Warszawa wrote:Apparently it's also ok for the court to lean conservative 5-4 but unimaginable to for the democrats to "steal" away the court for a generation.

It would be the same if shoe was on other foot. Not sure why people are up in arms.

Let it play out. It will be interesting. Not sure the Senate Republicans want this kind of bad publicity that's coming when they string this out. I can hear the "they are further dividing this nation" rhetoric already. It will doom the Republican nom. May hurt the contested senate seats, especially in NH.

Warszawa wrote:Apparently it's also ok for the court to lean conservative 5-4 but unimaginable to for the democrats to "steal" away the court for a generation.

this is the same shit they pulled in 2012.

"2012 is a referendum on Obamacare!
*Obama re-elected*
2013: "we're going to shut down the government because of Obamacare."

it's obvious they'll do everything in their power to stop a liberal from being appointed, but maybe if you want to appoint a SC judge, win a presidental election. there are plenty of other old justices still serving, win 2016 and you can replace 2 or 3 for yourself. that's the way it works.

If the dems could win senate elections, this wouldn't be an issue either.

the deck is stacked against them in the senate and house. only the presidental election somewhat shows a true representation of the voting population. the rest is arcane bullshit.

The Savior wrote:It would be the same if shoe was on other foot.

Pretty sure it wouldn't be "the same"

Not sure why people are up in arms.

It's simple. Let me explain it for you.

Elected Republican leaders of the body that has a role in passing on the President's nominations have said publicly - before they've been presented with such nominations - that they will reject them out of hand. I don't think there's even any need to probe their "thinking" about this tactical blunder. It's a tactical blunder in the national politics of the United States to publicly declare you'll use your position to have the institutional body you lead repudiate Constitutionally assigned governing responsibilities.

This is not a furtive, squalid, dead-of-night pact made by political ideologues in the wake of the election of a President they revile as much for his complexion as his views & intentions on governance. This is a considered declaration by people elected to public service in the Senate of the United States that they intend to disregard their Constitutional obligations.

It would be a blunder any time, but in an election year?

SK790 wrote:the deck is stacked against them in the senate and house. only the presidental election somewhat shows a true representation of the voting population. the rest is arcane bullshit.

The House has nothing to do the the Supreme Court, and in fact, for the Senate, the Reps are in a defensive position this cycle, and really should favor Dems if they would get off their asses and vote during mid term elections. I mean, mathematically it can't be true that the electoral college is stacked against the Reps and the Senate stacked against the Dems.

TenuredVulture wrote:

SK790 wrote:the deck is stacked against them in the senate and house. only the presidental election somewhat shows a true representation of the voting population. the rest is arcane bullshit.

The House has nothing to do the the Supreme Court, and in fact, for the Senate, the Reps are in a defensive position this cycle, and really should favor Dems if they would get off their asses and vote during mid term elections. I mean, mathematically it can't be true that the electoral college is stacked against the Reps and the Senate stacked against the Dems.

Not exactly because every little rural shit state gets 2 Senators regardless of population. Democrats can crush in the enlightened states and get a ton of EVs and still only 2 senators.

My dream scenario is Rs stall and Trump gets the nomination and it's just a massacre in November leading to a democratic Senate, and possibly supermajority.

Not to mention gerrymandered districts lead to things like in 2012 when more people voted Dem than Rep yet Reps still won the House easily.

SK790 wrote:Not to mention gerrymandered districts lead to things like in 2012 when more people voted Dem than Rep yet Reps still won the House easily.

Well yeah, the house is a goddamn mess. It doesn't affect the SC but the point stands.

Yeah, I know it doesn't but thought I'd lump it in while we're pointing out how fucked our voting system is.

For Obama to even have a chance of getting a nominee through the senate it will probably have to be someone considered a moderate. It might be a good idea to wait till 2017 because Hillary will be able to go full left with her nominee. The republicans realize that they have almost zero chance of winning the White House right?

Warszawa wrote:For Obama to even have a chance of getting a nominee through the senate it will probably have to be someone considered a moderate

I'd go in a different direction. Nominate Srinivasan. When the Republicans reject him it will piss off Indian Americans. Then nominate a Japanese guy. When he's rejected, Japanese Americans will be pissed at the Republicans. Then a Greek, or a Cuban etc. Get as many minorities as possible pissed at Republicans.

Warszawa wrote:For Obama to even have a chance of getting a nominee through the senate it will probably have to be someone considered a moderate. It might be a good idea to wait till 2017 because Hillary will be able to go full left with her nominee. The republicans realize that they have almost zero chance of winning the White House right?

Republicans can use the open seat during the election though. In the past Republicans have been able to get more of a rise out of their constituency over "activist unelected judges legislating from the bench" than any equivalent on the democrats side.

Warszawa wrote:For Obama to even have a chance of getting a nominee through the senate it will probably have to be someone considered a moderate. It might be a good idea to wait till 2017 because Hillary will be able to go full left with her nominee. The republicans realize that they have almost zero chance of winning the White House right?

Of interest is not (practically, probably can not) be whether any Obama nominee obtains Senate approval.

The process becomes a high-profile, long-duration forum for interrogating competing views of governance of the country. During an election year impacting about 1/3 of Senate seats, some of which entail competitive races. Oh, and also the Presidential nomination and election process.

Other than that, it's just another humdrum tactical squabble

drsmooth wrote:

Warszawa wrote:For Obama to even have a chance of getting a nominee through the senate it will probably have to be someone considered a moderate. It might be a good idea to wait till 2017 because Hillary will be able to go full left with her nominee. The republicans realize that they have almost zero chance of winning the White House right?

Of interest is not (practically, probably can not) be whether any Obama nominee obtains Senate approval.

The process becomes a high-profile, long-duration forum for interrogating competing views of governance of the country. During an election year impacting about 1/3 of Senate seats, some of which entail competitive races. Oh, and also the Presidential nomination and election process.

Other than that, it's just another humdrum tactical squabble

Here's the problem as I see it--the Dems have a chance to take the Senate, but I think the fact that there's a vacancy on the court is going to motivate Reps more than Dems to vote in states with a close Senate election. I think it's quite possible there are substantial groups of Republicans who will find the eventual R nominee unacceptable, whoever it is, and they'll come to accept that HRC is going to be POTUS. Given all that though, rather than stay home in November, they'll show up to vote for a R Senator so HRC can't reconstitute the Warren court in her own image.

ashton wrote:

Warszawa wrote:For Obama to even have a chance of getting a nominee through the senate it will probably have to be someone considered a moderate

I'd go in a different direction. Nominate Srinivasan. When the Republicans reject him it will piss off Indian Americans. Then nominate a Japanese guy. When he's rejected, Japanese Americans will be pissed at the Republicans. Then a Greek, or a Cuban etc. Get as many minorities as possible pissed at Republicans.

Srinivasan seems pretty moderate/unknown

Also, I think it's really counterproductive to complain about gerrymandering. Is it a thing? Absolutely. But it's not as big a thing as people make it out to be. Dems lose elections because Dem voters don't show up for mid term elections, and they really don't show up in state legislative races. On top of that, until recently generic Congressional election polls showed a slight lean towards the R side.

To be sure, a lot of this can be laid at the feet of the DNC, which got away from a very successful strategy of expanding the playing field, contesting as many house races as possible. Instead, they lavish resources on defending incumbents, focusing only on the most winnable races. And, as far as I can tell, they have no game plan for winning state legislative races--there's no ALEC equivalent. Assholes like Bloomberg and people like the no labels fuck faces should focus on that rather than vanity campaigns for President, or engaging in pointless calls to end partisan bickering. Partisan bickering is democracy. Don't like it? Go to Russia. No partisan bickering there.

TenuredVulture wrote:Given all that though, rather than stay home in November, they'll show up to vote for a R Senator so HRC can't reconstitute the Warren court in her own image.

I understand your thinking, but it feels at present there are a lot of alternative scenarios that may play out here, and evaluating the probablily of any one is a straight-up bitch right now

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Given all that though, rather than stay home in November, they'll show up to vote for a R Senator so HRC can't reconstitute the Warren court in her own image.

I understand your thinking, but it feels at present there are a lot of alternative scenarios that may play out here, and evaluating the probablily of any one is a straight-up bitch right now

To be sure. But there's no doubt this will activate the base more than Rubio for President will, and I'm not sure the Dems can count on its equivalent.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm not sure the Dems can count on its equivalent.

This is the part I'm thinking is not as easily defended. Are you basing this on some particular historical example(s), or a general sentiment about lazy young hippies not voting intelligently on down-ballot choices?