Supreme Court Nomination Thread

[AENeuman]

I think they should pull a West Wing and convince Ginsberg to retire and make an even swap. It worked on tv!

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Drudge has a headline saying Scalia was found with a pillow over his head.

He was.

[albionmoonlight]

also, he seemed perfectly ok before he went to bed. There will be no autopsy. And the judicial inquest into his death was not done in person but instead over the telephone.

The conspiracy will outlive us all.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Presidential races are about 18 months long and growing. The President should clearly never nominate a justice unless he's a Republican.

Since Kayne has already announced his intent to run in 2020 I think it would be inappropriate for the next president to make a single nomination to the Supreme Court.

It's tradition to not nominate a Supreme Court Justice when one of the countries most famous rappers has declared intent to run in the future, something that's literally never been done in the history of our country. It would be stomping ask over the US Constitution to do things any differently.

[larrymcg421]

Per David Axelrod, Scalia suggested Kagan as a potential SCOTUS nominee.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinio...lia/index.html

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Presidential races are about 18 months long and growing. The President should clearly never nominate a justice unless he's a Republican.

Apparently, that's not even the case...

Schumer insists that lame-duck president should not get Supreme Court pick

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I found this tidbit interesting, especially in light of all the complaints SCOTUS gets about being activist liberals...

If Obama gets a justice confirmed this year, it will be the first time in 62 years that a majority of the 9 justices have been appointed by a Democrat.

Like most things in life, the facts and fiction don't match up.

Pesky activist conservative justices.

[cuervo72]

In all of this, it is impossible to overstate the importance of Ted Cruz, who will make the appointment a central issue in the campaign and who will drive enormous pressure against proceeding with any nomination. That pressure is likely to be too great for the Republican Senate leadership to overcome, even if it concludes that it would be better politics to do so.

Cruz is extremely sophisticated regarding these issues both legally and politically. He understands the stakes perfectly and is a thought leader among Republicans regarding the Court. He immediately understands the value to his own personal candidacy – and he would say, to Republican prospects in the general election – in taking the hardest possible line against permitting President Obama to replace Scalia.

Cruz did it!

[RainMaker]

I'm pretty surprised at all the conspiracy stuff popping up on this. He was almost 80, was overweight and smoked. Heart attack was likely inevitable.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm pretty surprised at all the conspiracy stuff popping up on this. He was almost 80, was overweight and smoked. Heart attack was likely inevitable.

but this is america.....

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Like most things in life, the facts and fiction don't match up.

Pesky activist conservative justices.

Well, in fairness, there have been quite a few Republican-appointed jurists who promptly pulled the rug out from under said President. Souter was an H.W. appointee and ended up being considered one of the liberal members of the court. Kennedy was a Reagan appointee, and he's considered a swing vote.

Sandra Day O'Connor was a Reagan appointee, and likewise, she was considered a swing vote.

Where the 'activist liberal' stuff comes from is more THAT than Democratic appointments.

Honestly? I think what it boils down to is that Republicans trust Democratic appointees to behave in line with their benefactor's politics more than they trust Republican appointees to toe the line. They assume that of course Democratic appointees will be reliably liberal, and they assume that Republican appointees will eventually betray them.

So you get a liberal activist SCOTUS rabble rabble rawr

[Suicane75]

Might be best served for another thread but I can't be the only one who often times puts a pillow over his face when he sleeps. If you use a sheet your nose and mouth get covered, you can lay a pillow on the top of your face and still breath.

[cuervo72]

Yep, I do that too. Two pillows under my head if on my side, one under and one over if on my back. Of course I try not to sleep on my back anymore because of the snoring.

[GrantDawg]

This seems like something out of "The West Wing." Brian Sandoval, Republican governor of Nevada, is being floated out there. Whether it is serious or not, it is a very intentional name to float.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politi...nee/index.html

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm pretty surprised at all the conspiracy stuff popping up on this. He was almost 80, was overweight and smoked. Heart attack was likely inevitable.

[flere-imsaho]

Obama's comments yesterday make it pretty clear he's going to nominate someone like Sri Srinivasan, i.e. previously confirmed by Senate (in this case 97-0 to Circuit Court in 2013), clearly qualified, and likely some flavor of bipartisan (clerked for O'Connor, worked for Solicitor General's office in the Bush Administration). I hope he then sits back and trolls the fuck out of Senate Republicans with all the usual "up or down vote" soundbites.

[corbes]

NYT: White House is Said to be Vetting Iowa Judge (Jane Kelly) for Supreme Court Seat

[Thomkal]

Well that would put Rep. Grassley in a real bind. Deny a native daughter of Iowa to hold hearings in a election year? Stroke of genius if she's liberal enough.

[Kodos]

Supreme Court Abortion Arguments Show Why Elections Matter | Rolling Stone

[QuikSand]

The obvious twist here is that once there's an Obama nominee, you run the risk of the presidential campaign becoming about her credentials - in detail. Once there's a person, then some of the abstract argument goes away. Insiders can argue that it's all about precedent and whatnot, but to many Americans (including many in the middle who more or less decide elections) the debate becomes about the nominee.

So, if you're Team Clinton, you're really hoping that the vetting process and whatever comes with it picks up every little speck on the potential nominee. Because at some point, the debate almost certainly turns materially into "CONFIRM HER vs. STOP HER" and if there's some quirky pamphlet or criminal affiliation or something even more superficially sinister than I can imagine... then the Dems lose the potentially strong footing there.

An Obama SCOTUS nominee could be sitting out there a really long time, in the internet age, for nobody to stumble on a jilted lover, disgruntled co-worker, or some document with a strange-sounding sentence. It could add great texture to what is already, by leaps and bounds, the craziest and most fantastic presidential campaign ever.

[JPhillips]

To me that's where the GOP has really misplayed this. They should have stayed quiet and then found something about the nominee to get "outraged" about and refuse hearings until after a thorough investigation. That investigation would take months and then as summer ended they reject this "radical" and they could get away with the let the next President decide argument.

[NobodyHere]

The pick is in

Congressional sources: Obama to nominate Merrick Garland

[ISiddiqui]

Seems like a left-of-center moderate who is white and relatively old (63), so really, the most difficult pick for the GOP to reject. He's even got tons of plaudits from Republicans when he was nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and is a friend of Chief Justice Roberts. It'll make the GOP look ridiculously foolish to deny it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It'll make the GOP look ridiculously foolish to deny it.

But at this point, with either Trump as the nominee or a bunch of people angry because the party screwed Trump, they're going to lose the White House anyway, so as individuals, why wouldn't they "take a hard stand against Obama" to impress their own constituents?

[digamma]

I agree that it seems like a political hedge. Someone who is confirmable, but maybe not the ideal candidate if there is a filibuster. Candidates like Srinivasan or Watler live to fight another day and don't become damaged goods.

[JPhillips]

At 63 he might as well give it a shot. He'll likely not be confirmed and withdraw, but this is probably his only shot.

[albionmoonlight]

As a liberal, I find the pick annoying. Was hoping for Sri.

[larrymcg421]

It's a great move to put Republicans in a bind. Since they must be thinking that losing the Presidential election is very likely, they have to decide between taking Garland now or whoever Hillary picks. I mean, if they made this whole delay argument about letting the voters decide, then they will basically have no leg to stand on if they want to block whoever Hillary picks.

Garland now or Watford later?

[larrymcg421]

Log In - The New York Times

If the chart in this article is true and Garland is in the middle of the four current liberal justices, then this is a fantastic pick. It will be the biggest ideological shift the court has seen in a long time.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's a great move to put Republicans in a bind. Since they must be thinking that losing the Presidential election is very likely, they have to decide between taking Garland now or whoever Hillary picks. I mean, if they made this whole delay argument about letting the voters decide, then they will basically have no leg to stand on if they want to block whoever Hillary picks.

Garland now or Watford later?

Yep, and even if some of them are wishing Trump wins (though I imagine very few), no one knows what he'd do in this situation. He could nominate someone out of left field. Right now is the best deal they could possibly strike... and they already torpedoed it.

[molson]

I think Trump would nominate this woman.

Maryanne Trump Barry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

As a liberal, I find the pick annoying. Was hoping for Sri.

I too was wanting this, but he had no chance of being approved I think. This man seems like one the Republicans would let in eventually when/if it becomes clear Trump is their nominee and won't win. Hillary would likely go with a full liberal pick and if the Dems take the Senate/House then that would be a nightmare for them.

[ISiddiqui]

Sri would have definitely been blocked easier... he's younger and Hindu. Garland is far more difficult. Though Sri is still waiting on the bench when Hillary wins.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It's a great move to put Republicans in a bind. Since they must be thinking that losing the Presidential election is very likely, they have to decide between taking Garland now or whoever Hillary picks. I mean, if they made this whole delay argument about letting the voters decide, then they will basically have no leg to stand on if they want to block whoever Hillary picks.

Garland now or Watford later?

Since when have Republicans ever cared what they said in the past?

Originally Posted by Mitch McConnel in 2005

[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote.

[molson]

One thing that jumped out about Srinivasan is that he was confirmed 97–0 in 2013. Garland's 1995 nomination didn't go through, and then in 1997 it was 76-23.

I'm sure there's politics underlying all that and I'm sure Obama has a million more reasons why Garland was the right pick, but that 97-0 was an easy sound bite.

[PilotMan]

It's a solid pick. Not ideal, but if he gets the Republicans to back down from their demands it'll look like a win for him. If they don't the pressure, especially in the home stretch of an election year it might cost them more than just a moderate on the bench.

NPR was saying that this was simply the best person that the President could pick, based on merit. He avoided a lot of the political aspects of it, and in the end, it'll place enormous pressure on the Senate to confirm him.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Since when have Republicans ever cared what they said in the past?

It's less them living up to their word because they care about that and more about the argument they can make to voters. They have an argument as to why this is different than what McConnell said in 2005. It's a stupid one, but they have it. They can try to come up with more BS if Hillary wins, but at some point the public will hold their feet to the fire, especially if we've been at 8 justices for more than a year.

[ISiddiqui]

So, interestingly, Merrick Garland is Jewish. Meaning the Catholic-Jewish split in the Supreme Court would be 5-4 (no Protestants on the bench, which is just kind of strange).

[digamma]

Well, Scalia was Catholic, of course, so that isn't changing anything.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but its strange that since Souter and Stevens left the bench, there have only been Catholics and Jews on the Supreme Court.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

One thing that jumped out about Srinivasan is that he was confirmed 97–0 in 2013. Garland's 1995 nomination didn't go through, and then in 1997 it was 76-23.

I'm sure there's politics underlying all that and I'm sure Obama has a million more reasons why Garland was the right pick, but that 97-0 was an easy sound bite.

Despite the vote differences, I think it's much harder to make a case that Garland is unqualified than it is for Srinivasan (who just got put on the Appeals Court three years ago). Basically, it's impossible for them to make that argument against Garland, so it highlights the obstructionism more than any other pick would've done.

Edit: Also, Srinivasan was part of the team that worked on the Windsor case, so that's some red meat for the GOP to throw around.

[ISiddiqui]

Also the age difference - Garland will leave the bench much earlier than Srinivasan will. That does sometimes factor into the calculus.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, but its strange that since Souter and Stevens left the bench, there have only been Catholics and Jews on the Supreme Court.

Other than the influx of women and Sotomayor being Hispanic, there is actually a lot of homogeneity on the current Court. I think it is a bit of a source of conflict for Obama. He had stated previously that he wanted a diverse court, not in terms of demographics, but in breadth of experience (the Earl Warren type appointment).

Instead, he's nominated yet another Harvard law grad who has an appeals court pedigree.

Of the current 8 justices, you have 5 from Harvard Law School and three from Yale. Three are from Princeton undergrad, two from Stanford, one from Harvard (plus Garland) and one from Cornell. Clarence Thomas went to Holy Cross.

Only Kagan was not an appellate justice, and she was a solicitor general.

It has truly become a club separate from most of America, no matter which side of the aisle you're on.

[ISiddiqui]

It's one thing I think Scalia was very right about. There should be a lot more diversity on the SCOTUS - as the court consists of an overabundance of Harvard & Yale law school graduates, people from the coasts, and non-Protestants.

The Harvard/Yale thing is a difficult nut to crack in this era of very difficult confirmations. Say what you will, but having a law degree from Harvard or Yale just seems more impressive and therefore makes the pick safer.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, that's the interesting thing about Srinivasan - he went to undergrad and law school at Stanford, was born in India, but raised in Kansas.

[larrymcg421]

Even if he wanted to, he simply couldn't pick someone without judicial experience here. Not in this situation.

[flere-imsaho]

Part of me hoped he'd pick Posner just as the ultimate fuck you to the GOP.

Yes, I'm aware of all the reasons that that's wrong.

[mckerney]

What does Obama do if the Republicans hold to their threat to not hold a vote and then in November Hillary wins and Democrats take control of the Senate? Does he withdraw Garland and nominate someone like Srinivasan? If the elections turn out that way I would see them taking Garland seeing him as a lesser evil to who would get through once Hillary takes office, but does Obama give them the chance at that one someone who may be his protest nomination.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by mckerney

What does Obama do if the Republicans hold to their threat to not hold a vote and then in November Hillary wins and Democrats take control of the Senate? Does he withdraw Garland and nominate someone like Srinivasan? If the elections turn out that way I would see them taking Garland seeing him as a lesser evil to who would get through once Hillary takes office, but does Obama give them the chance at that one someone who may be his protest nomination.

I'm not sure Srinivasan is more liberal than Garland. He's been described as a moderate as well. I think what is likely to happen is that Obama and Hillary would consult on a nominee together.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure Srinivasan is more liberal than Garland. He's been described as a moderate as well. I think what is likely to happen is that Obama and Hillary would consult on a nominee together.

If Hillary wins, shell be picking her own person. Srinivasan is 20ish years younger... that has big impact.