Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[drogulus]

     The best thing Obama can do is nominate a highly regarded jurist and insist on regular order, no speed up or slow down, just handled in a timely manner. Let the obstructionists obstruct and be seen doing it. But you know, they might not. The bright light of the election might send the cockroaches scurrying for cover. They might "reason" that this isn't the time to make trouble.

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he [McConnell] said.

No surprise that the Senate Rs will spend the next 11 months obstructing everything they can, but what an idiotic way of expressing that. Maybe somebody should remind him that the American people elected Barack Obama for this purpose. Twice.

Also have to wonder whether having a SCOTUS vacancy at the forefront of a Presidential campaign really benefits Republicans.

     That's just the kind of courageous statement I'd expect from the cockroach-in-chief. On behalf of America, I thank him.

   

[(poco) Sforzando]

No, but the Senate must offer "advice and consent", and consent may be withheld by the Senate.  The political angle is more interesting than normal depending on who does become president.  If Hillary wins, will the Senate face a more appealing nominee?  If Republicans do block the process now, do they destroy their Senate majority in the process?  (Congressional majorities are more important than the presidency in my view.)  Not that they'll ask me, but I'd maneuver hearings on the nominee(s) until after the conventions, and push the final vote as close to election day as practicable while still ensuring the court operates on the first Monday in October.  If needed, perhaps one or two nominees' reputations and/or careers could be demolished in the process, but that's politics.

If the court is hobbled, that means a short period with 4-4 votes on contentious issues, which in practice means lower court rulings would stand.  Depending on which appellate court is involved, that could be good or bad for Democrats or Republicans.

As I wrote before, this adds a new dimension to this election year.

It's a foregone conclusion that Republicans will block any Obama nomination. They've been blocking his ambassadorships, judges, etc., for years. But in a Court where so many decisions have been decided 5-4, are we to risk a full year where the Court is basically inert?

Hillary: "The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia's seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons."

[Todd]

That's just the kind of courageous statement I'd expect from the cockroach-in-chief. On behalf of America, I thank him.

Mitch McConnell is great.  That he elicits a phrase like "cockroach-in-chief" from a blind partisan is proof of his greatness.

Hillary: "The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia's seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons."

Such a touching plea for adherence to the Constitution from a woman who supported and helped formulate unconstitutional military policies.

[(poco) Sforzando]

. . . from a woman who supported and helped formulate unconstitutional military policies.

Irrelevant.

[Todd]

Irrelevant.

No, completely relevant.  Hillary's attempt at high-mindedness as it pertains to what she considers "constitutional responsibility" is undermined by her demonstrated willingness to ignore the same document when supporting and formulating unconstitutional and illegal military actions.  In short, she is a hypocrite.

[(poco) Sforzando]

No, completely relevant.  Hillary's attempt at high-mindedness as it pertains to what she considers "constitutional responsibility" is undermined by her demonstrated willingness to ignore the same document when supporting and formulating unconstitutional and illegal military actions.  In short, she is a hypocrite.

No, it is not relevant, Todd. It's ad hominem argument. What Clinton may or may have not done otherwise does not dispel the validity of her position on this particular point.

[Todd]

No, it is not relevant, Todd. It's ad hominem argument. What Clinton may or may have not done otherwise does not dispel the validity of her position on this particular point.

Yes, it is relevant.  Her position on matters constitutional is, like the Republicans', political in nature.  That is not ad hominem; that is a recognition of the nature of politics and a person running for the office in which an elastic interpretation of the Constitution presents real-world dangers.  I find it difficult to believe that you take what she said at face value or some type of objective pronouncement, though maybe you did.

Besides, her interpretation is but one interpretation.  The Senate must consent to any nominee.  If it does not, it does not.  That may not be constitutionally irresponsible.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yes, it is relevant.  Her position on matters constitutional is, like the Republicans', political in nature.  That is not ad hominem; that is a recognition of the nature of politics and a person running for the office in which an elastic interpretation of the Constitution presents real-world dangers.  I find it difficult to believe that you take what she said at face value or some type of objective pronouncement, though maybe you did.

Besides, her interpretation is but one interpretation.  The Senate must consent to any nominee.  If it does not, it does not.  That may not be constitutionally irresponsible.

If the same statement had been made by someone of peerless Constitutional rectitude, would you dispute it? Your argument is based on the character of the person making the statement: she's a hypocrite, quoth Todd. Ad hominem by definition.

I don't what's more fun, this or the Repub debate. Donald going after Jeb! is too delish for words. Or the ad that is now playing in the background with the Verdi Dies Irae.

[Todd]

If the same statement had been made by someone of peerless Constitutional rectitude, would you dispute it? Your argument is based on the character of the person making the statement: she's a hypocrite, quoth Todd. Ad hominem by definition.

Hillary is a candidate who helped formulate unconstitutional and illegal actions while holding an official position of influence.  (This assumes, of course, one believes pursuing a policy of removing an existing head of state without an AUMF or any other Congressional mandate is unconstitutional and illegal.  I'm not even concerned about international law here.)  This actual behavior calls into question her judgment on constitutional matters.  This is the case whether or not I use the word "hypocrite" to describe her.

Perhaps you can provide a statement substantially similar to hers uttered by a person of peerless Constitutional rectitude?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Hillary is a candidate who helped formulate unconstitutional and illegal actions while holding an official position of influence.  (This assumes, of course, one believes pursuing a policy of removing an existing head of state without an AUMF or any other Congressional mandate is unconstitutional and illegal.  I'm not even concerned about international law here.)  This actual behavior calls into question her judgment on constitutional matters.  This is the case whether or not I use the word "hypocrite" to describe her.

Perhaps you can provide a statement substantially similar to hers uttered by a person of peerless Constitutional rectitude?

I've said as much as I care to on the subject.

[Sean]

[drogulus]

     Let's see, McConnell "thinks" voters should have a voice, but somehow also thinks they didn't when they elected Obama. But wouldn't having a voice apply equally to all Presidents? And how would having a voice affect timing? How do you decide which Presidents have 3 years or 7 years to give voice to America's choice and which ones have 4 or 8 years? Is there a principled means of deciding or is it cockroach-y all the way down?

[Todd]

But wouldn't having a voice apply equally to all Presidents?

No.  See below.

Is there a principled means of deciding

Yes.  The principle is to impede Obama on everything, all the time.

I have to think Obama has nominees in mind - given that the Notorious RBG looks like walking death, he's probably had them queued up for years - so now it's his turn to make a move.  How soon will he announce a nominee?  While Republicans blocking a nomination can be bad for them, a SCOTUS nomination will have the effect of putting more attention on Obama, which will be good and bad for both parties.  This summer could be among the awesomest ever, politically speaking.

[kishnevi]

"Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader and Republican of Kentucky, backing the sentiments of Senator Ted Cruz, said in a statement that the next president, not President Obama, should appoint a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia."

Does the Constitution forbid the president from nominating a successor in the last year of his administration? First I heard of it.

They may not have thought this through.

The court was in effect liberals 4 conservatives 4  and Justice Kennedy who sometimes goes conservative.

Now at best the conservatives will get ties (which means either affirm the lower court or wait to rehear when the court is back to full complement), or be definitely outvoted 5-3.

And this situation would last for at least the next 12 months (assuming Obama's replacement nominates someone on Jan 21, 2017 and that person is confirmed at the speed of light in Senate terms).

And mind you,  Scalia was the most effective writer on the court, the one best able to state the conservative view, and slip in some quote worth snark while he was doing so.  Not many people available to truly fill his shoes.

McConnell is placing a triple bet, of which only the first component is a safe bet.
1)The GOP will maintain a safe hold on the Senate
2) A conservative president will be elected in November
3) Said president will nominate a truly conservative judge (like Scalia was) and get him through the Senate.

As opposed to Obama nominating someone  now, in a state of political weakness.

[drogulus]

     

McConnell is placing a triple bet, of which only the first component is a safe bet.
1)The GOP will maintain a safe hold on the Senate
2) A conservative president will be elected in November
3) Said president will nominate a truly conservative judge (like Scalia was) and get him through the Senate.

     I don't think that's it. I see McConnell as playing out a strategy that continuously trades off the future for a win now. He stuck Obama with a default conservative fiscal policy that had to fail, and in the process educate the country about just how dreadful "shrink to grow" really is. How did he know shrinkonomics would be this bad? We'll maybe he did or he didn't, but it was what Obama didn't want and that was the point, the short term win at any cost to the country, to the reputation of Congress, or his own rotten self.

     The Supreme Court fight will be the same, frustrate Obama for a short term win and pay the consequences later. It's all part of the extinction dynamic, the demographic decline of the base, the inability to appeal to the people you hate, so short term is it baby. Who knows if there will even be a long term?

[EddieRUKiddingVarese]

Have you thought of immigrating to somewhere else....................

[(poco) Sforzando]

Have you thought of immigrating to somewhere else....................

What, leave the land of the free and the home of the brave?

[EddieRUKiddingVarese]

O Canada, if you must.......

[Sammy]

Hillary: "The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia's seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons."

Well, that's just the usual b.s. that Hillary throws our way on a regular basis.  Actually, most of the politicians are doing like-wise.   Obama should do this or that, the Senate is required to whatever. 

There are no shoulds and very little in the way of requirements.  Obama has the right to nominate in his last year; he will or he won't.  If he does, the Senate can do what it likes with the nomination.  I think it's likely that Obama will nominate and that the Senate will kick the name to the curb. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

I think it's likely that Obama will nominate and that the Senate will kick the name to the curb.

Sounds about right.