Scalia's replacement: Senate Republicans just made a massive mistake

[Tikaru]

perceived obstructionism

The moment Obama won the election back in 2008, the Republicans stated they would do everything in their power to not cooperate with him.

[Daelak]

But what won those seats in the first place?

The people were outraged over the federal government destroying their future.

If anything delaying a confirmation will be seen and shielding them from more of the same same as such a nomination is coming from the same type of federal government they cleared those seats from.

This is a presidential election year. Not a midterm, no presidential election. Republicans do well when turn out is at historic lows.

[NineSpine]

Let me be clear. I have no doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot, Democrats would do what they can to block a conservative nominee.

But the shoe isn't on the other foot. So let's address the issue at hand.

Not only that, but this isn't an issue of Republicans refusing to confirm some hardcore left wing jurist. This is about the Republicans swearing to block ANYONE, and the rumor mill is saying that Obama is going to nominate a judge who has already been unanimously confirmed by the Republicans for the appeals court, which is going to make that even more embarassing.

[unbound]

It clearly demonstrates that the Republicans are not interested in what is best for the country (politics are about compromise, not about getting your way 100% of the time). But it also won't hurt them. Just read the pro-Republican comments...heck just read or listen to what the Republican candidates are saying. There is no rationality and no morality left in the party.

[Stormdash]

Schumer's declaration is DBD -- Different Because Democrats. Nobody with any honesty or integrity would seriously tell you that, had another seat come open between Schumer saying that and Bush leaving office, that Schumer would have changed his mind.

We have had a tacitly acknowledged purity test ever since the Bork hearings that you could not be confirmed unless you admitted the central holding in Roe was settled law -- in other words, that the nominee had to admit that they saw five lights, that the shaded "penumbras" and shadow puppets dancing across the 4th and 14th Amendments spelled out "abortion".

So let it be clear -- any future appointment has to pass an additional purity test. They have to admit that the central holding in Heller and McDonald are settled law, that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right of gun ownership. That the plain text "right of the people" means exactly the same thing in the 2nd Amendment as it does in the 1st or 4th, an individual liberty interest. If they can't do that unequivocally, they are not qualified nor competent for the Supreme Court.

[Derpleton]

This done up to 2 things. It scares Republicans and/or it pisses of Democrats/Independents. The question is which group decides they want the White House more in November.

[Seranthor]

Not only that, but this isn't an issue of Republicans refusing to confirm some hardcore left wing jurist. This is about the Republicans swearing to block ANYONE, and the rumor mill is saying that Obama is going to nominate a judge who has already been unanimously confirmed by the Republicans for the appeals court, which is going to make that even more embarassing.

91st United States Congress, Democrat controlled Senate blocked 3 consecutive US Supreme Court nominations made by a Republican President, Nixon causing Abe Fortas' seat to remain vacant for 391 days (thats more than a year if you were wondering).

[Chrysia]

Right, because the Democrats have never done the same thing, oh wait here's Chuck Schumer on record stating that confirming lame duck Presidential court picks is a bad idea.

[video=youtube;tkRZVE3aDm8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8[/vdeo]

And of course, here's farther back than the Bush era, established precedent:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ointments.html

First, Schumer was an idiot.

Second, the 1960 resolution was against recess appointments, not regular appointments. Also of note, in 1960 Democratic Senators in 1960 would have been primarily Southern Senators, just like the Republicans are today.

[Narwal]

A historic delay of a scotus appointee will hurt republican's chances of independents, not just in swing states, but all states. How many republican senate seats are up for re-election this year?

You understand what a swing state is, correct? It is a state that is controlled by independents, a balance between republican and democrats creates the environment for the independents to swing a state one way or the other. In non-swing states, it doesn't matter which way independents go, the majority of that state will always swing that state their way. This is why the post you're responding to is correct, and you are wrong. You seem to think the presidential election is a popular vote when it is not. There are a very basic few states every year that really decide the president of the US (because the other states always elect on party lines). The biggest of the swing states being Ohio and Florida.

You make a valid point on Senate seats. The only thing I would say is that it's much harder to push out a senator than you think. It's strange, the country hates all government officials, but seldom think it's their representative that is the problem. You have to remember that what happened to the democrats in the house and senate, is unprecedented. The reason the democrats were kicked out so hugely was because they pushed through obamacare against (according to polls at the time) a vast majority being against it. The country at the time was in a depression, they wanted their representatives focused on creating jobs and economy, but instead they were focusing on healthcare because they had a super majority. I seriously doubt you will see another beatdown like we saw against the democrats, over a single judge appointment. The fact is, a majority of people who will care about a judge appointment being blocked, understand that what we are seeing is politics being injected into the Supreme Court by both sides of the aisle, and will use it to generally dislike both sides. After seeing what Obama has been trying to do around congress, I don't trust his judgement for Supreme Court appointments.

[Hiricine]

Even if I was a Republican, just let him nominate candidates and shoot them down to let him further tarnish his legacy. And who knows, he might come up with a halfway decent compromise nominee if pushed hard enough.

Besides a high stakes election with at least one seat would make the election pretty cool. Its not like the SCOTUS can't function without a Justice, 75% of their decisions are unanimous and out of the remaining 25, many are decided by more than just one vote. Besides, its not like another hyper-liberal justice like Sotomayor or Kagan would affect the outcome, ties defer to lower court decisions which frequently side with the Feds.

[Beazy]

What would the republicans do if Hillary or Sanders is elected? Will they try to stall for 8 years? Assuming they can keep control of the senate that long.

This shit is like a cross between Game of Thrones and House of Cards.
This is going to be /popcorn year ladies and gents.

[NineSpine]

Schumer's declaration is DBD -- Different Because Democrats. Nobody with any honesty or integrity would seriously tell you that, had another seat come open between Schumer saying that and Bush leaving office, that Schumer would have changed his mind.

We have had a tacitly acknowledged purity test ever since the Bork hearings that you could not be confirmed unless you admitted the central holding in Roe was settled law -- in other words, that the nominee had to admit that they saw five lights, that the shaded "penumbras" and shadow puppets dancing across the 4th and 14th Amendments spelled out "abortion".

So let it be clear -- any future appointment has to pass an additional purity test. They have to admit that the central holding in Heller and McDonald are settled law, that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right of gun ownership. That the plain text "right of the people" means exactly the same thing in the 2nd Amendment as it does in the 1st or 4th, an individual liberty interest. If they can't do that unequivocally, they are not qualified nor competent for the Supreme Court.

Bork thought that non-political speech didn't count as protected under the first Amendment, and thought censorship was acceptable as long as what was censored was entertainment. Don't pretend he was some standard conservative jurist. He was incredibly radical, and it's amusing to see you defend the "plain text" of the First Amendment while defending a guy who argued that we should gut it.

[Narwal]

It clearly demonstrates that the Republicans are not interested in what is best for the country (politics are about compromise, not about getting your way 100% of the time). But it also won't hurt them. Just read the pro-Republican comments...heck just read or listen to what the Republican candidates are saying. There is no rationality and no morality left in the party.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Your problem is you believe your principles define morality. Republicans follow their principles pretty well, and thus are being moral in their own belief of morality. For instance, if you ask socially conservative Americans if killing a baby in the womb is moral, they will say no. You probably say it is moral. So already your claim of "no morality" is false, unless you look as morality through your prism where allowing a boy to use the girls room because he feels like a woman today is the only morally correct choice.

[Derpleton]

What would the republicans do if Hillary or Sanders is elected? Will they try to stall for 8 years? Assuming they can keep control of the senate that long.

This shit is like a cross between Game of Thrones and House of Cards.
This is going to be /popcorn year ladies and gents.

I think that if that were the case the Republicans would likely lose control of the senate as well.

[Stormdash]

Bork thought that non-political speech didn't count as protected under the first Amendment, and thought censorship was acceptable as long as what was censored was entertainment. Don't pretend he was some standard conservative jurist. He was incredibly radical, and it's amusing to see you defend the "plain text" of the First Amendment while defending a guy who argued that we should gut it.

I was talking about the text of the 2nd at the moment, but that's neither here nor there -- Bork was rejected because of abortion, plain and simple. Everything else is rationalizing around the very premise I asserted, that there's a Roe purity test for the Court.

[Chrysia]

I was talking about the text of the 2nd at the moment, but that's neither here nor there -- Bork was rejected because of abortion, plain and simple. Everything else is rationalizing around the very premise I asserted, that there's a Roe purity test for the Court.

Bork was rejected for his part in the Watergate scandal.

[hydrium]

A historic delay of a scotus appointee will hurt republican's chances of independents, not just in swing states, but all states. How many republican senate seats are up for re-election this year?

You greatly overestimate how much people actually care about scotus appointments.

[TZucchini]

What would the republicans do if Hillary or Sanders is elected? Will they try to stall for 8 years? Assuming they can keep control of the senate that long.

It's actually quite a big gamble that they're taking. Obama is going to nominate a moderate who's had plenty of Republican support in the past. They'd be wise to confirm that nominee. Otherwise, there's a chance that they lose the White House and Senate, and that a much more liberal nominee gets confirmed.

[stgeorge78]

Propaganda.

Nobody who was already voting Republican will switch because of any move made in the confirmation process.

Just as nobody who was already voting Demorat before would switch based on a next day confirmation of Obamas first pick.

"Obstructionism" is just a partisan rally cry it doesn't convert votes it just fuels the confirmation bias.

And if Republicans did exactly what that quote suggest they'd still be labeled as obstructionists.

Votes are set, electoral ones that is, red states are red and blue are blue.

All that's left is a few swing states that candidates will have to make last minute deals with precinct captains to earn.

It's going to come down to the horse trading of funds and key position placements, not SCOTUS confirmations.

Besides, how often if ever have you seen "SCOTUS seats" show up on national polling?

People care more about free stuff hysteria, AGW hysteria, BLM hysteria, LGBT hysteria, illegal invasion hysteria, gun hysteria, And religion hysteria.

You're forgetting about independent who do switch rather easily based on who they think are being bigger dumbasses and that's a good 10% of the vote right there.

[Ghostpanther]

From what I understand short of a voter uprising the Republicans don't have to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. Also the voter uprising would have to include a large number of people who vote Republican, if it's just Democrat voters that's not likely to motivate Republicans who control Congress.

Exactly. They did not make a massive mistake. They should have left the door open for the possible confirmation of a moderate appointee. But then again, they may be thinking that is not going to happen under Obama.