.
30
Obama will have a long life, and possibly a long term on the supreme court, as Bernie's nominee to fill what may be another vacancy. The chances that one or more of the seats now held by Thomas, Kennedy and Ginsburg will also become open by the end of the next term are quite high.
6
Why Thomas? He is only 67, a mere child compared to the rest. Or perhaps he would quit because he didn't like being outnumbered by the liberals?
It's very touching that the New York Times would be concerned with the Republicans well being in these upcoming Senate Races ! It's very kind of them to offer their suggestions to help them out !
1
This is very much like a chess or a poker game. Obama whether or not he realizes it he has aces up his sleeve and an extra queen on the board. If he's really that smart he'll know, and nominate one of them to the Court and make the Republican wince, and having them say "Brilliant move, Mr President, you win". I just fear his idiotic aides will tell him to do something stupid. See my post below.
2
Let's not forget that Republicans are so angry at the Republican establishment for promising and NOT delivering that they would probably welcome Republicans taking a stand against Obama imposing a leftist on the Supreme Court to destroy conservatism. I for one would despise Republicans who out of spineless was and a fear of losing an election would NOT stand up against Obama's leftist nominee!
Maxine -- you aren't going to get one you like better from Hillary and particularly not from Bernie. And did you read the article at all? The Republicans are likely to have fewer senate seats after this election, possibly losing the majority.
Do you believe Trump or Cruz can get elected? Or do you believe any of the other candidates can get elected given what the nominating process is doing to them?
Has the phrase "cut your losses" never occurred to you? Why double down on a losing hand?
Do you believe Trump or Cruz can get elected? Or do you believe any of the other candidates can get elected given what the nominating process is doing to them?
Has the phrase "cut your losses" never occurred to you? Why double down on a losing hand?
9
When you're focused on driving your car over a cliff (think Cruz and Trump), does any "Go Slow" sign influence you?
4
I am not suggesting Mitch McConnell( strange how his initials are the same as a famous Disney character)drop dead, only that he pull a Rip Van Winkle until after a new Justice is chosen
2
What an awfully ironic situation we're in, Democrats and Republicans alike. It's fair to assume that Obama will not get his nominee approved. Therefore, the 2016 vote is really about electing a Supreme Court justice as much as it is about the presidency and Congress.
The direction of the Court, which is supposed to be about the rule of law and above politics, will be decided by the most political of processes. Does our country really benefit from having our crucial policy decisions ultimately decided by who casts the inevitably political deciding vote in an ostensibly apolitical institution? Might we be better off with a more restrained judicial role? Other democracies get by quite nicely without leaving the most important decisions in the hands of a swing vote jurist whose work is really about politics and policy.
The direction of the Court, which is supposed to be about the rule of law and above politics, will be decided by the most political of processes. Does our country really benefit from having our crucial policy decisions ultimately decided by who casts the inevitably political deciding vote in an ostensibly apolitical institution? Might we be better off with a more restrained judicial role? Other democracies get by quite nicely without leaving the most important decisions in the hands of a swing vote jurist whose work is really about politics and policy.
7
The reality is this. The way Congressional districts are now set up, the possibility of Democratic House is slim. (Too many districts are safe districts) If there is a fight over the nomination of any Supreme Court nominee by President Obama, that may stir up the Republican base even more. With weak candidates as Mrs. Clinton and Mr Sanders on the Democratic side are, you could well see a Republican landslide in November 2016. If a landslide does occur not simply in the Presidential race but in the House and Senate as well. there is a possibility of a veto proof Congress in our future.
Is pushing for a Supreme nominee in this political atmosphere a good idea? I don't think so.
Is pushing for a Supreme nominee in this political atmosphere a good idea? I don't think so.
It is very obvious to all concerned that weak Presidential candidates are a category in which Republicans excel. Thank you very much.
19
The Democrats win the White House and have a reasonable chance of reclaiming the Senate if the Democratic nominee is broadly appealing, sufficiently mainstream and politically shrewd. The Democratic organizations in every state have to be sufficiently invested in the nominee to make the extra push and Hispanic and Black voters need to feel invested enough to turn out, as they did for Obama. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat with deep and strong roots in the Democratic state organizations, is broadly appealing, has deep ties to Black and Hispanic voters, can reassure mainstream voters that she's tough enough to be commander in chief and keep America secure, has powerful name recognition, and is seasoned national campaigner who likes to kiss babies, exude warmth and empathy, and reinforce a sense of amiable familiarity among most middle Americans. She also will mobilize most older women, women who know first hand what it's like to be second class in life and less than equal before the law. Younger women -- younger people -- don't vote much, don't have strong feelings about health care and don't have a clue how much Single Payer can cost or have any reason to think about taxes much and certainly not why so many Americans would never vote for anyone who comes out of the box promising to raise taxes. Yes, if we have the right nominee we get the White House and maybe the Senate. Wrong candidate and we lose it all. For the next few generations.
15
Given that the Republican party doesn't have a candidate who can win against either Hillary or Bernie, the GOP can either accept a moderate, or wait for next year when the Dems can nominate a liberal. And even if Trump gets elected somehow, he's a closet Democrat.
Meanwhile, Mr. McConnell should go back to school and read up on the fact that the Supreme Court was designed to absolutely not let the people decide. Do Republicans only operate in their fantasy world?
Meanwhile, Mr. McConnell should go back to school and read up on the fact that the Supreme Court was designed to absolutely not let the people decide. Do Republicans only operate in their fantasy world?
15
I like Sanders but I don't believe he could win the presidency. I'd love to see Republicans obstruct the nomination only to have Clinton then put in a much more liberal judge.
4
This is our moment democrats. If we come together now all the branches of government will support change. The old way of internal fighting will be over and we can rebuild this country instead of creating a war mechine to fight in others.
New infrastructure
100% health care
And a stop to corporate greed.
This is our moment!
New infrastructure
100% health care
And a stop to corporate greed.
This is our moment!
16
Yes, it cannot be Bernie alone. All Americans with a conscience and a brain need to vote out the corporate greed, the opposition to health care, the opposition to building infrastructure. Wake up your fox news relatives and warn them their ignorance is endangering democracy for future generations;Koch, Birchers,those that still hate the changes the Kennedys made are out to destroy democracy in favor of privatizing everything to create rule by the rich.
5
@Kuhn --As more potential voters make the modest effort to learn about Bernie and to understand what he means by a peoples' revolution, yes! This can be our moment! Bernie is not partisan, he would represent all Americans fairly and equally. The oppositions' "Conservative" values? Hardly bipartisan.
4
It would be nice if Mr. Cohn elaborated on why he thinks Pennsylvania does not have a strong Democratic candidate for senator. Joe Sestak, in the year during which Democrats got a "shellacking" (2010), came within two percentage points of Pat Toomey, far better than any other Democratic senatorial candidate that year. He has walked across Pennsylvania and has tremendous support from Democrats and Independents. Our tiny, rural county alone collected almost 200 signatures to put him on the ballot (more than for either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton). True: he has angered Ed Rendell by his refusal to withdraw from the 2010 primary race against Arlen Spector (after Spector made a deal with Rendell and became a Democrat). But the people of Pennsylvania know better, and will show up for Joe Sestak in the primaries and the general. He is not a weak candidate.
9
Concerning the commenter from Phoenix: Liberals did confirm Anthony Kennedy in the last year of Reagan's presidency. Did he/she read the article?
Also Bork's hands were forever dirty from the Saturday Night Massacre under Nixon. And finally, Thomas was confirmed. And Biden, and other liberals helped in that confirmation. Oh, and are you sure that the allegations against him were untrue?
Also Bork's hands were forever dirty from the Saturday Night Massacre under Nixon. And finally, Thomas was confirmed. And Biden, and other liberals helped in that confirmation. Oh, and are you sure that the allegations against him were untrue?
5
Setting aside about the allegations, it always has been striking that - if memory serves - the Bar Association panel had rated the nominee C. Thomas as at best mediocre ("qualified") with two members even rating him as "not qualified". Fantasist-conspiracy theorists notwithstanding, the Bar Association panel would be fairly careful, and in the time since then, Justice Thomas' record certainly supports the fact that their appraisal was at best tepid, and that the two "not qualified" votes had merit.
9
For the sake of an education about the power of media go to YouTube and watch " Media's Effects on Teen Girl's Body Image & Self Esteem "...then transpose the GOP's media attack on the public and understand what the majority of the donations to their party is being used for. Media manipulation is not designed for the average person to jump up, run out and do something, right now...it is designed get a person jump up and run out and do something later on down the road...at some later date...in the GOP's case when it comes time to vote. Media is powerful influence, designed by some of the best educated PhDs, most with degrees in psychology. You can bet that the GOP's campaign against President Obama's nomination can only be equaled by the likes of the campaign against women being themselves.
Saying that Ron Kirk or Kelly Ayotte sometimes don't vote with the Republicans is totally beside the point. Where they *always* vote with their party is when they put right-wing idiots like Jim Inskeep, David Vitter, and Joni Ernst in positions to do so much harm.
6
All Obama has to do is to nominate a female Hispanic to the Supreme Court, we'll then see the republicans cave real fast, for if they reject her they would feel the wrath of Hispanics and women alike. 9th Circuit Court judge Mary Murguia would be my pick and should be Obama's.
11
Pennsylvania also has a primary on the Democratic side. Joe Sestak a former congressman with limited support outside his former congressional district who ran against Toomey in 2010 when it was an open seat is running against Katie McGinty who has support from most party insiders in Counties other than Delaware County PA (where Sestak lives part time and has his voter registration, basically the SW 'burbs of Philly, the county comprised the majority of Sestak's old congressional district. [another redistricting has since occurred after the 2010 census.]) Katie McGinty ran for governor in the 2014 primary and has since worked the winner Governor Tom Wolf. She is also from the Philly 'burbs. There is a long shot candidate from western PA named John Fetterman.
3
If Democrats win the Senate and the Presidency, Republicans face the real possibility of a SC Justice who is significanty more liberal than anyone Obama might reasonably be expected to nominate. It seems to me that this is the biggest risk facing Republicans if they obstruct an Obam nominee.
10
In principle, maybe a Democrat wins the White House but the Republicans keep control of the Senate - and decide that we should all wait "Four more years, four more years" because it is unreasonable to have consider any nominee of the next president.
You have Judge Sri Srinivasan who worked under Republicans and Democrats and was confirmed 97-0 previously. Why not put him up for a vote? There are plenty of older more left leaning justices like Ginsberg and Stevens who will eventually need replacement by the next President. C'mon Sen McConnell, do your job!
8
So much for the rule of law. This reminds me not so much of Mitch McConnell's antagonistic relationship toward anything President Obama does as it does the black smear Scalia and the other conservative judges perpetrated on the Supreme Court by choosing political expendiency over constitutionality when they ushered Bush into the Presidency during the Florida recount.
Voters might consider what, if anything, the Republicans will not do to win out.
Voters might consider what, if anything, the Republicans will not do to win out.
14
Once again, the Republicans seek to deny our votes - and this time retroactively. The American people did vote in 2008 and again in 2012 to elect President Obama. He received over 51% of the vote in both elections (something not done since Ike). And "we the People" voted him to two FOUR YEAR terms, not to a second term of three years. "We the People" intend that he serve until a successor is inaugurated on January 20, 2016. For the GOP Senate to attempt to deny the people their choice for President is a violation of their oath to support and defend the Constitution. They should be removed from office.
With Democratic Presidential candidates having won the majority of the votes in five of the six last elections, it seems clear that "We the People" trust Democratic Presidents to make appointments to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately it is abundantly clear that the GOP Senate is not prepared to carry out its responsibility to honestly and openly question the nominee that the President will put forward and to go on the record with an up or down vote on the nominee.
The President is prepared to do his duty under the Constitution. Any Senator who is not prepared to do his or her duty should be removed from office by the constituents of their state - regardless of political party.
With Democratic Presidential candidates having won the majority of the votes in five of the six last elections, it seems clear that "We the People" trust Democratic Presidents to make appointments to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately it is abundantly clear that the GOP Senate is not prepared to carry out its responsibility to honestly and openly question the nominee that the President will put forward and to go on the record with an up or down vote on the nominee.
The President is prepared to do his duty under the Constitution. Any Senator who is not prepared to do his or her duty should be removed from office by the constituents of their state - regardless of political party.
18
Perhaps Mr. Obama's mistake in this setting is in failing to take Article II of our Constitution seriously, which states that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
After all, he has sworn after his election and re-election that he "will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and the Constitution set the number of Justices at nine (not eight).
After all, he has sworn after his election and re-election that he "will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and the Constitution set the number of Justices at nine (not eight).
1
The Constitution does not set the number of Supreme Court justices.
Incorrect. Article III of the United States Constitution leaves it to Congress to fix the number of justices. The number has varied, it has been nine since 1869.
This is why we must fight for Sanders and the political revolution, which involves not only keeping the presidency, but getting back those Senate seats. We must mobilize those who haven't voted before as well as regular voters.
9
Those senate seats are all in "toss up" districts. Sanders has no coat-tails for those districts, indeed as the presidential nominee almost certainly makes it harder for those Democrats to win.
"We must mobilize those who haven't voted before" ... yes indeed, a fine sentiment. But where were Bernie's people when these districts were lost? Why do you presume they will turn out in the future ... for the state races that are critical to Democratic hopes?
"We must mobilize those who haven't voted before" ... yes indeed, a fine sentiment. But where were Bernie's people when these districts were lost? Why do you presume they will turn out in the future ... for the state races that are critical to Democratic hopes?
Nate Cohn's analysis further illustrates the irrationality of the forces currently motivating the Republican Party. Except in the highly improbable event of a Republican presidential victory, the "base" is forcing McConnell (a rational politician, left to his own impulses) to pursue a virtually suicidal policy.
The Trump-Cruz campaigns are further evidence that the Republican Party is an obsolescent minority party in a death spiral. That is why the so-called "Republican Establishment" is apoplectic. For the first time, the Bushes, the Hailey Barbours, the Bob Doles, of the world, have absolutely no control over "their party."
The "Establishment" has itself to blame, of course. For years (with the exception of John McCain telling the wingnut at one of his rallies that Obama was not a Muslim) Republican grandees have suffered, if not encouraged, the alliance with its mainstream of an irresponsible, nihilism in the form of the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks and Ann Coulters of the world. Now, the Donald (funder of the "Birthers" movement), Cruz (carpet bomber of Iraqi villages), and just about the entire Republican "clown car" (discriminate against Muslims indiscriminately), fill out the Republican presidential menu.
The Republican Party is fulfilling its longtime wish for the federal government - it is shrinking itself until it will be small enough to be drowned in a bathtub.
The Trump-Cruz campaigns are further evidence that the Republican Party is an obsolescent minority party in a death spiral. That is why the so-called "Republican Establishment" is apoplectic. For the first time, the Bushes, the Hailey Barbours, the Bob Doles, of the world, have absolutely no control over "their party."
The "Establishment" has itself to blame, of course. For years (with the exception of John McCain telling the wingnut at one of his rallies that Obama was not a Muslim) Republican grandees have suffered, if not encouraged, the alliance with its mainstream of an irresponsible, nihilism in the form of the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks and Ann Coulters of the world. Now, the Donald (funder of the "Birthers" movement), Cruz (carpet bomber of Iraqi villages), and just about the entire Republican "clown car" (discriminate against Muslims indiscriminately), fill out the Republican presidential menu.
The Republican Party is fulfilling its longtime wish for the federal government - it is shrinking itself until it will be small enough to be drowned in a bathtub.
20
In IN, Sen. Coats is retiring, and now it appears the Rep. Stutzman, a Tea Partier, will be defeated by Rep. Baron Hil, to become the junor Senator from Indiana.
5
Millions of Americans voted for the Nominator-in Chief three years ago and who will remian in the Office of POTUS for 11 months and 5 days more days. The GOP stance of " let the voters decide" is utter hypocrisy. I don't like your vote so I am going fishing for some other voters. Trump's....delay,delay,delay...is not language written in the Constitution. Both tactics have a stench.
The GOP's tactics have a big downside. If they block confirmation and either Bernie or Hillary win and take back the Senate......
President Obama could be nominated to the Supreme Court.
The GOP's tactics have a big downside. If they block confirmation and either Bernie or Hillary win and take back the Senate......
President Obama could be nominated to the Supreme Court.
20
NYT reporters are spending so much time on the election, that none of them have noticed today's announcement that microcephaly appears to be caused not by the zika virus but by the insecticide pyriproxifen that is added to drinking water in Brazil.
5
Republican senators need to consider that not all Democrat Presidents would nominate equally - would they rather have Obama's nominee or Bernie's or Hillary's?
3
Two questions that I am surprised have not been asked or discussed, so far as I know, are these: Has the U.S. Senate ever, in its history, formally proclaimed a refusal to provide advice and consent to ANY appointment to the Court by a sitting president? All the historical digging has gone so far toward asking if any justices have been confirmed in the last year of an administration. Second question: Is it constitutional for the Senate to thus proclaim a refusal to give advice and consent? If that power is sustained, it would mean that the Congress, specifically the Senate, can revoke the central part of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that the "the president .. with the advice and consent of the Senate...shall appoint judges to the Supreme Court." How could the Senate abolish a power of the president? I should think that if the Republican leadership persists in this position, the president could go to the Supreme Court and ask for a ruling. I would guess that the vote would be at least 5-3, or possibly even 6-2, in favor of the president -- any president.
53
Good point. Yes, Justice Kennedy was appointed in last year of Reagan's Presidency. To deliberately, and politically, keep the third branch of government inoperable for a whole year, seems to me to verge on a Constitutional crisis, and would open the door to extraordinary measures, including recess appointment or impeachment of obstructionist senators.
22
Agree - an interested party (whether the president, or a party with a case on the docket of the Supreme Court) should file suit against the Senate if it refuses its constitutional duties (for which they get paid - though perhaps it's chump change to them and in comparison to the deferred compensation after leaving office). And the plaintiff should petition for expedited handling by the Supreme Court. Of course per my earlier post, Mr. Obama ought to help the odds by making a recess appointment (e.g., of the appellate judge from FL, from this AM's NYT list of possibilities).
Nate,
Good article but I think the real case will be the state of each State's economy by say the Summer. The pocketbook will really be the deciding issue. Employment opportunity, voting records of incumbents on the minimum wage issue, the truth about Obamacare, etc. I think we will learn a lot from the primary votes or caucuses in each of the States with Senators who will be up. The class of 2010 is a special one because it was the year that the Senate retained control but the House lost their majority. The House is different because of gerrymandering, but the Senate seems to be sensitive to the greater turnout of a Presidential contest year. Of course you know all of this so I look forward to your forward analysis on 2016 and the anticipated turnout and their vote based on pocketbook issues.
Good article but I think the real case will be the state of each State's economy by say the Summer. The pocketbook will really be the deciding issue. Employment opportunity, voting records of incumbents on the minimum wage issue, the truth about Obamacare, etc. I think we will learn a lot from the primary votes or caucuses in each of the States with Senators who will be up. The class of 2010 is a special one because it was the year that the Senate retained control but the House lost their majority. The House is different because of gerrymandering, but the Senate seems to be sensitive to the greater turnout of a Presidential contest year. Of course you know all of this so I look forward to your forward analysis on 2016 and the anticipated turnout and their vote based on pocketbook issues.
4
Please give a specific link to rankings, not just the general link to DW-Nominate
"Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin senator, is one of the two. This is not especially surprising: He was the fifth-most conservative member of the Senate in the last congress, according to DW-Nominate, which scores members on their ideology based on their voting record."
"Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin senator, is one of the two. This is not especially surprising: He was the fifth-most conservative member of the Senate in the last congress, according to DW-Nominate, which scores members on their ideology based on their voting record."
2
Poole and Rosenthal don't publish the individual rankings in a list. Instead they publish their complete data set back to 1790. The download page is here: http://voteview.com/dwnomin_joint_house_and_senate.htm. For most people, the Excel-formatted file is probably the easiest to deal with; the current version is ftp://voteview.com/junkord/HANDSL01113C20_BSSE.XLS.
You'll need to read the key on the page above to understand what the columns contain. The main liberal-conservative score is field 8, the "1st Dimension Coordinate." The Senators appear with zeroes coded as their Congressional Districts in field 5.
Ron Johnson has a score of 0.677. (Positive values are more conservative.) He's nowhere near as right-wing as Lee, Cruz, or Paul, all of whom score well over 0.9.
For comparison, the most liberal member of the Senate by this method is Elizabeth Warren, but at -0.681, she's nowhere near as extreme on that end of the spectrum as the most extreme Republicans.
You'll need to read the key on the page above to understand what the columns contain. The main liberal-conservative score is field 8, the "1st Dimension Coordinate." The Senators appear with zeroes coded as their Congressional Districts in field 5.
Ron Johnson has a score of 0.677. (Positive values are more conservative.) He's nowhere near as right-wing as Lee, Cruz, or Paul, all of whom score well over 0.9.
For comparison, the most liberal member of the Senate by this method is Elizabeth Warren, but at -0.681, she's nowhere near as extreme on that end of the spectrum as the most extreme Republicans.
2
The American voter and elected official needs to remember that "advice and consent" is NOT optional, it is their constitutional duty. It is NOT up to the GOP to decide whether or not to do this. Dereliction of duty is a serious offense for someone in public office or the military and this should not receive a pass simply because one senator decides he doesn't like Obama due to his race.
McConnell is OBLIGATED to perform his duty.
Censure would be an appropriate action by the members of the senate though one would hope that expulsion would also be on the table. McConnell has been a one-man party of NO for far too long..
"Members of Congress who have been censured are required to give up any committee chairs they hold, but are not removed from office. In general, each house of Congress is responsible for invoking censure against its own members; censure against other government officials is not common. Because censure is not specifically mentioned as the accepted form of reprimand, many censure actions against members of Congress may be listed officially as rebuke, condemnation, or denouncement."
"By framing his decision as deferring to voters in the next election, people close to him say he has minimized the political risk." McConnell is wrong here. No need to defer to next years voters as we the people in electing Obama as president - twice- have made our voices crystal clear. We expect him to perform his duty ASAP---THIS YEAR as part of his 4 year term as president.
McConnell is OBLIGATED to perform his duty.
Censure would be an appropriate action by the members of the senate though one would hope that expulsion would also be on the table. McConnell has been a one-man party of NO for far too long..
"Members of Congress who have been censured are required to give up any committee chairs they hold, but are not removed from office. In general, each house of Congress is responsible for invoking censure against its own members; censure against other government officials is not common. Because censure is not specifically mentioned as the accepted form of reprimand, many censure actions against members of Congress may be listed officially as rebuke, condemnation, or denouncement."
"By framing his decision as deferring to voters in the next election, people close to him say he has minimized the political risk." McConnell is wrong here. No need to defer to next years voters as we the people in electing Obama as president - twice- have made our voices crystal clear. We expect him to perform his duty ASAP---THIS YEAR as part of his 4 year term as president.
61
To be against President Obama on this issue is to be against those Americans who elected him.
11
Actually it's against all Americans. Once elected by a majority, the President represents all Americans, not just those who supported him. Political legitimacy is based on the consent of the governed. Obama, elected by a majority of electors and voters, is the only legitimate national political authority responsible for discharging his Constitutionally defined duties. He is required to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice by oath of office.
6
Ron Johnson is probably confident that Scott Walker and his gang in the Statehouse have got the full-press, no-holds-barred voter supression machine oiled-up and ready to go, with plenty of nasty surprises yet to come. The "Wisconsin Blitzkrieg" is nearing completion and another domino will fall.
What has stopped Walker yet? Now any voting issues that would be settled by the Supreme Court are effectively mooted.
What has stopped Walker yet? Now any voting issues that would be settled by the Supreme Court are effectively mooted.
11
international election monitors should be called for, just like in some 3rd world countries. Imagine that Wisconsin, a 3rd world country, brought to you by Scott Walker and his gang of right wing thugs.
12
Yeah but the Republicans are in position to capture Harry Reid's seat and there are vulnerable incumbent Democrats in the Senate, meaning losing New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Illinois will not give the Dems control.
And good luck getting Rubio's FL Senate seat.
And good luck getting Rubio's FL Senate seat.
2
@DCBarrister - True, but this is a potential game changer. Harry Reid can look like a hero to Nevada union members. And remember how many new Red senators squeeked into office in 2010 in districts Obama cleaned house in in 2008 and 2012. The 2016 electorate should be more like 2008 and 2012 already; and the Supreme Court issue, especially if Senate Repubs fan partisan flames, ought to get out the votes even more - which will help the Dems overall.
1
Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren in the Supreme Court?
10
"Liberals would do the exact same thing if the shoe were on the other foot. Can you imagine them approving a pro-life constitutionalist less than a year before a presidential election, just because they care so much about “honoring the Constitution”? Please. Does anyone actually believe that? Do liberals actually expect us to believe they believe what they’re saying right now? All of a sudden they think immediately approving Supreme Court nominations is some kind of solemn duty of the Senate? Where were these “dishonoring the Constitution” lectures back when Democrats were dragging Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas into the town square and assassinating their character in front of the jeering hordes? Democrats don’t just block Republican nominations, they devour them. They rip them to shreds. They pulverize them into dust." Blogger Matt Walsh. (and I couldn't say it better)
2
There's no such thing as a "pro-life constitutionalist." Except in Republican hallelujah land. Democrats oppose unqualified, mediocre, and ideologically rigid misogynists, the kind of nominations Republican Presidents are ordered to make by their billionaire bosses. The kind of hack jurist who agrees that money is a blood relation of the wealthy and thus enjoys constitutional rights like free speech and the right against self-incrimination. The Hall of Fame for Republican Low Wattage Men Who Wear Black Robes to Work include Haynesworth, Carwell ("Even mediocrity deserves representation") Thomas (Is that public hair on my diet soda? & Why ask a question when Scalia knows all the answers?) My only question: how do Democrats devour GOP nominees and then rip them into shreds and pulverize them into dust? Any one who can boil water knows that you should shred first, then pulverize before eating. Devouring GOP nominees just turns them into one of Donald's favorite redolent four letter expletives, which is unpleasant to then shred and pulverize.
7
It's not about "approving" anybody. It's about the process of considering the nominee. They can vote the nominee down. What McConnell & Co are saying is that they won't even do that. That's the issue right there.
3
No, Democrats would not do the same thing. They would actually voice the will of their constituents and give their nay vote (in your scenario) or a yes vote if they consented to the appointment.
7
If President Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court comes to a vote this Spring, I trust that the Republican Senators facing re-election will abstain from voting, in accord with Senator McConnell's proposition that lame ducks should not be imposing their wills on the next term.
36
GOP definition of a liberal Senator: Middle of the Road Centrist
11
Republican refusal to vote on Obama's nominee will be marvelously graphic election-year evidence of the GOP's abuse of power to disloyally obstruct Constitutionally mandated democratic processes.
A blazing hot confrontation over filling the SCOTUS vacancy will be a win, win, win for Democratic candidates across the nation -
- unless, of course, Obama reverts to his inclination to capitulate by naming a center-right jurist, in which case many on the Left will abandon any surviving "hope" for real progress and stay home in November.
A blazing hot confrontation over filling the SCOTUS vacancy will be a win, win, win for Democratic candidates across the nation -
- unless, of course, Obama reverts to his inclination to capitulate by naming a center-right jurist, in which case many on the Left will abandon any surviving "hope" for real progress and stay home in November.
14
Really think the core legions of about 42 million walking dead Republicans and about 3 to 5 million fence-straddling voters are oblivious to GOP-position gridlock? The issue is less awareness than the perception these people have that GOP is just defending their American birthright to tell all people how they should live in a Christian nation and world.
Your observation about Obama simply reflects why GOP dominates the American agenda. You blame him for trying to do his job and then threaten to stay home if you don't find the fireworks entertaining. That's why we lost the House at the first mid-term and why Sanders is delusional about Democrats staging a "revolution" and taking back Congress. The "Left" you refer to is actually the past tense of Leave. Which is what soft-belly Democrats young and old do when their 8 second attention span is taxed. Mistaking your own ineffectual political dilettantism with Obama's "capitulation" is why numerically dominant Democrats lost the House and Senate. All talk and walk, all hope and dope. A Left that's long gone when
the buzz fades and it's time for real work.
Your observation about Obama simply reflects why GOP dominates the American agenda. You blame him for trying to do his job and then threaten to stay home if you don't find the fireworks entertaining. That's why we lost the House at the first mid-term and why Sanders is delusional about Democrats staging a "revolution" and taking back Congress. The "Left" you refer to is actually the past tense of Leave. Which is what soft-belly Democrats young and old do when their 8 second attention span is taxed. Mistaking your own ineffectual political dilettantism with Obama's "capitulation" is why numerically dominant Democrats lost the House and Senate. All talk and walk, all hope and dope. A Left that's long gone when
the buzz fades and it's time for real work.
3
I read the New York Times article on how long it takes supreme court nominees to be approved. Including all approved nominations back to including President Nixon's appointments 17 Justices have been approved. Of those seventeen, 13 have been recommended by republican presidents. Mitch McConnell needs to stop undermining democracy. Hold a vote and vote no if that is what you have to do.
31
Simply going through the motions is both transparent and insufficient.
3
Thank you! Why can't these guys understand this?
Then he should vote yes.
1
The Republican electorate is an interesting crowd. The evangelical constituents are Bible-thumpers who support Cruz, a candidate who joyfully proclaims he will make the sands in Syria glow and has shown he is willing to commit voter fraud and lie about it--excellent Christian values! Trump has captured the angry racist, Palin-intellect crowd that believes 11 million illegal immigrants should be rounded up and shipped away, and that we should openly discriminate against Muslims--wonderful American values! The rest of the Republican electorate can't make its mind up who best supports the 1% and will send their children to fight in the Middle East--great family-support values!
It is not surprising that Republicans worship the US Constitution that defines federal government powers and responsibilities, which simply don't exist when Democrats are in office.
President Obama has spent 7 years overcoming Republican insanity. His nominee to the Supreme Court will, one-way or another, end up another victory for sane America.
It is not surprising that Republicans worship the US Constitution that defines federal government powers and responsibilities, which simply don't exist when Democrats are in office.
President Obama has spent 7 years overcoming Republican insanity. His nominee to the Supreme Court will, one-way or another, end up another victory for sane America.
49
I'm a Christian, but not a Bible thumper. I wouldn't vote for Ted Cruz if you paid me 2 million dollars. I'm not even registered Republican.
2
None of the five serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. McConnell and Grassley can protect them by keeping the nomination in committee.
12
It doesn't matter. Republicans will still be tarred by the accusation that they are obstructionist.
11
As the Republicans are about to nominate a buffoon who is despised by fully half of the REPUBLICAN Party (I should know, I'm one, it would behoove them to consider any relatively moderate nominee selected by President Obama.
Next year, it could very well be a Clinton nomination before a Democratic Senate.
Next year, it could very well be a Clinton nomination before a Democratic Senate.
20
If the Republicans manage to defy the Constitution as they have vowed to do - they are required to "advise and consent" regarding the President's appointments - can Revolution be far behind? If you will study history you will note that once a government loses power, the people with the most guns and followers take over. Scary, isn't it? The Decline and Fall of the American Empire is well underway, and the Republicans will finish the job.......
18
At one time I agreed with you. However, the fact that American voters has sat on its collective hands throughout seven years of paying for a Congress that has done nothing but do nothing, a Congress paralyzed by a man whose battle cry is "just say no," has me wondering if any action or inaction could rouse the people. At the time I agreed with you I hadn't fully realized that 1) our public school system was in decline due to a) "conservative" capitalists' war whoops against taxes which fund them; 1b) the same "conservative" capitalists' championing of charter schools, private schools and home schooling; and 2) half the country was brainwashed by Rupert Murdock's media holdings, rabid talk radio hosts, and other influences pandering to our basest instincts, e.g., television "reality" shows. It would be lovely if the American people had enough spunk to counter the waning promise of the American Experiment, but I'm afraid too many pairs of eyes are glazed over.
4
Egad. I changed "the American public" to "American voters" but didn't change the verb to "have." My face is red, and I apologize for my sloppiness in proofing.
Ron Johnson from Wisconsin will be getting his walking papers.
29
May God bless America and make that happen. My fervent prayer..
4
Kelly Ayotte acknowledges that she has already heard the dog whistle of the far right by throwing in with McConnell regarding the process for picking a Supreme Court Justice - just as she had in sucking up to the NRA in opposing common sense gun legislation. She's a moderate for show but a hard right winger for dough.
37
She's also famous for supporting torture and other war policies.
5
Then it's time to throw her out!
3
This is such terrible, irresponsible stuff from the NYTimes.
What America needs is assessment of the issues, priorities, politicians' and candidates' merits on them.
Instead, the NYTimes keeps flooding us with horserace fluff. "Senator X may move to the outside. Rep Y is moving to the rail."
Get responsible, or be quiet.
What America needs is assessment of the issues, priorities, politicians' and candidates' merits on them.
Instead, the NYTimes keeps flooding us with horserace fluff. "Senator X may move to the outside. Rep Y is moving to the rail."
Get responsible, or be quiet.
8
Handicapping races is part of The Upshot's beat. It's a lot of what this column is about.
2
Then change or dump The Upshot, Chris.
There are far better uses of this space. The Web is flooded with horserace stuff, polls and predictions and odds, for the coming election. There are far more important things about the election for the NYTimes to inform the American voters about.
There are far better uses of this space. The Web is flooded with horserace stuff, polls and predictions and odds, for the coming election. There are far more important things about the election for the NYTimes to inform the American voters about.
1
I find the country's discussion of Court nominees mildly offensive--before Justice Scalia is cold, so to speak--certainly before he is properly buried. But I can be catty and a gossip also, so I get the need to maneuver and plot.
What I don't understand is the audacity anyone might display by predicting how Judge Scalia's death will affect the election. This election cycle has already fractured all predictions.
I do think the Republicans will fight tooth and nail to delay or stop Obama from choosing the next Justice, but I have no idea how that will play with voters. And, I wonder what Mitch McConnell really thinks his parties chances are for the Presidency and continuation of his Senate majority if The Donald (or Ted Cruz) is the GOP candidate. And, of course, there is the Bernie factor. There are so many moving parts.
But, the big one is this article talks about American voting patterns as if it is 2008. Clearly, it is not. Throw away what you think you know.
What I don't understand is the audacity anyone might display by predicting how Judge Scalia's death will affect the election. This election cycle has already fractured all predictions.
I do think the Republicans will fight tooth and nail to delay or stop Obama from choosing the next Justice, but I have no idea how that will play with voters. And, I wonder what Mitch McConnell really thinks his parties chances are for the Presidency and continuation of his Senate majority if The Donald (or Ted Cruz) is the GOP candidate. And, of course, there is the Bernie factor. There are so many moving parts.
But, the big one is this article talks about American voting patterns as if it is 2008. Clearly, it is not. Throw away what you think you know.
5
This all a parlor game, fun, but meaningless. Can't imagine a Republican thinking voting with the President will help, especially with the prospect of a Republican taking office, but we're in surreal political times, so whatever.
In the end, it doesn't matter who sits on the Supreme Court: We're living a fraud--i.e., Washington is just ooze and goo--not much time left before our nine dressed in black robes who are issuing forth edicts from on high will have about the same effect as a wheelbarrow of German marks in 1923.
In the end, it doesn't matter who sits on the Supreme Court: We're living a fraud--i.e., Washington is just ooze and goo--not much time left before our nine dressed in black robes who are issuing forth edicts from on high will have about the same effect as a wheelbarrow of German marks in 1923.
4
The longest serving Associate on the Supreme Court dies and within hours, minutes, utter disrespect for the dead ensues and politics rumbles in. Shame on both parties. My god, this country becomes more and more coarse, classless, debased and shameful every day.
Yes, I am a "grumpy old man" but a nation that is utterly devoid of any civility and respect is a sorry sight indeed. Glad I lived (mostly) in a time when public and civic life was different.
Yes, I am a "grumpy old man" but a nation that is utterly devoid of any civility and respect is a sorry sight indeed. Glad I lived (mostly) in a time when public and civic life was different.
24
The '40s and '50s in Alabama. Very civil and respectful towards Christian white people.
The '60s in the US. Civil and respectful towards no one.
The '60s in the US. Civil and respectful towards no one.
15
Please compare President Obama's first statement on the passing of Justice Scalia to Senator McConnell's.
http://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-sup...
Both parties have plenty of flaws, but in this case, I only see one that ought to be ashamed.
http://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-sup...
Both parties have plenty of flaws, but in this case, I only see one that ought to be ashamed.
18
If there is strong opposition to a nominee in the Senate, it may require 60 supporting senators to confirm that nominee. The current senate is 54R-46D/I. It is unlikely that either party will have a majority of 60 in the next Congress. Any nominee (by either the current president or the next) will need cross aisle support for confirmation.
2
Not really, if Clinton is elected and the Senate does shift even somewhat to the Dems, Clinton could push through a more leftist juror (she'd have 4 yrs) then Obama could hope to right now. It would therefore probably benefit Reps. to let Obama pick.
1
No matter. The American people must DEMAND that senators do their jobs and confirm President Obama's proven progressive nominee. WE must hold obstructionist senators feet to the fire with a deluge of phone calls, e-mails, letters, tweets and other social media pressure as soon as President Obama names someone. It is time for democracy-loving Americans to take a stand and fight for what we want. It will only take a few minutes and WE can change the course of history.
42
The majority of American citizens do not have nearly enough money to attract their senators' attention.
2
A democratic Senate voting on a nominee from a newly elected democratic president , would in no way be the same thing as Republicans voting on a nominee from President Obama designed to garner some republican votes. Voting on a nominee this year makes the nomination of a moderate judge more likely. waiting until next president (with or without a democratic senate) will lead to a much more liberal judge being nominated. It's a huge risk for republicans that is being forced on them by a base that views compromise as the same as capitulation. Unless the Republicans win the presidency (once by popular vote in the last 6 elections) this gambit is a fools strategy.
19
Your insight shows that McConnell fails to understand where his best interests lie. Leaving aside for the moment his brazen assertion that the president be derelict in his duty to nominate ate a successor. And the fact that Mitch won't like Hillary's nominee any better, next year.
3
This is the best news I've read today! I didn't realize we had a chance to win back the Senate!
I hope that voters in those key states also recognize how important it is to get more Democrats in the Senate. Of course we need a Democratic President, but we need the Senate to confirm the Supreme Court nominee.
I live in California where my vote doesn't seem to count in the Presidential election, but it certainly counts in state government, where we have sidelined the Republicans and done so much better since then...
I hope that voters in those key states also recognize how important it is to get more Democrats in the Senate. Of course we need a Democratic President, but we need the Senate to confirm the Supreme Court nominee.
I live in California where my vote doesn't seem to count in the Presidential election, but it certainly counts in state government, where we have sidelined the Republicans and done so much better since then...
52
Moderate Republicans, what is left of them in a political party dedicated to avoiding actual governance, would ultimately be doing their party a favor by supporting any moderate nominee from Obama. Government inside the beltway will cease being dysfunctional when centrists/moderates are making the decisions. The far right and left only divide and polarize, and have consistently demonstrated how poorly that works.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
2
The Democrats face another challenge when it comes to winning back the Senate, the fact that President Obama will not be running for re-election. Overall the President's party does better in Senate elections that take place in Presidential election years, but that holds true only for elections that occur when the President is running at the top of the ticket. In open-seat elections, the national vote for Senate candidates of the President's party runs about 47-48% compared to 51% in years where the President is running.
It's still possible to win a majority of the contested seats in Senate elections even while losing the popular vote. In the postwar period, the Republicans have done so twice in 1982 and 2004.
http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/2016/02/01/a-simple-model-of-senate-...
One other point that Mr. Cohn failed to mention is that the current class of Senators last ran in the off year of 2010. That means they were elected by much smaller numbers of voters, and by an electorate that swung strongly Republican. Someone like Kelly Ayotte will be facing a much larger and more diverse electorate in 2016 than she did in 2010. I was surprised she was so quick to endorse McConnell's pledge not to consider anyone Obama nominates. I suspect it could come back to haunt her during the campaign. If I were Maggie Hassan, I'd be running ads with her comment all throughout the summer and make the issue a key point of contention in any debates.
It's still possible to win a majority of the contested seats in Senate elections even while losing the popular vote. In the postwar period, the Republicans have done so twice in 1982 and 2004.
http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/2016/02/01/a-simple-model-of-senate-...
One other point that Mr. Cohn failed to mention is that the current class of Senators last ran in the off year of 2010. That means they were elected by much smaller numbers of voters, and by an electorate that swung strongly Republican. Someone like Kelly Ayotte will be facing a much larger and more diverse electorate in 2016 than she did in 2010. I was surprised she was so quick to endorse McConnell's pledge not to consider anyone Obama nominates. I suspect it could come back to haunt her during the campaign. If I were Maggie Hassan, I'd be running ads with her comment all throughout the summer and make the issue a key point of contention in any debates.
13
I'm going to tweet this to her and send her a check. Sorry for stealing your idea but it's too good to not pass along.
1
I suspect M. Hassan has already thought of it :<)
It is sad for the family when a loved one dies. My condolences to the family. That said, I will not miss Scalia on the Supreme Court. He struck me as a reactionary bully buoyed by a strong rightward shift in national politics. I believe most Americans still believe in fair play and fairness. If the GOP follows a policy of delay and obstruction, the president and the eventual democratic nominee will be gifted a very big hammer. They should use it to clobber the Republicans in November.
42
The potential upside for the GOP is that voters (and people generally) react differently at the thought of losing something valuable versus gaining something valuable. It's possible that the prospect of losing a reliable conservative vote when there were so many important 5-4 decisions will energize GOP voters more than it will Democrats, at the prospect of gaining a liberal (or moderate) justice.
1
In a normal election, your argument has some merit. But normal left the station long ago, with radicals and nut jobs like Cruz, Rubio, and Trump still on the platform.
When over 60 percent of the public still supporting the right to a safe and legal abortion, where do you expect the votes for a Cruz or Rubio, who would no doubt appoint a fire and brimstone activist in their quest to overturn Roe v Wade to emerge from?
I think if anything, the opposite may be true and this will make moderates take heed of their radical positions and look for a moderate to make the judiciary branch the voice of reason in a government gone berserk.
When over 60 percent of the public still supporting the right to a safe and legal abortion, where do you expect the votes for a Cruz or Rubio, who would no doubt appoint a fire and brimstone activist in their quest to overturn Roe v Wade to emerge from?
I think if anything, the opposite may be true and this will make moderates take heed of their radical positions and look for a moderate to make the judiciary branch the voice of reason in a government gone berserk.
8
The real risk is that the Republicans lose the presidential election, and a more leftward-leaning president picks a replacement during his (or her) honeymoon.
9
That's not what the Republican's think: They think they're gonna win the Presidency AND hold the Senate. When God is on your side its hard to go wrong!
4
Was God on Justice Scalia's side?
they couldn't believe milt ryan, or whatever his name was, didn't win
In an election year when many voters, and nearly all moderate voters, feel that the government is 'broken' or disfunctional, why would the Republicians think voters will find it attractive to create an impass in filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court. I was astounded that the presential candidates were so strongly against any type of bi-partisan cooperation in filling the spot. To me this highlights one of the big weaknesses of their proclaimed policies. We want to see the government take appropriate actions - fill vacancies, pass budgets, legislate smoothly etc.
47
"In an election year when many voters, and nearly all moderate voters, feel that the government is 'broken' or disfunctional, why would the Republicians think voters will find it attractive to create an impass in filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court."
-------
The answer is easy: They GOP almost always overreaches in its attempts to control the agenda with their politics.
Fortunately, they wind up shooting themselves in the foot much of the time.
-------
The answer is easy: They GOP almost always overreaches in its attempts to control the agenda with their politics.
Fortunately, they wind up shooting themselves in the foot much of the time.
27
President was elected by a popular majority, twice. Is still the President in good standing with constitutional responsibility and authority to nominate justices. The senate has a sworn duty to advise and consent to the President's reasonable nominee. Pretty much an open-shut case for President Obama to nominate and the Senate to confirm. Anything different would cause Justice Scalia to rollover in his grave and crushing defeats of all Republicans in all but the most conservative strongholds.
80
Crazy as it sounds, maybe these Senators should just do the right thing: consider any nominee put forth by Obama on his or her merits, and then decide.
61
Not so bc crazy is now the new normal.
3
Perhaps someone needs to remind those Republican Constitutional 'Originalists' in the Senate of their job.
It's a very long stretch from "advise and consent" to "obstruct and delay."
It's a very long stretch from "advise and consent" to "obstruct and delay."
135
They are only originalists when it serves their agenda.
13
Did our founding fathers intend by the words "advise and consent" actually intend to say "obstruct and delay"? Perhaps our orginalist jurist should tell us.
45
Remember the "hockey stick" representation of McConnell's record number of filibusters? Turtle Man will not change his spots, to mix a metaphor.
1
The "ball" is now in the President's court. He can:
1. Nominate a centrist such as Srinivasan who was unanimously confirmed for the appeals court and highlight the Republican obstructionism from now to November, or
2. Nominate a candidate clearly to the left of center, but not extremely so, and reenforce the notion that the November election is about the future of the Court (instead of say, fear of terrorism).
Given the growing trend favoring the Democrat nominee in Presidential elections and the apparent weakness of whoever emerges from this cycle's Republican version of survival, the "in your face" option 2 conceivably might gain more overall than the less focused option 1.
1. Nominate a centrist such as Srinivasan who was unanimously confirmed for the appeals court and highlight the Republican obstructionism from now to November, or
2. Nominate a candidate clearly to the left of center, but not extremely so, and reenforce the notion that the November election is about the future of the Court (instead of say, fear of terrorism).
Given the growing trend favoring the Democrat nominee in Presidential elections and the apparent weakness of whoever emerges from this cycle's Republican version of survival, the "in your face" option 2 conceivably might gain more overall than the less focused option 1.
26
Srinivasan is a 'centrist' the way Ken Starr was a "centrist". That's why he was confirmed.
2
I don't know what is best, but it would be perfectly fair to do 2. given how far to the right Scalia was; and also how long a run the right has had at the Court.
4
Republicans have become the Party of Obstruction. I doubt Ted Cruz will be reading any more Dr. Suess books, but Tom Cotton (and his ilk, if there are any) will likely do his best to keep a vote on President Obama's nominee from occurring. Democrats simply need to put such Republican ugliness front and center for the voters - and the rest of the world - to see in full living color. That way Scalia's death may return the Senate to control by the Democrats and keep the presidency safely in their hands.
45
The story says that it might be rational for the Republicans to oppose any Obama nominee because if the worst happens and they lose the Senate and Presidency, the result "would be the same as if they conceded."
Not quite true. At this point, facing a Republican Senate, Obama has an incentive to nominate a moderate like Shrinavasan, who was recently confirmed 97-0 to a lower court. A President Hillary or President Sanders with a Democratic Senate would have no such incentive and might (especially Sanders) appoint a radical leftist in the Scalia mold.
Not quite true. At this point, facing a Republican Senate, Obama has an incentive to nominate a moderate like Shrinavasan, who was recently confirmed 97-0 to a lower court. A President Hillary or President Sanders with a Democratic Senate would have no such incentive and might (especially Sanders) appoint a radical leftist in the Scalia mold.
15
Name me a radical leftist candidate for a seat and tell me why he is a radical leftist. I suspect you consider FDR to be a radical leftist.
8
"it might still be completely rational for them to oppose Mr. Obama’s choice at all costs"
In theory, this is the rational choice. By opposing Obama, they hold their base together. The chance of a united opposition to Obama hurting their senate chances is close to nil. Time and again, the republicans have shown how they can win in regional contests, for the house and senate, by opposing the black president. And if a democrat is elected to the White House, they still have the power to reject a few nominees till they get who they want.
The only possible monkey wrench in this rational plan are the voters. If for once, they can see through the cynical plans of the obstructionist non-governing majority, and vote for their own self interest, the democrats may get both the White House and the Senate, and have a chance to replace Scalia with a non-partisan non-ideological judge.
In theory, this is the rational choice. By opposing Obama, they hold their base together. The chance of a united opposition to Obama hurting their senate chances is close to nil. Time and again, the republicans have shown how they can win in regional contests, for the house and senate, by opposing the black president. And if a democrat is elected to the White House, they still have the power to reject a few nominees till they get who they want.
The only possible monkey wrench in this rational plan are the voters. If for once, they can see through the cynical plans of the obstructionist non-governing majority, and vote for their own self interest, the democrats may get both the White House and the Senate, and have a chance to replace Scalia with a non-partisan non-ideological judge.
40
Great analysis. One quibble: Odds are good that whoever Obama nominates will be a moderate to increase chances of confirmation. If the D's win the WH and take back the Senate, you can bet your last buck the nominee would be much more liberal. So the R's are betting the farm on winning the WH and the Senate and ending up with a conservative pick rather than the moderate that is the likely Obama nominee. I think that's a bad bet, based on how things are going so far in the GOP race. Just think about Saturday's debate.
51
Obama should make a recess appointment: himself. Let Joe Biden ride out the remainder of the term. As a former president and constitutional law professor, he's a great choice.
23
Blah blah blah from GOP and supporters. Has it even occurred to anyone in that faction that there is a vast majority of Republicans and Democrats who favor Obama Care. AND most of us want to replace the open Supreme Court with a qualified candidate asap. The nerve of those who want to delay, delay, delay in that process.
36
National republicans cannot govern
They are an opposition party
They will do their constitutional consent role
By once again just saying no
No is their main policy approach to most things
Other than war
They are an opposition party
They will do their constitutional consent role
By once again just saying no
No is their main policy approach to most things
Other than war
23
What if Trump is elected president and names Judge Judy to the Court?
That is about as likely as the American people will wake up and stop voting for people who do not have their or the nation's interests at heart.
That is about as likely as the American people will wake up and stop voting for people who do not have their or the nation's interests at heart.
13
It's one thing for Congress to neglect doing its job, which has been standard operating practice for that august institution since 2010, but to declare in advance its refusal to carry out its constitutional duty brings it to an unprecedented low.
In several commentaries about the Supreme Court vacancy, the question has been raised about the President's "right" to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia. His "RIGHT!?" Is this a joke? It's his constitutional duty, for the Love of Larry, just as the Senate is duty-bound to consider the President's nomination on the judicial merits of the nominee.
Among the arguments for delay is a GOP appeal to democracy. "Let the people decide!" intoned Mitch McConnell. Well, the people decided when they elected our current President to carry out the duties constitutionally assigned to him for his full four-year term. We did not elect him to a three-year term.
It's ironic that the Party now pleading for "democracy" is the same one that blatantly and willfully suppresses the vote of minorities, students, the elderly and the poor. That's the real GOP appeal to "democracy."
www.endthemadnessnow.org
In several commentaries about the Supreme Court vacancy, the question has been raised about the President's "right" to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia. His "RIGHT!?" Is this a joke? It's his constitutional duty, for the Love of Larry, just as the Senate is duty-bound to consider the President's nomination on the judicial merits of the nominee.
Among the arguments for delay is a GOP appeal to democracy. "Let the people decide!" intoned Mitch McConnell. Well, the people decided when they elected our current President to carry out the duties constitutionally assigned to him for his full four-year term. We did not elect him to a three-year term.
It's ironic that the Party now pleading for "democracy" is the same one that blatantly and willfully suppresses the vote of minorities, students, the elderly and the poor. That's the real GOP appeal to "democracy."
www.endthemadnessnow.org
267
The country needs to look at california as an example. The second we got rid of the republicans, the state immediately improved. Roads are being fixed. Money is being spent on education, the unemployment rate has shrunk to pre-recession levels. However, anywhere where republicans still hold power, most notably in the agricultural portions of the state, these areas resemble third world poverty at it's worse. Wake up and vote these bums out. They do not represent the interests of the nation. Just take a look at the so called republican clown car of debates.
291
Just take a look at that scorched earth state called "Kansas"!
12
And, Republican Governor Snyder's Michigan for the ultimate in Poisoned Water, Failed School Systems and Dictator Controlled Local governments . Credit where credit is due !!??
4
The real issue in the 2016 election is how many Republicans are going to be voted out of the Senate and, more importantly, voted out of the House. Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly they are the Party of failed ideas, obstructionism, and fear mongering. They are less interested in governing or addressing the issues that confront the United States on a daily basis than they are much more focused on defeating any effort on the part of President Obama. They have no ideas for addressing any of our problems, except deportation, a big wall, and another huge tax cut for the obscenely rich. There is actually a caucus in the Congress that wants to see the Federal Government destroyed to the point that it can be "flushed down the toilet". Why do people keep electing people who want to destroy Government? What small mindedness; is this what the country needs in the way of leadership? The Republican Party needs to be broken and driven out of office so they can rethink their political foundations.
You have to get active politically. You have to find a moderate or left of center candidate and support that candidate for their run for the House or the Senate. Time to get your neighbors, friends and family all active. Time for a wave election to drive the Republicans out. Drive them out for decades; they are not good for America.
You have to get active politically. You have to find a moderate or left of center candidate and support that candidate for their run for the House or the Senate. Time to get your neighbors, friends and family all active. Time for a wave election to drive the Republicans out. Drive them out for decades; they are not good for America.
167
The Republican Party's popularity is on the wane and they know it. The only way they can hang on longer is to ratchet up the obstructionism, voter suppression, and employ ever more drastic measures like refusing to confirm a Democratic President's choice for the Supreme Court, not only for the remainder of Obama's term but for the four years after that if the Democrat wins.
Remember, the Republican party no longer gives a fig about what's good for our once-great country, but what's good for the Republican Party and the oligarchs who run it, and that means doing whatever it takes to stay in power. It could get very, very ugly (uglier?).
Remember, the Republican party no longer gives a fig about what's good for our once-great country, but what's good for the Republican Party and the oligarchs who run it, and that means doing whatever it takes to stay in power. It could get very, very ugly (uglier?).
119
The Republican party is our nation's "Fifth Column". Initiated by the hugely wealthy bankrollers of the Reagan administration and continuously organized and funded by them, the Wall St, Corporate, Family One% Elite . This very small handful of rich Potentates own all the assets that power the U.S. and the world and control our politicians and system of government . Therefore we must elect a President with the lifelong dedication to government Of - By - For the People who can electrify America's citizenry to revolt and preserve our 240 year old Democratic Republic . Learn about the personal and political life of Sen. Bernie Sanders for your children's sake, and vote . Cordially, Don L.
2
If, as now seems entirely possible, the Republicans giddily down the Kool-Aid and nominate either Trump or Cruz, the likelihood is that they'll be headed for a national referendum in which Americans will reject their goofiness ("I will make Mexico build the wall"), simple-mindedness ("bomb them until the sands glow"), and delusions ("don't admit Muslims into our country, but somehow we'll get the boots on the ground that are needed to knock ISIS out in Syria from our Muslim allies in the region"). As Bob Gates, former Defense Secretary to Bush 43 and Obama, has pointed out, their rhetoric exposes a breath-depriving lack of understanding. So, with the probable Second Coming of Clintoniana to the Oval Office, will Senator McConnell refuse to hold hearings for the four-or-eight-year duration of her Presidency on her nomination of the 9th Supreme Court justice? Will we have an inversion of FDR's ill-fated and ill-advised court packing gambit, where the GOP actually reduces the third branch of our federal government to an irrelevancy, unable to resolve cases because of persistent 4-4 deadlocks?
55
The persistent 4-4 deadlock only applies where a conservative majority would win (ie when Kennedy swings right). If Kennedy swings left, expect 5-3 rulings.
So in practice, left-leaning cases will win and right-leaning cases will tie, preserving the status quo. Most appellate courts are now left-leaning, so in general this means the status quo will start leaning left.
So in practice, left-leaning cases will win and right-leaning cases will tie, preserving the status quo. Most appellate courts are now left-leaning, so in general this means the status quo will start leaning left.
18
No, they're waiting for Ginsberg to die.
2
No, because at least one, and probably two other justices will leave the bench in the next 2-5 years. So we could have a seven member SC, which would give the majority to one of the factions.
Fortunately, it's more likely that the Republicans will loose the Senate if they keep up. their nonsense.
Fortunately, it's more likely that the Republicans will loose the Senate if they keep up. their nonsense.
2
The sudden death of Justice Scalia has made a fascinating election year even more compelling.
20
There is a factor Democrats may not have evaluated (although you can bet the White House is): whoever the President nominates is likely not to be confirmed. Therefore, does it make sense for Obama to nominate a highly qualified candidate who in effect will be a sacrificial lamb? Would it not make more strategic sense for the White House to pick a nominee who is moderate, but someone who -- when turned down -- would not constitute a loss for the country or SCOTUS?
1
The President should nominate the most highly qualified candidate he can find, and let the Senate "advise and consent" as they will. To nominate some lesser-qualified candidate is to surrender before the game has started.
If the Senate rejects the most highly qualified candidate, their partisan hand is revealed (not that it is hidden in any way now) and that becomes another reason for changing the control of the Senate.
If, after the election, the same candidate is still the most highly qualified, I see no reason why he/she should not be re-nominated by the new President subject to the approval of the (re-constituted) Senate.
The strategic sense, it seems to me, is to always play your best hand -- in this case, to nominate a candidate who cannot be challenged as "unqualified" in any way.
If the Senate rejects the most highly qualified candidate, their partisan hand is revealed (not that it is hidden in any way now) and that becomes another reason for changing the control of the Senate.
If, after the election, the same candidate is still the most highly qualified, I see no reason why he/she should not be re-nominated by the new President subject to the approval of the (re-constituted) Senate.
The strategic sense, it seems to me, is to always play your best hand -- in this case, to nominate a candidate who cannot be challenged as "unqualified" in any way.
91
Brian, point taken, but there is rarely a single most qualified candidate, but a small group of highly qualified candidates, some moderate, and some (perceived as) more partison. I would probably choose the one who would make the Republicans look the worst when they continue to obstruct the President and leave the poor candidate swinging in the wind.
7
Any nominated candidate will be highly qualified. It's the difference between a highly qualified left-of-center moderate that Obama might nominate now and hope to get through a Republican Senate, and a more leftist nominee that a future President would nominate for a Democratic Senate.
3
One of the biggest challenges for both parties is developing appropriate messages about the issues at stake that resonate with likely voters of all socio-economic and educational levels.
6
What if the Republicans filibuster the nomination? Then it will take sixty votes, not fifty plus Biden, to stop them from blocking whoever Obama nominates.
2
A new Warren Court. Would Trump be a good fit? Or, be just a daring pick.
Barry
Just out of sheer curiosity what qualifies Donald Trump to sit on the Supreme Court? He's not a lawyer of any stripe.
Just out of sheer curiosity what qualifies Donald Trump to sit on the Supreme Court? He's not a lawyer of any stripe.
Opposing all Obama nominees is rational only from the narrowest party political point of view. It would set a terrible precedent, damage the process, and further degrade government.
31
"After all, if the Republicans lose the Senate and the presidency, the end result, a Democratic president choosing the next Supreme Court justice, would be the same as if they conceded."
Not exactly. The new Democratic president might well nominate Barack Obama and the new Democratic Senate would approve in record time.
Not exactly. The new Democratic president might well nominate Barack Obama and the new Democratic Senate would approve in record time.
29
And, after all, the obstructionist Republican stance seems highly likely to make them more likely to lose the presidency, and with it, potentially kissing goodbye to more Senate and House seats. No, the result would not be the same. Accepting the social contract that they are actually part of a government might increase their chances in September.
4
I think you mean November.
No, the end result will not necessarily be the same if the Republicans lose both the White House and the Senate. Whereas they are likely to wind up with Judge Srinivasan if they accept a nominee now, they could easily be looking at a more liberal nominee with another Dem in the White House and a Dem-controlled Senate.
13
The Republican Party's current strategy of voter suppression, gerrymandering and dark money is dependent on keeping competent jurists off the Court. Even is every "moderate" Republican senator favored a vote on an Obama nominee there are still plenty of Republican votes to maintain a filibuster (and they will be true after the 2016 election as well). Anyone who thinks for a minute that an Obama nominee would come to vote (or even have a hearing) is guilty of magical thinking. Ain't going to happen.
14
The spectacle of the Republican assault on the country continues to degrade. They won't even speak with the president's budget director about the budget for the country, they have backlogged hundreds of lower court nominations, they have brought the country to the brink of default repeatedly and shut down essential services and now they vow to throw out the Constitution and deny the sitting president his right to nominate a SC justice.
Their accusations of unconstitutional behavior by this president, himself a constitutional lawyer, are even more hypocritical when their front runners to replace him are a Canadian-born dual citizenship holder, an elected Senator who can't be bothered to attend legislative sessions and a tycoon who promises to discriminate against immigrants, legal residents and American citizens on the basis of their religion.
If President Obama nominates a moderate, qualified candidate from an ethnic group currently underrepresented on the Court - Asian, black or Hispanic, perhaps - it will be nearly impossible for Republican candidates (particularly Cruz and Rubio, who have votes) to refuse to consider them even as they seek votes from those same groups. And it will be impossible to claim that they are respecting the Constitution as they hold up the business of the People for a year, simply out of spite.
Their accusations of unconstitutional behavior by this president, himself a constitutional lawyer, are even more hypocritical when their front runners to replace him are a Canadian-born dual citizenship holder, an elected Senator who can't be bothered to attend legislative sessions and a tycoon who promises to discriminate against immigrants, legal residents and American citizens on the basis of their religion.
If President Obama nominates a moderate, qualified candidate from an ethnic group currently underrepresented on the Court - Asian, black or Hispanic, perhaps - it will be nearly impossible for Republican candidates (particularly Cruz and Rubio, who have votes) to refuse to consider them even as they seek votes from those same groups. And it will be impossible to claim that they are respecting the Constitution as they hold up the business of the People for a year, simply out of spite.
208
Our political discourse is too often reaction to the dark forces - what they are trying to do, how we can counter that - rather than just doing the right thing in the first place.
The Constitution is very clear about the right thing to do in this situation. Even Scalia, who would have hated to have his seat filled by a more liberal Justice, wouldn't have hesitated two seconds to say the sitting President should appoint his replacement and the Senate should not block the appointee unless crazy or incompetent. So, let's just do it and avoid the polarization that erodes our democracy.
The Constitution is very clear about the right thing to do in this situation. Even Scalia, who would have hated to have his seat filled by a more liberal Justice, wouldn't have hesitated two seconds to say the sitting President should appoint his replacement and the Senate should not block the appointee unless crazy or incompetent. So, let's just do it and avoid the polarization that erodes our democracy.
118
It's true that promptly nominating, hearing and voting on a SCOTUS nominee is clearly the constitutional thing to do, especially within the "original meaning of the words" that Scalia frequently interpreted to buttress his opinions...
But I'm not sure I agree that Scalia would say so now. If it were Justice Thomas who had died, for example, it's pretty clear from Scalia's history of selective application of his "principles" that in such a vital situation, he would be finding a way to argue that the R senators are justified in delaying and refusing to do their duty and confirm a new justice. He always put party before principle when it really counted.
But I'm not sure I agree that Scalia would say so now. If it were Justice Thomas who had died, for example, it's pretty clear from Scalia's history of selective application of his "principles" that in such a vital situation, he would be finding a way to argue that the R senators are justified in delaying and refusing to do their duty and confirm a new justice. He always put party before principle when it really counted.
6
If Democrats win the senate and the presidency not only will there be no more pressure to nominate a moderate, but also a Democratic Senate will easily confirm the nominee. President Obama may push the envelope a little bit to bait the Republicans to further politicize the issue, but he surely wants to make a successful appointment. The stakes are too high considering the chances that the next president may not be a Democrat and may well replace Ginsburg and or Breyer.
14
On the 9th day of April, 1865, The American Civil War effectively ended with the Surrender of Robert E. Lee's Army to Ulysses S Grant, General-in-chief of all United States forces, at Appomattox Court House, a village in the State of Virginia. More than 150 years ago, but the memories and fears of that time still live on. At one of the three day conferences of that war, held in the summer of 1863, near the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, more than 160,00 delegates met from both sides, 8,000 men lost their lives and more than 27,000 were seriously wounded ( which means more than their feelings were hurt ).
Afterwards, this realization was penned by one observer, ". The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced...—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Afterwards, this realization was penned by one observer, ". The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced...—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
26
Nice words. But your point? That the American democratic experiment will survive this latest crisis? Or that despite having fought a Civil War, the U.S. remains a divided nation?
1
The choice for thinking Republican Senators could be even cloudier if Obama nominates a moderate judge. Then they must choose whether to approve a known moderate or risk a President Sanders or Clinton nominating a more liberal judge in a more evenly divided Senate. This would make a really entertaining TV series but as reality it is not so much fun.
37
Oh, as reality, I think it is plenty of fun.
1
Linda: "Oh, as reality, I think it is plenty of fun."
Agreed. As a European I can only guess what comes next in the USA. Proposals that Ginsburg's brain is implanted into another body?
Agreed. As a European I can only guess what comes next in the USA. Proposals that Ginsburg's brain is implanted into another body?
I don't agree with the conclusion that, "if the Republicans lose the Senate and the presidency, the end result, a Democratic president choosing the next Supreme Court justice, would be the same as if they conceded." Obama will probably nominate a moderate sitting judge now, somebody who was confirmed previously with republican support. A new democratic president with a democratic senate will nominate somebody on the far left.
18
Probably not. The new democratic president can only get confirmation for someone on the far left if democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in the senate (60 senators).
16
Unless the Dems eliminate the filibuster, which is a very real possibility under this hypothetical. There are several months between now and the election -- plenty of time for the filibuster to be used as a bargaining chip by the Dems.
To me, one of the more interesting consequences of this is the potential elimination of the filibuster, which could happen under either party's control.
To me, one of the more interesting consequences of this is the potential elimination of the filibuster, which could happen under either party's control.
8
Even with a Democratic majority in the Senate and Democrats in the committee chairs, a nominee on the "far left" would get filibustered and their nomination would not make it to a vote. It still takes 60 votes to get the nomination onto the floor for an up-and-down vote.
4
Scalia's death has changed the math of what will happen in the elections by removing the constant of a rightist court and making the future lean of the court a variable. It will take time to see how this change impacts the whole equation of where the country is headed and who, with what values, leads it. I for one am delighted that we have reached such an unknown as the elections approach. My hope is for stronger unions, more aggressive pollution control, choice and so on. It is a better day today to be looking over the hill and trying to compute what is coming then was last Friday.
62
What 'rightist' court? Isn't this the court that 'discovered' a 'right' to gay marriage??? Maybe finding previously unknown rights is what a 'rightist' court does????
1
Finding in favor of gay marriage was simple math. It's only a left leaning decision if you are an Evangelical. The rest of the country was past ready for it.
I'm more concerned with the environment and control of corporations.
In the Roberts Court social issues are not really threatened unless they cause big business some sort of monetary inconvenience. That has been imminently clear and caused no end to vitriol from the rank and file GOP.
As in the Hobby Lobby case, Hobby Lobby found a loophole that would allow them to forego paying for something while presenting themselves as champions on the Right. Despite the fact that they have no problem at all buying from the non-theistic, pro-choice, pro-birth control Chinese they still won the exception.
The real trick here is to find someone acceptable who helps cut big business off at the pass before they try to rob us and kill us with their toxic run off.
I'm more concerned with the environment and control of corporations.
In the Roberts Court social issues are not really threatened unless they cause big business some sort of monetary inconvenience. That has been imminently clear and caused no end to vitriol from the rank and file GOP.
As in the Hobby Lobby case, Hobby Lobby found a loophole that would allow them to forego paying for something while presenting themselves as champions on the Right. Despite the fact that they have no problem at all buying from the non-theistic, pro-choice, pro-birth control Chinese they still won the exception.
The real trick here is to find someone acceptable who helps cut big business off at the pass before they try to rob us and kill us with their toxic run off.
5
The smart move for President Obama is to nominate fairly soon a black, Hispanic or other ethnic candidate to the Supreme Court and to designate that person as Associate Justice under the recess appointment clause of the Constitution. True, this has never been done before. But we've also never had a situation in which one political party has vowed never to approve any Supreme Court nominee of the president of the other party. It happens that the Court has recently ruled that a recess appointment that occurs when the Senate is in recess, as it is now, is valid as long as there are at least ten days before the Senate reconvenes. Under its present calendar, the Senate will be in recess for more than ten days.
22
Wrong on both points: Justice Brennan was a recess appointment, and the recent Supreme Court ruling held that for such an appointment to be valid, the Senate recess must last longer than 3 days, and without it coming in during that time to take some minimal legislative action: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-a...
10
"Under its present calendar, the Senate will be in recess for more than ten days." Nah, they will just park a body in there and call the Senate "in session".
3
There have actually been ten recess appointments to the Supreme Court, most recently the appointment of William J. Brennan by President Eisenhower.
14
Solid analysis.
The Trump phenomenon is a factor you ought to consider. Times op-ed writers and Times readers easily dismiss Trump supporters as scared, angry and racist while overlooking an import point. Many also are Republican-leaning swing voters. Trump appeals to them because he openly values the government programs that are important to them. Trump's cries of win, win, win and deal, deal, deal appeal to them because they see Trump as a forceful candidate who in the final analysis can successfully cut deal after deal with Democrats. And they are disappointed in the Republican Party's leadership that can't get anything done for them -- on the government programs they find important.
A Republican Senate unwilling to perform its Constitutional duty to advise and consent by taking up and disposing of the President's nominee may drive many of them either to stay home or vote for the Democrat in November.
The Trump phenomenon is a factor you ought to consider. Times op-ed writers and Times readers easily dismiss Trump supporters as scared, angry and racist while overlooking an import point. Many also are Republican-leaning swing voters. Trump appeals to them because he openly values the government programs that are important to them. Trump's cries of win, win, win and deal, deal, deal appeal to them because they see Trump as a forceful candidate who in the final analysis can successfully cut deal after deal with Democrats. And they are disappointed in the Republican Party's leadership that can't get anything done for them -- on the government programs they find important.
A Republican Senate unwilling to perform its Constitutional duty to advise and consent by taking up and disposing of the President's nominee may drive many of them either to stay home or vote for the Democrat in November.
63
"And they are disappointed in the Republican Party's leadership that can't get anything done for them -- on the government programs they find important.
"
I unclear on this. What are those programs?
I unclear on this. What are those programs?
It is probably asking too much to ask that the Senators act in a timely manner in doing a duty for which they were elected as our representatives in our crumbling system of government.
So, the article is purely about political angles (do they get damaged more by voting against a nominee, or by just hiding behind the Majority Leader's power of scheduling?). No wonder so much of the electorate is so sick of Congress (and the rest of the DC establishment) and going for the Trumps and Sanders. These Senators are sucking up our tax money for their salaries while refusing to do a Constitutionally assigned job (if they can't stand a nominee, advise, and withhold consent - but for goodness' sake please do your jobs.