Scalia's replacement

[Juvenal]

I apologize - I thought I was in the other thread, but.... honoring your request.

Apology accepted in the spirit offered. Please feel free to post here again with a thoughtful response.

[rogue06]

Obama is reportedly unleashing advocacy groups to push for consideration of his nomination, but he doesn't do that kind of retail politicking himself.

The point of my earlier post was that Hillary has a different history. She handles those details personally.

Do you consider one of those "advocacy groups" to be the Democratic National Committee (DNC) which only hours after Scalia's death were sending out fundraising requests?

And with Jarret and Eggleston leading the charge it is fair to say that the White House itself is another "advocacy group" involved.

[klaus54]

Klaus and CP, please exit the thread.

And Adam?

[Juvenal]

Do you consider one of those "advocacy groups" to be the Democratic National Committee (DNC) which only hours after Scalia's death were sending out fundraising requests?

Yes, I do, though I don't find fund-raising requests any more inappropriate than McConnell's immediate reaction. I'd have to see the fund-raising request for a more considered response.

And with Jarret and Eggleston leading the charge it is fair to say that the White House itself is another "advocacy group" involved.

The issue could well become moot even before a nomination is made.

I suspect light is dawning on McConnell and those who've followed his lead. Withholding consideration was never a sustainable position, and he was simply incorrect on the facts. Listening to NPR on the way in for my evening classes tonight, I understand that Sen. Cornyn, and another I can't now recall, are already backing away.

I can see other stories that were read, but this one hasn't been posted yet.

[Juvenal]

And Adam?

You've been asked to leave, klaus. Please do not reply to this thread again.

_____

To those who may wonder, CP has removed the video that occasioned my request. I do not object to partisanship in this thread, so long as civility is maintained.

[rogue06]

Yes, I do, though I don't find fund-raising requests any more inappropriate than McConnell's immediate reaction. I'd have to see the fund-raising request for a more considered response.



The issue could well become moot even before a nomination is made.

I suspect light is dawning on McConnell and those who've followed his lead. Withholding consideration was never a sustainable position, and he was simply incorrect on the facts. Listening to NPR on the way in for my evening classes tonight, I understand that Sen. Cornyn, and another I can't now recall, are already backing away.

I can see other stories that were read, but this one hasn't been posted yet.

It was an incredibly politically inept position. Or, I should say, that publicly stating that is what you would do is.

[Cow Poke]

It was an incredibly politically inept position. Or, I should say, that publicly stating that is what you would do is.

It would have been so much smarter to challenge Obama to send them a nomination they COULD confirm.

[Juvenal]

However, on Feb 3 2017 (I believe, though that date may be slightly wrong), the Senate gets officially dissolved pending the swearing in of the new senators.

... Obama will no longer be the president.

I believe I've found a reference for your suggestion, though it was off by a year. Looking to see if the NPR story about backstepping by Sen. Cornyn and another I can't recall had been posted, I ran into this.

Obama Won't Appoint Scalia Replacement While Senate Is Out This Week

Updated February 16, 20167:58 AM ET
Published February 15, 20164:30 PM ET

The White House says the president will not move to appoint a Supreme Court replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia while the Senate is in recess this week.

In an interview with ABC News, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Obama would would wait to announce his nominee until Congress returns from its break later this month. In an email to NPR, Schultz said the White House had ruled out a recess appointment "this week."

So apparently there was talk I missed, not that I'd have credited the rumor if I'd heard it. Obama's been burned on recess appointments already, though the challenge came from the nature of the recess. In fact, it was the Supreme Court that burned him, declaring that the congress' maneuvers to avoid a recess were constitutional. The situation was similar though, as the appointments were made to bypass the congress' refusal to consider nominees.

No, I think it's been clear from the outset that Obama would resist McConnell's novel approach to denying a nomination by contrasting it with standard practices.

The NPR article is worth reading in any case. In particular, it answered my question about the duration of a recess appointment.

According to the Constitution, a president can can fill vacancies while the Senate is in recess but their appointment expires at the end of the Senate's next session. This recess-appointment power, however, was greatly curtailed by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.

[Juvenal]

While it's clear there is no precedent for leaving it vacant, the rhetoric from either side is business as usual for Washington, don't you think.

Yes, I do, and my apologies for the delay in my response. I was hoping for more robust reporting before commenting. The New York Times came through a couple of days ago, but I haven't had the chance to attend for substantial posts until now. It's been a busy week. Schumer in particular was singled out in the following.

Senators Limber Up for a Dexterous Flip on Judicial Nominees

The nomination in question was for Miguel Estrada to an appeals court, creating additional context for my earlier post on the lack of progress on Obama's appeals court nominations.

[Juvenal]

I think his biggest obstacle are the Democrats themselves. Not that they would stop [Padmanabhan Srikanth "Sri" Srinivasan]'s nomination if picked but that they'll work hard to keep him from being nominated. Why? His views are an enigma. He has no record really to speak of and for the last 50 years the Democrats have been very good at putting people on the Supreme Court that they could absolutely count on to march in lock step. Something that the Republicans have a rather poor record of accomplishing (starting back with Warren Burger).

The Democrats will not want to blow this chance on a crap shoot and frankly Obama has shown an absolute loathing toward triangulation.

I agree with your main thrust. There's likely to be a Democratic push to reverse Thurgood Marshall's replacement with Clarence Thomas, or more recently, the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito, which, along with John Roberts' appointment occasioned the remarks cited by Littlejoe in his initial post. The pendulum is going to swing back, at question is how far. The more partisan Democrats are going to be pushing for someone more demonstratively liberal.

But no, I don't think it's reasonable to characterize this as the "biggest obstacle" in light of comments by McConnell, Rubio, and especially Cruz. Trump, too, but I don't take him as seriously to begin with, and, more relevantly, he's not a senator.

I like the Sri pick a lot, but he's hardly the only potential nominee, even within the appellate roll call. At this point in the thread, I think it'd be good to look at other potential nominees. Here are some names put forward earlier this week, please feel free to add your own.



[Abstracted list]

• Merrick B. Garland, AGE 63.
  CURRENT ROLE Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
• Kamala D. Harris, AGE 51.
  CURRENT ROLE Attorney general, State of California.
• Adalberto J. Jordan, AGE 54.
  CURRENT ROLE Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
• Jane L. Kelly, AGE 51.
  CURRENT ROLE Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
• Srikanth Srinivasan, AGE 48.
  CURRENT ROLE Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
• Paul J. Watford, AGE 48.
  CURRENT ROLE Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

There is background and discussion at the link.

I believe we're long past overdue for a political, rather than judicial nominee, but I don't believe this is the nomination for correcting that balance. And with all due respect for that persuasion, please, not another Catholic.

[Juvenal]

Yes, I do, and my apologies for the delay in my response.

Littlejoe and others may appreciate this article as well.

That time when they said...

The list includes the Schumer quote Littlejoe cited earlier, though without the excellent link he provided.

[Adam]

Latest news is about possibly nominating Vice-President Joe Biden to SCOTUS. Repubs should like that, he's so old the liberal imbalance it would cause might not last long. Particularly with Ruth Bader Ginsburg long overdue to have died of cancer.

[Juvenal]

Latest news is about possibly nominating Vice-President Joe Biden to SCOTUS. Repubs should like that, he's so old the liberal imbalance it would cause might not last long. Particularly with Ruth Bader Ginsburg long overdue to have died of cancer.

I believe we're long past overdue for a political, rather than judicial nominee, but I don't believe this is the nomination for correcting that balance. And with all due respect for that persuasion, please, not another Catholic.

Biden Says Obama Won't Be Able to Pick the 'Most Liberal Jurist'

In a separate interview broadcast on MSNBC, Biden said he would be deeply involved in advising Obama but that he had no desire himself to be named to the high court. Biden told MSNBC the president had sought his advice but they had yet to discuss potential candidates.

I expect Loretta Lynch is higher on the pick list if Obama's going to go political, but I still don't expect him to go with a political appointee. And I'd still prefer he steer away from another Catholic. Scalia himself is in my corner on this one.

What Would Scalia Want in His Successor? A Dissent Offers Clues

[JimL]

A) The president doesn't make "appointments" to the SCOTUS, he offers nominations.
2) It is not the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to approve, but to consider.

Your ignorance of this process is quite profound.

Glad to see that you agree, it is the Senates responsibility to consider and vote on the presidents nominee.

[JimL]

Littlejoe and others may appreciate this article as well.

That time when they said...

The list includes the Schumer quote Littlejoe cited earlier, though without the excellent link he provided.

The argument is not whether the Senate is obligated to approve a nominee, it is whether or not they are constitutionally obligated to have a hearing and vote on the nominee. The Obama quote you cited above is not hypocricy. Intellect and personal character are considerations, but they are not necessarily, according to many, the only things to consider when voting. That quote says nothing about the Presidents responsibility to to nominate and the Senates responsibility to consider and vote on the nominee.